@@pmays4 Thanks I remember seeing Crown court from the 1970s and now have the boxed sets . I agree, the golden yeasrs for intelligent TV and even daytime TV which it was.
I was pleased to see Peter McCarthy as the boyfriend. A splendid author, taken far too early. His book, McCarthy's Bar, is exceptional! Regarding the plot, I believe the crucial line occurs at 1:13:07.
There are twelve members to a jury, and the verdict has to be "unanimous". However, at the end of the trial, the jury was asked, "Have ten of you come to the same decision". That is not a "unanimous" decision!
Excellent courtroom drama and (no spoiler here!) a surprising verdict. The loose end in the evidence was why the woman entered her father's house via a side window when she stated that she had a front door key and she knew that her father was inside and strict about her returning after midnight - it was about about 3am, she had said. Her father had died before the trial, so he couldn't give evidence. The defence barrister didn't press that odd detail, beyond getting the explanation that it was 'habit, I suppose'. I think she was confronted about the late return by an angry father and gave the reason which we heard in court.
Completely agree with you! I think if I had been a member of the jury that ts is the point which would have worried me especially. The more I think about it, the more suspicious it sounds.
He needed Rumpole on the defense. The judge didn’t seem particularly impartial to me, it was a question of his word against hers. The defendant was definitely guilty of poor judgement.
I suppose the light in the tunnel in this story is the possibility of appeal based on biased comments by the judge in the summing up, mentioned at 1:13:00 .
If I had been a juror I would have found the defendant not guilty but this proves how much the law has changed in our country in cases of abuse especially Children under the care of local councils where history has proven are reluctant to prosecute offenders and when they are leniency is shown by the Law with no defence of the victims.
And yet she admitted noticing the knobs on his dashboard from a rear seat position with the light off. The verdict reminds me of the reason I left the legal profession back in 2007.
I found this astonishing to watch! An excellent screen play but what a cultural difference to today! Its hard to believe that this ever could have been taken seriously as a court case, though I think the result was part of its protest. Given how very few rape cases go to trial and that even fewer are won, I think it inappropriate to example a case where the woman is in the wrong. 1970's misogyny!
A cultural difference indeed. What bs you are speaking butyour are speaking in the name of the ninny ultra sensitive mantras of our time so comments such as yours are predictable. First off, it is left open who is lying. The audience is invited to make its own mind up, and that is the whole point. We simply do not know and cannot know who is innocent and who guilty although the evidence such as it is points in my opinion to the likilihood that the women is lying, but one cannot be sure. This is after all a work of fiction. Secondly, in today's emancipated liberated enlightened "metoo" world, in which women are always sweet and innocent and all men droooling rapists or emasculated, the bias is heavily in favour of the plaintiff when anyone accuses someone else of rape. "Women and children never lie" is the mendacious mantra of the metoo generation and most feminists. The prevailing belief is that anyone accused of rape is guilty until proved innocent,a reversal of the most fundamental principle of justice. . What you are arrogantly calling "1970's misogyny" is the presentation of a fair trial.
That was the very much expected verdict, considering he was a stranger. If he would have been English, the jury may doubted, but with the foreigner all was clear.
Not a bad play, but I did find it a bit puzzling. One side was expecting you to believe something incredible, that a young woman in a long-term relationship would have consented to sex with a stranger half an hour after an evening with her boyfriend. Plus, the accused had jumped bail without informing the court of his reasons, for which he presented no evidence. The other side failed to present an alternative scenario by asking some more questions: say, grilling the boyfriend in detail as to whether the woman was indeed a virgin at 23, had she had alcohol, had they had a row that night, what happened when she came home and was confronted by her father, and so on. And what was all that about the anti-rape charity Helen was supposed to be a member of?
"what was all that about the anti-rape charity Helen was supposed to be a member of?" it served as a dramatic device with the pay-off at the end - so that the barrister could say to her that rape trials are unfair to men cos of those kind of pressure groups.. an audacious perspective - given how things conspire to not get many rapists convicted.. but back then BBC was liberal without always being politically correct..
it all seemed a bit thin to me. Perhaps a thin script? So much detail was not examined (see many comments below). Thanks for the upload - it made me think:)
There was a Crown Court episode with a similar storyline except instead of rape it was violence against a Turkish Cypriot living in the UK. I wonder if the writer used a different name or was "inspired".
Social opinion of the times weighed against the defendant, as though women a completely defenceless when in actual fact they can be very manipulative. If I had been on the jury my verdict; not guilty. Judge was bias without doubt.
The whole point of tbe play is that it places us in the same position as the jury and maybe even the writer doesn’s know and wants us to be debating and thinking about it long after the play is over…. The evidence for both sides seemed equally weighted. If I were the jury I would have wanted more information.
Mrs Armstrong was not asked for her name and address before giving evidence in court, she wasn’t asked for her occupation, the defendant had no character witness, summary was by only seen by the judge by the defendant’s barrister only, not also by the prosecution barrister, so one-sided, five years on, the case may have been a weak one to come to court, in the end, was word against word with no witnesses in the car, the just should have thrown out the case for a re trial, as the witness, Mrs Armstrong’s case may have been weak, the judge and jury after the police surgeon checking her for intercourse five years on.
Just one more comment: when juries return quickly, it's probably a guilty verdict. When they stay out for a long time, there is some doubt and disagreement among jurors - therefore a not guilty verdict is likely. On this verdict: no comment!
Since only the accused and the alleged victim were present in the accused’s car on the night of the alleged rape, this is clearly a he said-she said case. The judge seemed to be known to be biased in favor of rape victims before this trial even started. It also seemed that the defense counsel was biased against the accused. Granted, the man’s admission to having had extramarital relationships despite being a married man, and whatever he said to the police that arrested him that they construed as a confession did not help his case. It would be also hard for any woman to say for a certainty what she would or would not do if she found herself confined to an automobile with a man intent on raping her until she is actually in that situation, as this young woman was. Even though she never mentioned that he threatened her with a knife, gun, or any other “weapon”, that doesn’t mean that he did not have something in his car that he could have fatally struck her with. She was in his car at 1 a.m. and there’s no way she could have readily seen any potential weapon. Most men can do a lot of damage to most women with just their fists. That fact alone would have been understandably intimidating to her. It is amazing the things both the accused and the alleged victim claim to remember about this event, given the five years between the time of the event and the trial. Perhaps this can, in part, be explained by both the alleged victim and the accused having access to statements they gave to loved ones, the police, and, for the victim, the records of her medical examination? In the end, I think her version of events is more plausible than his. I highly doubt that she would have acted and done the sort of things that the accused man alleges she did. The judge seemed biased in favor of the victim, but I can’t help but wonder how this might have turned out if the defense would have spent more time on the items listed below. I will say this entire thing was definitely preventable! Both of these people allowed themselves to get into a compromising situation, and it backfired legally on the man. The accused man’s English language fluency at the time of the alleged sexual assault should have been considered, and not his fluency at the time of the trial. Did this man really understand whatever customary arrest caution the police would have read to him at the time of his arrest? At the time he was arrested, having an interpreