10 Year-Old “Rapists” Convicted on 8-Year-Old’s Accusation

Old Bailey rape trial. court drawing

Two boys aged 10 and 11 have been convicted of attempted rape based solely on the accusations of an 8-year-old girl, despite the girl withdrawing her claims in court, and there being no physical evidence of any assault. Both children are to become registered sex offenders.

The boys, then both aged 10, were accused by an 8-year-old girl of taking to various locations in their London neighbourhood and raping her. The boys denied the accusations.

The incident came to light when the girl’s mother was told by another child that the boys were hurting the girl – she soon found her daughter with the boys in a nearby field.

When first questioning the girl, police had her tell them how the boys had pulled down her underwear and had their way with her. However, when questioned in court, the girl explicitly denied being raped and said she had lied to her mother about what had happened as she was worried about being a naughty girl and not getting any sweets.

The defence also pointed out that there was “no useful medical evidence, no DNA evidence and no forensic evidence; nothing” available to support the charges, save the girl’s accusations.

The court even made a crude show of attempting to make the proceedings intelligible to the children, with the judge and lawyers abandoning their ludicrous wigs and gowns for the occasion, and the court timetable being rearranged to resemble that of a primary school.

The defence appealed the common sense of the jury, suggesting the incident was nothing more than an innocent childhood game gone awry:

“What this case is about is not a serious crime. It is about children. There is a game called ‘You show me yours and I will show you mine’.

Maybe it went too far, maybe it went to touching, maybe they were doing something they had seen on television, maybe they were playing that age-old game, doctors and nurses.”

Unfortunately, the jury had none, voting 10 to 2 in favour of convicting both boys of two counts each of attempted rape. Sentencing is due in two months, during which time the boys have been released on bail.

They will also become registered sex offenders, although the judge lamely admitted he was “not quite sure” how that would work.

Leave a Comment

254 Comments

  • Anonymous says:

    Kind of like the Salem Witch trials. There’s an accusation and then everyone believes it’s true. Back then, they were burned at the stake or crushed with boulders. They might as well have done the same to those boys, because when you’re branded a “sex offender”, your life is over. Nobody will employ you, neighbors will run you out of town, your life is constantly threatened. What a mess.

  • Anonymous says:

    Any person with the slighlest bit of common sense would know that for a kid to admit she was lying even though the mother (the one pressing the charges) surely instructed her to keep her tell, she must be fucking serious and acknowledged that keeping that tall tale would hurt others badly. Sad times when the person with most common sense in a court room is a 10 years old girl.

  • Anonymous says:

    There are a hell load of misinterpretations being made by readers. First, the charge is ATTEMPTED RAPE, so therefore people who say that she’s a virgin therefore the boys are innocent obviously don’t read english. There WILL NOT be any evidence to show she has been raped, and NOBODY is saying that she was. Second, the fact that she admits she lied only implies that she lied about being raped, not that an attempt at rape was not made. Third, readers aren’t giving credit to the courts in Britain being consistent and credible in judgement, which is more than I can say about readers’ judgement.

    • Anonymous says:

      Attempted rape or not, if the girl was TRULY assaulted, she would have some sort of physical injuries on her.

      Secondly, in the case where THE VICTIM HERSELF says that she lied, attempted rape is pretty fucking much BUSTED as a charge!

      The fact is that this is a GROSS miscarriage of justice here, and she didn’t just lie about being raped…. she said she lied about ANYTHING HAPPENING AT ALL!

  • Anonymous says:

    The jury should just brand their own children as sex offenders. Save us the trouble. They all should also stop feeding them sweets. Lying 8 year old woman. They grow up too fast.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, most SANELY raised females wouldn’t lie about something like this, because they would have been raised with the idea that if they lie about this, they are going to prison!

      That is what I told my daughters, that if they LIED to me about being raped even once…. they weren’t my daughters anymore, I was DONE with them for life!

  • Anonymous says:

    Not surprising from the UK.

    A country that banned lolicon last month ’cause “Drawings are people too!!”

    It always pisses me off how women can fuck up a guys life by lying, and get away with it or receive some kind of lenient sentence. (Lying to a court is a felony, is it not?)

    Like that pedo teacher from Florida, Debra Lafave, she got ten years house arrest, had it been a guy, he’d be doing ten to twenty in _prison_.

    • Anonymous says:

      I doubt that anyone in the U.K. is really worrying about that. Seriously, most police in the U.K. have said that they have OTHER, more important things to worry about than lolicon.

  • Fapping Time says:

    blame is the name of the game, learn the rules and play safe kids…

    oh yeah, that shit only works if you’re a pedo priest, my bad, what the fuck was I thinking?

    no matter where you live, the world’s going to hell in a hand-basket…

  • Anonymous says:

    From what I understand, the boys showed the girl their penises and asked to see her genitals. That is considered a sexual offense and I guess ten can be tried as an adult. Whether it did happen or not is hard to say, as she is eight and they are ten, but I do know children experiment with themselves and others much younger these days.

    • I did that shit when I was in sunday school once. Did I think it was dumb when I got older? Yeah. But I knew that there was something up and wanted to know about it at the time. Found out later that she had indeed told her parents, but it had apparently been resolved without involving the police.

      Which is the sane fucking way to do it.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Comment by Kitsune9Tails
    @01:32 26/05/2010
    It may take a unanimous decision to convict for rape, but this was attempted rape, all they needed was an attempted unanimous decision.

  • 12 idiot sheep making a dumbass verdict. Why am I not surprised?

    The fact that it happened to be a British jury is only consequential. This could’ve happened in the United States of Absurdia or Canna-duh.

    This should’ve been a hung jury….. all ten of those dumbfucks who voted guilty swinging from a noose.

  • Anonymous says:

    XKCD: Have you noticed we already reached “the future”?

    And I think it’s pathetic. To a hilarious degree, from my morbid view. Doesn’t help that it’s getting genuinely scary to be a male in more and more countries.

  • Barbarian of Gor says:

    I consider this primarily a by product (as in toxic waste) of “Justice by Points”.

    That is when a society gets too huge and bureaucratic that officials, from petty to major, make or break their careers by how many “Points” they score. This turns justice into a perversion because they tend to go, by a twisted ‘evolution’, to the “Easy” scores regardless of wether or not it’ll do true justice or even true “Guilt or Innocence” save by technicality.

    It also makes them more likely to ignore the real, dangerous criminals until ordered by a superior to go after them. Though there are plenty of “Stupid” criminals there are lots who read up on rights, options, practice alibis and proper things to say (I want a lawyer!) when da fuzz grab ’em. Thus, the criminals that do the most damage tend to be ignored because they can “Fail” at prosecuting them easily and that’s “Negative Points”, especially if they drag a trial out a long, long time.

    Thus, this is why we have teen girls who become both “CP producer” and “Victim” but tried as an “Adult” for crimes they commit against themselves.

    In short the Prosecutors knew full well they were doing an injustice and it’s almost totally unlikely the boys would have or were even trying to “RaeP the Loli”, they just wanted “Points” to keep their jobs and cover for when, say (for absurdity’s sake) they got ordered to prosecute someone smuggling in real “Child sex slaves” but that guy could buy and sell them, have them “Iced” and far worse had the “Pittman and Bullock” law firm at his side.

    Another element is the “Moral Panic” one that can be used and abused, both for social control and for distraction of official corruption. A good article is found by Googling “Loompanics the Satan Sellers” about moral panic over “Devil Worship” in the 80s to the 90s and then makes a tie to a cover up of the S&L scandal.

    • Anonymous says:

      And yet its the common people/the jury who give it a 10 to 2 in favour of conviction. The system is only doing their job. A bit of problem but still doing their job within the laws.

      Note that the girl only chances her testimony in court.

      Also you call this easy to convict? Base on the info given here, If the prosecutor is of any intelligent, the case wont have brought up. Any yet it have to be according to the law.

      So in the end, it either is the defense really so bad or there is just something wrong about moral of the jury.

      I vote for Insufficient information to take side. I’m trying not to think that human intelligent and common sense have gone so low so off.

  • Back when I was young, the girl’s father/big brother would have just kicked the boys in the nuts and they would have said: Damn, we’re sorry, asshole!
    And that would have been it.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, that wouldn’t have happened either. The fathers/big brother would have realized that the girl probably instigated the sexual contact at first, then started whining when it ‘made her uncomfortable’.

      Yeah, the boys should have stopped them, but since most children in general are NOT taught that you are supposed to stop touching someone after they tell you to stop, I give them a little leeway.

    • Anonymous says:

      we are at the tipping point and everyone here is beginning to balance the scale. Things have finally gotten to the point that regular news reading people have access to news that is not normally reported. I myself am registered. Won’t bore you with the story as it is not worth it in light of these childrens plight. Be that as it may I have gone one t ohave a good life and made things work. The real question seems to be are they capable of “Rape” yes indeed they are. Would they in fact do it? Probably not even consider it at that age. If a girl let them play whatever game… doctor, mom and dad or what ever it would only seem to be that she too was interested and at first was just saying things that she thought would get her out of trouble… The real fact is we are and wre created as sexual beings from the beginning ie “go forth and multiply” Then the puritans came along puritans then = fanatics now. Sex is sex. If you force someone that is wrong and should be. The law is so damn ambiguous and uncaring that they? it? Has to set guidelines, ages and punishments. In the US it is basically illegal to have sex until ou are 18, in mexico 12, in the Phillipines 14 yet we all know that we at some point in our early lives were “turned on” by a magazine that we were told we should not look at yet wanted to to “find out” Not It ALL is criminalized and children are going to have their lives ruined just because they were curious and in actuality being just what they were born to be… Go figure and get off your ass and start to change things and bring some sense back into the entire world.

    • Anonymous says:

      There already has been a turning point, though it hasn’t been publicized. More and more people are teaching their children (as I did) that pedosexuality is normal UNLESS the person in question forces or threatens a child into sex.

