EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE NOT ENOUGH

Police who witnessed a gang rape in progress are furious after charges were dropped against six teenagers on the grounds that the alleged victim was too frightened to face court. A source close to the case said: "The officers on duty did a great job to come across the incident in the first place. The follow-up work, logistically, was huge. As a result, police had gathered a strong case, as strong as a case of this nature can be. "What the officers saw for themselves that night would have gone a long way in corroborating the girl's story, particularly what she said immediately after the event. But there can be no case without the girl taking the stand. "Put yourself in her shoes. She would have been cross-examined not by one barrister but six and there is no use forcing someone into a witness box. In the end, she just wanted to let it go."

Police records show that the 18-year-old woman had been involved in some fondling with an acquaintance outside the Standard Hotel in Orange on September 24, 2003. She declined an offer for sex with him and headed back to the hotel. As she did so, five friends of the acquaintance physically forced her to cross a street into a small open area beside the town's Uniting Church. Once there, they forcefully removed her underpants and sexually assaulted her.

The complainant was unable to state how many times she had been raped, or by whom. But the statement later reads: "General duties police drove onto the scene whilst the sexual assault was occurring." The alleged attackers, aged 17 and 18, were charged with aggravated sexual assault in company occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a punishment of life imprisonment. The source said: "Given the circumstances, the police are bitterly disappointed. But unless present court procedures change, or the girl has a change of heart, there cannot be a case." The woman has since moved to an unknown location.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Bob Debus said: "The DPP had concerns about deficiencies in the evidence and as a result, decided to withdraw. His decision does not preclude reinstating proceedings at a later date. "There is no value to be gained in explaining to the court or the defence what those deficiencies were."

(Report from Sydney, Australia)




Sanity eventually: "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a California case that sentencing courts may ignore it when a capital murder suspect finds religion after his arrest. At an Orange County boarding house, William Charles Payton raped and killed another boarder, then tried to kill the boarding house owner and her 10-year-old son. During the 21 months he spent behind bars before he was convicted, Payton "made a sincere commitment to God, participated in ... Bible study and a prison ministry ... " The prosecutor told the jury they could not consider this behavior in sentencing, the jury recommended the death penalty and the judge complied. Eventually, a federal appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in not allowing the jury to take the post-arrest behavior into account. But the Supreme Court reversed, ruling 5-3 that under federal law the U.S. courts may not review a state court verdict unless it is an unreasonable application of federal law, as interpreted by the high court".


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)