      It’s just not well publicized because it would go against the hysteria that the media wishes to whip us into.

  • Kitsune9Tails says:

    Voting _10-2_ to convict??? You don’t have to have a freaking UNANIMOUS decision by a jury to convict someone of rape in the UK???

    Wow. I don’t wanna hear any more dumbasses bitch and moan about the US being all screwed up. The UK has done its part and more to show the world that it holds the trump card in WTF.

  • Anonymous says:

    The girl is a future member of equality now.

    She started on a career path of destroying men at a young age and will become a pro at swinging around false accusations of molestations and rape as a way of blackmailing her teachers into giving her good grades, threatening sexual harrassment if she doesn’t get a raise and hefty bonus, and then marrying a rich guy, divorcing him right after he sticks it in, divorces him to take half his shit, charges him with rape to send him to jail, and files a civil suit to get the other 50% of his fortune….

    Bitches and whores!

    • Anonymous says:

      Hey, don’t blame this girl….. blame the mother of the girl for automatically assuming that ‘hurt = rape’, that the girl was automatically telling the truth, etc.

      There is plenty of blame to go around, and the girl REDEEMED herself by saying on the stand that she had lied.

  • Oh look, it’s Britain again with their idiotic laws, judges and jury. Not surprised here considering they fail so much already, I miss the old Britain, the one it still had balls.

  • Anonymous says:

    I find this court to be stupid and adding to the fact that it’s Brits again enhances on how stupid it is. No physical evidences, medical checks on the girl yield no DNA, and she didn’t even appear to have been raped, no useful medical evidence, no DNA evidence and no forensic evidence were the exact words. Meaning that it cannot be proven at all, save for the words of the girl. A rape victim would have signs, bruises, wounds, etc. DNA from the rapists. There were none here. Yet the jury still say guilty? They can all go to hell for making these 2 boys’ lives hell

  • Anonymous says:

    @22:21 25/05/2010, all according to keikaku…

    This makes me want to punch the jurors and the Judge in the face. I bet from now on when the kids apply for a job theyll have to open the interview with “I know it says Im a sex offender on my record but before you jump to conclusions, I was 10, she was 8, and it she lied so she could get some fucking candy.”

  • Anonymous says:

    This actually reminded me a bit of the 13 year old kid that killed and raped the corpse of that 3 year old girl in China and how they couldn’t convict him cause of his age…It’s kinda sad when it almost seems better to be a kid living there than in the UK due to stupid laws…

    • Anonymous says:

      Or they will see that society doesn’t give a darn about men or truth. I can see these kids grewing up to be abusive and feeled with anger because of all this.

      Women shape men into monsters 70% of the time. Women are mental rapist and manipulators. Women want the world to favor only females.

      • Fatalistic says:

        This is basically the effects of 2nd wave feminism. The original feminism ideal of equal rights under the law, women can if they choose work same jobs as men etc. was great and all and they got almost all of what that entailed but the new wave of feminism is more about legislating thought and basically throwing up the middle finger to the collective male gender for some perceived great wrong while ironically most of these so-called feminists are not even being independent individuals and the vast majority of them didn’t even live the day and age before the original feminist revolution to begin with.

        It’s sort of like minorities demanding reparations for slavery in the US when it ended so long ago that nobody alive in the US today was owned as a slave. Well, unless you mean by greedy corporations who pay unlivable wages and get away with it every day in our excellent capitalist global economy, but this shit is kind of off-topic. Let’s stick with it, Anon.

        • Anonymous says:

          Quite true. I was VERY sure to tell my daughters, cousins, etc. and STILL ARE how insane most feminists today are, because they are pushing for:

          1. Sex to be declared illegal. Seriously, some of them actually want sex PERIOD to be declared illegal, because it is a ‘violation of a female’s body’.
          2. For males to automatically be suspected as sex offenders and women to automatically be assumed to be telling the truth in cases of rape (THANKFULLY, after the Duke thing, there is a backlash rising against this stupidity as people realize that “Yes, women will lie about being raped to get sympathy or for other reasons!”).

  • Shirokawa says:

    Fools every one of them. That was about the age of sexual discovery for me and I’m sure it was for them. I wasn’t educated about it until a year later. I could’ve done that shit and gotten into some conviction like that and not known what I did. It’s just ridiculous how these people view the sexual development of kids. They don’t factor in their lack of experience and knowledge in this matter.

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, the age of sexual discovery varies WIDELY. For me, it was 3 after I found my parents college level health textbook and read it.

      For others, it isn’t until 16, though THAT is usually because they are kept purposely ignorant by their parents (also explains why so many who are kept ignorant until that age get pregnant so often at that age).

  • Anonymous says:

    She has already learned how to manipulate the courts men (boys) and others on the ways of destroying all men, so what in the world are the schools and the parents teaching kids these days. Sex offenders at age 10 already get a load of that. Kids play with kids, she also said it didn’t happen, the 2 boys said it didn’t happen but the courts decided the girl was molested anyway and gave her every thing as in a divorce of a woman who only crys (that she married the guy) so the guy is guilty of all to the courts. Good luck to whoever marries this girl in the future and good luck to her father as her mother must be a real tripe to handle too.

  • Anonymous says:

    10-2.

    Nice job breaking the jury system, England. Whatever happened to needing a UNANIMOUS verdict to convict in a criminal case? Allowing a non-unanimous verdict is always going to lead to miscarriages of justice like this one. The fact that a defendant only needs to convince a SINGLE juror of their innocence to prevent their conviction is one of the most important safeguards we have.

    • Anonymous says:

      In this particular case there happen to be two dissenters, and coïncidentally this happens to be a spectacular case about tiny boys supposedly raping a wee girl. But the fact that the number of jury members against conviction is so incredibly low is indicative of the problem that juries either don’t understand justice, or come to their verdicts from different motives entirely. It has happened very often that juries convict unanimously even though evidence is scarce or absent – a unanimity requirement obviously doesn’t really help in most cases. Furthermore, juries have been known to use peer pressure to push dissenters in their midst to change their vote.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah, that the judge can do that is kind of the problem.

        In all but two states of the U.S. (one of which is Louisiana, where the legal system is a hybrid between English Common Law and Franco-Roman Civil Law) and in Canada (as was formerly the case in England) there’s no provision for allowing less than unanimous verdicts: a lack of unanimity always results in a “hung jury,” which is a mistrial. If the jury is deadlocked – even at 11-1 – then there can be no conviction. The prosecution can attempt to retry, of course, since there was no acquittal either, but they generally don’t unless they have good reason to believe that a different jury would convict. In many American states, and in U.S. federal cases, a unanimous jury verdict is even required in civil cases, not only criminal ones.

        The result is that a defendant needs only to convince ONE juror of his innocence, to avoid conviction. As English law now stands, he must convince THREE (fully a quarter of the jury). This travesty came about because some politicians decided that unanimous verdicts aren’t efficient enough at conviction of the guilty.

        Blackstone (he of “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly incarcerate one innocent man” fame) used to be the cornerstone of English law. Now, apparently, not so much. Odd how, for all the (frequently deserved) criticism we get from across the pond, the U.S. and Canada are more faithful to the English legal system than Mother England herself is.

  • It’s pretty obvious to me they are going to appeal to remove the conviction. I don’t know how the UK justice system works but I doubt the next court step is going to ignore a total lack of evidence and statements reversed in the middle of the process. But then again, maybe we don’t know everything about the case.

  • Fucking retarded beyond all means to describe.
    Ok hands up all of you who even had the slightest ability to get a hard on as a 10 year old? Yes I know I know, it is not impossible. But how many of you even lusted after girls when you were 10?
    I mean jesus fucking christ, when I was 10, girls were just the kids that wore dresses and played with dolls. Sex wasn't something I needed education on, as sex was something I had zero interest in.
    No dna evidence eh, likely because they weren't even physically capable of fucking.
    And the jury is the worst part. What's with these fucking fools?
    Trials like this are all Japan needs to stop worrying about being referred to as a nation of perverts. Beats being a nation of fucking retarded justice.
    I'd be inclined, if it was MY 10 year not guilty son that had just been labeled a sex offender, to hunt down the jurors and give the court a real reason to sit. None of the jurors though would still be breathing to make comment.

    • Fatalistic says:

      According to the ‘rents, I was born with a rather tiny boner sticking out. A little anecdote for you here, friend. I used to randomly get “wood” as you might call it from the age of 5 on and only I thought girls were “cute” at age 10 but did not want to put my likely inadequate penis into them until around 13.

      It’s not really justice here though what with the lack of evidence and merely proclaiming a guilty verdict on the weight of the accusation alone. Then again, the weight of the accusation even when a rape claim is made falsely and proved to be false is enough to destroy a man’s future.

    • Anonymous says:

      and a judge being a tard has anything to with feminism how?
      Why dont you actually find out what ‘feminism’ means, because it clearly doesnt mean what you tards at sankaku and equalitynow seem to think it does.

      • Anonymous says:

        Feminism is all about favoring women YOU DUMB SHIT HEAD.

        EVERY NOTICE NOBODY NOT ONE SOUL cares about male image body problems?

        Every notice nobody cares of a male commits suicide.

        If a guy rapes a women or is abusive they don’t care about his history as to why he was that way. Instead nobody cared about the fact that he was mentally abused by women all his life and beat by his father.

        If A kid shoots up a school people just think he is just another male being violent. Instead nobody every tries to help these kids or stop the bullying

        POINT IS NOBODY CARES ABOU MALES because feminism teaches that only females life is more valued.

        OWNED!

        • Anonymous says:

          No, you’re a tard if you believe that. Real ‘feminism’ is just the push for equality between men and women. REAL equality, where genders are regarded EQUALLY, not with one holding more power over the other. None of this ‘equality-now’ bullshit that ‘demonizes’ men, there is nothing equal about that. The stuff they preach is not feminism, it’s this neo-feminism crap that frankly makes me ashamed to even be a woman.

  • Anonymous says:

    This was done salem style.

    You scare the **** out of a kid saying they have to get rid of the bad people and thye make shit up.

    In america if the prosecution took the kid to another room and coached them of what to say to the jury to ensure a guilty verdict, the prosecution would be charged with a crime.

    It smells like the girl was coached by the prosecutor the cops or her mom and told that she had to get them arrested.

  • Anonymous says:

    When in comes to court cases, doesnt the jury have to be unanimus (no idea how to spell that)

    I mean, doesnt everyone on the jury have to say guilty or innocent?

    If 2 of them disagreed, how did the trial end? Havent court cases gone on for years, just because one of the jurers wont agree with the rest?

  • triniking1234 says:

    HOW could that anal jury give these kids a guilty verdict when the case was so bogus?

    And the above story did state if the boys gave any defending statements.

    Now think how fucked up these boys’ lives are gonna be because some bitch was mad at them for bullying her daughter.

    KIDS WILL BE KIDS!!!!

  • Anonymous says:

    I know this is the internet AND sankaku so I don’t expect any kind of balanced view.
    Regardless of this fact, all of you should be aware that young children find it hard to contradict adults.
    If you ask a child, “You lied about the two boys, didn’t you?” in a suitably aggressive tone he or she will usually just agree as they think it is the answer that will please the adult.
    This is something that was mentioned by several analysts and specialists in children that studied the case as it happened.
    Just because the girl denied it later (she never went to court, by the way, only her recorded answers to questions given in a separate place were played to the jury) doesn’t mean that it still wasn’t true.

      • Anonymous says:

        BINGO! The fact is that children can and DO have words put into their mouths by their parents. That is the main reason why children who are victims of a crime are NOT to be questioned in the presence of their parents anymore.

    • NakkiNyan says:

      You mean like a mother? “Did they hurt you, like ‘down there'”, or “they were doing things to you weren’t they, you know you should not be doing that”

      Like one that had rape in her mind and was likely standing there staring at the child as she was regurgitating what was said by her mother and what they hear on TV? “next at 11, another preist found molesting a child…”

      Or being afraid to contradict the lawyer that likely trained her to say what he needed her to say? “now [Name] you tell me how they touched you, was it in your coochie… ok start recording”

      I would change my mind if there was any physical evidence which there seems to be none other than possible bullying. Your argument goes both ways and a mother insisting she was being raped would be a lot more scary than some stranger.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, it goes both ways.

        The girl could have just made it up.
        However, since the mother was initially warned by another child that the two boys were hurting her it should ring some kind of warning bell.
        It might be that the boys were simply getting a bit pushy with her about something else apart from her vagina or it could be that they were sexually harassing her.

        Both the defence and the prosecution have no real evidence apart from the childrens’ own words.
        But since there was no “useful” (whatever that means) forensic or medical evidence I would have voted Not Guilty if I were on the jury.
        —–
        I just felt that someone should point out that a child contradicting themselves doesn’t really indicate anything.

        And I also wanted a rational discussion, rather than the crap that makes up the majority of comments on these kinds of stories.
        🙂

        • Anonymous says:

          Who was the child that told the mother? Does she even exist? How were they hurting her? Did they find any signs of bruising on the girl? I respect your desire to play Devil’s Advocate, but I don’t see any way you could without playing the old conservative lie and manipulate the truth games.

  • Anonymous says:

    Guilty unless proven innocent it was? Probably only when you can make people feel good about it. In my view of justice no proof means no crime, but perhaps in England is different…

    • Anonymous says:

      That would normally mean you can securely commit crimes as long as you don’t leave off proofs.

      What’s revulsing here is that proofs tend to their innocence, not to the ruling obtained.
      Also, common sense seems not all that common with this jury, and with the judge who accepted this case and accepted conviction of rape as a valid outcome. Well it would be in my country, there are judges for that kind of things.

  • Anonymous says:

    The moral of the story is not to hire those useless defense lawyers, if ever someone accuse you of a crime. It shouldn’t be difficult to secure an acquittal based on a lack of evidence.

    I really wonder how the defense team screwed up so badly. Did the boys’ parents hire some newbie fresh out of college?

    Accusing the jury of not having common sense is just stupid. A 10 – 2 ruling means just about the entire jury is not convinced of the boys’ innocence. If you can only convince 2 people out of 12 random people of your innocence in a your-word-vs-his-word case, the problem is not with those 12 random people.

    • Anonymous says:

      I hate to be honest but ’12 random people’ means 12 people from the same country on the voting register, the general views of the country, and the media will sway, and more than that those who have no faith in the justice system are likely to not vote because they’ll have no faith in the democratic system either. Choosing ’12 random people’ is not a random process and creates a group of like minded people no matter what system you use to choose them. The problem of course may lie in the barrister, but I pin more blame on the socially accepted, and media fed, hysteria particularly towards the sexuality of children. Our judicial system is only fucked because our society is. Ie. welcome to the UK, have a nice conviction.

    • NakkiNyan says:

      This is why I would like to see professional jurors, with legal training. This should never have made it to the jury decision any way the judge should have tossed it for “lack of evidence”, someone’s say-so is not “evidence”

        • Anonymous says:

          Unlike normal jurors who are super biased, uninformed, often paid off and a plethora of other things? Also the professional Jurors would clearly be setting themselves into a pretty hard job, one which requires complete social seclusion for prolonged periods, this is something required for any good jury, and something that just isn’t found in a none professional system.

  • Anonymous says:

    “based solely on the accusations of an 8-year-old girl, despite the girl withdrawing her claims in court, and there being no physical evidence of any assault.”

    You seem to be disregarding the fact that the girl’s mother was told by another little girl that the boys were “hurting” her, which was how she came upon the scene. Also, I don’t know if it was in another article, but nothing in your link suggested that there was no physical evidence, and while I don’t have the patience to rummage through British news, that article suggests that there was medical evidence of attempted rape. And while the girl did say she lied in court, everything she said before being brought into the big show was consistent, and anyone can tell you that little kids can crack under pressure in that kind of setting and do unusual things. I don’t know what she said in court, but I do know attorneys can confuse even adults into saying some dumb things.

    I really wish your readers would read your source material before they come to your conclusions, this reminds me of your commentary on those British guys that beat a thief until he was brain damaged as he tried to escape.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh, you know the joke.

      Child walks in on daddy banging mommy and child asks, “Daddy, are you hurting mommy?”

      You can’t expect a kid to be able to instantly identify sex.

    • These articles are usually based on a number of sources with a single primary source. The defence explicitly claimed there was no medical evidence of rape – you’ll have to look it up or take our word for it, like the rest of everything you read.

  • Anonymous says:

    Been Following this story on the normal news. when I heard the “she was worried about being a naughty girl and not getting any sweets.” part I thought this whole thing was over…damn stupid Courts.

  • So the girl said she was raped, then the boys said they didn’t do such a thing, then the girl was lying and told them that she was not raped at all.

    And all that just because of some goddamn sweets?!

  • Good job, justice system. You have now successfully screwed up the future of two young boys who haven’t done anything wrong.

    Next thing you know, you have babies charged with sexual harassment for staring at other women’s breasts when they’re hungry.

    Sometimes, the outcomes of trials just makes you wonder what the jurymen are smoking…

      • Anonymous says:

        Sounds like you haven’t been 10 in a while. Young kids always try to avoid the blame by pinning it on someone else. Add the huge amount of pressure from getting accused and detained under such allegations, and it’s very easy to see how one of the kids cracked. It’s the same thing like confessions extracted under torture.

        The jury is not supposed to guess and “reeks of guilt” is not evidence. The justice system is not your personal punishment institution either. If there was no other evidence, the judge should have thrown the case right out of the door. Weather he was right or wrong, we may never know.

        • Actually, to most children, placing the blame somewhere else IS them proving they didn’t do it. I’ve yet to have a kid smart enough to bring up any kind of evidence beyond pointing the old finger. We all know the offender registry is broken. It never lists specifics like age at the time of the crime. Their whole life is pretty much fucked.

          This will probably make the kids into real criminals. I mean shit, if your going to get blamed for wrongdoing despite evidence, might as well do it.

        • NakkiNyan says:

          Exactly, placing blame is easier than proving you didn’t do something.

          This is also why I disagree with the sex offender registry in practice. Besides the fact the registry will likely just say the crime (attempted rape of an 8 year old) and nothing about their age at the time.

      • Anonymous says:

        It also reeks of children. Taking responsibility for any negative action real or implied is just not something you can get them to do unless you back them into a corner. The first response is ALWAYS to try to get out of scrutiny.

        • Anonymous says:

          That is the main reason why I told my children that I would NOT punish them unless they did something ‘bad’ more than once, ESPECIALLY if they didn’t know that the thing was ‘bad’ at first.

          Simply put, most children DO NOT KNOW that it is wrong to touch someone on their genitals without their permission or after they ask you to stop doing that.

          Their parents just NEVER bring that up with them! Why? I got no bleeping clue! That was one of the first things I taught my children, at 2: that you NEVER touch someone in ANY fashion without their permission, not even if you are an adult and the person in question is a child.

        • Anonymous says:

          Which is very unsurprising. Parents and teachers are by nature very unfair judges and if you’re a kid then wiggling your way out of it is usually the surest way for a kid to escape ‘conviction’ whether they actually committed the misdeed or not.
          Interestingly, research has shown that kids start to lie at a very early age. Usually they appear to do it to get out of punishment and they do it more often as they get older, so clearly it works. But the really interesting thing is that they learn it primarily from us, partly because they see us do it, partly because our own reïnforcements train them and partly because we ourselves have become so accustomed to lying that we don’t recognise the things we say and tell our children to say as lies any more.

      • Anonymous says:

        That is probably the fear that is put into everyone from the time they are children of the judicial system. You can’t rely of testimony based on fear and especially with children.

        • Anonymous says:

          True… a lot of ‘testimony’ given by children in sex offenses cases is coerced evidence, by either the police telling them that they can be put in prison if they don’t testify against the person in question (FALSE!) or because their parents are threatening them unless they testify against the person in question.

          My boss has had SO MANY cases thrown out because of that latter thing, that it is SAD!

      • NakkiNyan says:

        No her testimony was consistant with the evidence. The kids blaming each other means they knew they were fucked and that if they could say the other did it then they would walk.

        In the end it does not matter, hopefully they got some because they were convicted for it either way.

  • Registered as a sex offender at 10 years old wow that would be a weird thing to go through for the rest of your life.
    There was not even proof the whole thing might have been fake.

      • Anonymous says:

        In fairness, the Judge isn’t the one convicting. The Jury is.

        If the Jury turn around and say ‘guilty’, the Judge *must* issue a penalty in keeping with the law. They normally work around this sort of nonsense by giving the minimum sentence possible under the law… Unfortunately, this is one area where the law is simply inadequate to deal with the situation.

  • My god, what is this world coming to? 10 Year old sex offenders? Damn anal jury probably have sticks shoved up their asses daily. What’s next? Toddler rapists?

    (That is rapists that are toddlers, not rapists who rape toddlers)

    • Ugh. This type of thing doesn’t get better. Only worse. The fact that they can convict little kids on circumstantial evidence means I have no chance at all if I’m ever accused. Suddenly sticking with 2D seems like a smart idea…

      • Anonymous says:

        No one should be convicted on solely circumstantial evidence like this. The problem is that too many people feel that circumstantial evidence is enough evidence to declare that a crime has taken place, when it is not.

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually, not that smart. Sure, 2D can’t testify in court, but they’ll put you to jail anyway. Even if they don’t find your 2d girls at all. Just because you don’t look trustworthy.
        Better stock up on weapons and safe-houses.

      • Anonymous says:

        You have no idea how true I think it is. It should take time to trust a girl won’t accuse you of rape even when severely pissed off.

        Note however, that you still risk criminal charge if you possess any material featuring anime characters that look like children in suggestive-or-more situations.

        • Anonymous says:

          MOST moms you’ve met? Are you kidding me?! Where do you live?!

          I’m assuming you’re trying to say those moms didn’t know what those relationships they had were at the time they had them and not that they didn’t know that those adults with whom they had said relationships were adults. Is this correct?

          That said, I have to ask exactly what age would they say warrants application of the term “children”? Better yet, at exactly what age did they have their relationships? How can you have that kind of relationship at an age when you don’t even know what that sort of thing is without sustaining psychological repercussions of some sort?

        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, most moms that I met have said that they had sexual relationships with adults as children (thought they didn’t know that was what they were at the time) and it didn’t harm them, therefore they are getting pissed off at this anti-pedosexual bullhockey.

        • If loli material becomes a big enough scapegoat for the politicions, they will push for more taxes to push towards hunting loli related effects. Because the brainwashed “moms” of the world are nothing but retarded sheep. So in the end the taxes will pass because society found new witches to burn.

          We should stand up and start burning politicions and feminists. See how they like it.

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree. If we are living in a age now where people can get convicted of Sex crimes just by pointing fingers. Without a rape kit even coming up positive we are all gonna be one sex depraved culture. Stock up on lube gentlemen it’s gonna be a miserable world in the near future.

    • Anyway, what’s so bad in being registered “sex offender”? Sorry, I dont know because in my country there is no such law (at least serious enough to worry about). So, on the topic. What bad that would do to you? Denied jobs? No marriage? Sure, no one will look that you are actually a very good and responsible man, everyone will just look at your criminal records and kick you out immedeately? Nonsense to me.

      • Anonymous says:

        Becoming a registered sex offender is possibly the worst punishment one can be given in Western countries. Yes, even worse than the death penalty.

        You will never have a normal life. You will be denied everything that you want.

        And one day a crazy vigilante will show up at your front door and shoot you in the face. And the cops won’t care, because you’re a sex offender.

        tldr; Don’t even talk to women, they’ll accuse you of being a rapist.

      • Anonymous says:

        > Denied jobs?

        Yes. Maybe lots.

        > No marriage?

        Well, overaverage hostility climate, leading to lots of missed opportunities to date, leading to weird experience with relationships for those actually followed, leading to a rather different opportunity for marriage than if the whole mess didn’t happen.

        > Sure, no one will look that you are actually a very good and responsible man, everyone will just look at your criminal records and kick you out immedeately?

        Nobody’s a very good and responsible man, it’s just that people that don’t have a criminal record don’t get much crap because of it.
        Yes, *some* will see these boys as they really are. Which is poor reparation.

        > Nonsense to me.

        That’s why a lot of people deny the real world is crap so much. They just don’t believe in its defects, like these defects were some kind of demons it’s up to you to believe in or not.

    • Anonymous says:

      What’s the world coming to? The law is supposed to be, “innocent until proven guilty” not “innocent until circumstantial evidence is believed as fact”. By that logic, if you’re in a convenient store when the cashier is robbed and killed and the suspect flees, you then become the most likely suspect since you’re the only one there when the cops arrive, despite the fact that all evidence doesn’t add up towards your guilt. Like the cops just said, “Well, this guy was here when it happened. I guess it could be him even though he doesn’t have any money or a gun. Case closed.”

      This is so mind bogglingly stupid that I almost don’t want to believe it happened.

      • Anonymous says:

        The problem factor is the jury. Average people don’t understand the concept of innocence-until-proven-guilt concept to begin with and even if they did, you would need to spend years of education before they would begin to understand why it is important. Regardless of what you tell a jury beforehand, the jury will always think they’re supposed supposed to say whether their gut feeling tells them the accused is guilty or not.
        I’m not saying that systems without juries are universally better, by the way. In particular, there can be a huge accountability problem, like in the case of the US high court, but on balance I think it would be better to start with a system without juries and improve accountability than to try to get juries to keep the principles of the justice state in mind when dealing out verdicts.

        • The concept of innocent until proven guilty is fading faster than you could ever think, especially with sex related crimes…hah a guys word can never win against a womans word, you’d be an idiot to believe you have a chance. Unless you have video evidence proving otherwise, everything else doesn’t matter…hell even video can be tampered with.

          Also, the average jury member is not fit to stand on jury. Most are too stressed from personal issues, plus they don’t even want to be there so right from the beginning most jurers are just looking for the most convenient conviction to get them the hell out of there.

          You also fail for believing that police are always correct, most in fact are corrupt lapdogs of even more corrupt politicions. People with power over one another will always try to act better than the others or take advantage of them.

        • Anonymous says:

          Actually, average people DO understand the ‘innocent-until-proven-guilty’ thing…. the PROBLEM is that they assume that if the police bring charges…. the person in question must AUTOMATICALLY be guilty because the police wouldn’t bring charges with little or no evidence.

          You and I know better…. the average person does not.

        • Sadly i agree schrobby..the justice system world wide is becoming so rediculous, you may as well start killing all your witnesses, cause your gonna go to jail either way. So you may as well do something worth going to jail for. At least if theres no witnesses left you might get away with it.

        • Anonymous says:

          American religious right blames video games for creating serial murderers, but completely ignore the fact that they have been neglected by society and family.

          Sorry, good sir. You are wrong.

          They would most definately blame the 10 year old boys that can’t defend themselves. It’s just easier that way, than face the truth in the eye. Like every religious person would.

        • Anonymous says:

          American religious right wouldn’t blame 10 year old boys and an 8 year old girl for playing “doctors”. They’d blame the parents, for not keeping a better eye on the kids, and for not teaching the kids to not play doctor or anything similar. And for letting them see naked pictures and naked movies on tv, movie theatres, or on the internet.

        • Anonymous says:

          Playing doctor with a girl is rape, haven’t you been paying attention?

          And he liberal remark above is referring to “AMERICAN Liberals”. Stereotypical “American Liberal” thinking is that any sexually oriented activity is always rape— regardless of age or sex involve.

        • Anonymous says:

          Playing doctor with a girl is rape, haven’t you been paying attention?

          And he liberal remark above is referring to “AMERICAN Liberals”. Stereotypical “American Liberal” thinking is that any sexually oriented activity is always rape— regardless of age or sex involve.

          American religious right wouldn’t blame 10 year old boys and an 8 year old girl for playing “doctors”. They’d blame the parents, for not keeping a better eye on the kids, and for not teaching the kids to not play doctor or anything similar. And for letting them see naked pictures and naked movies on tv, movie theatres, or on the internet.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes. Still, stupid people reason with thinktanks, and if these thinktanks correct themselves by including some common knowledge that 10-years boys are more likely playing doctor with a girl than raping her, then they will be less responsible for such stupidity in the future.

          So no matter whatever led the jury to believe otherwise. All of this must mend its way.

        • Anonymous says:

          @21:55

          Actually they can prove whether or not she was raped. As stated in the article there was no “no useful medical evidence, no DNA evidence and no forensic evidence; nothing”. Meaning that she was most likely looked at by a doctor and shown to still be a virgin. Thus she likely wasn’t raped.

          When someone is raped there is almost always physical trauma due to the struggle and damage to the genitals. Plus in the case of an eight year old girl her hymen would have been ruptured thus leading one to believe that she had been raped, whether or not it was consensual or not, IE playing doctor that went a lil to far, or holding her down and goin to town. There would be physical evidence of some kind.

        • Anonymous says:

          It’s too naive and simplistic to generalise things into two groups akin to black and white and assume everything falls under those categories. The fact is stupid people exist everywhere, they don’t have to be liberal or conservative. The same applies to anything else.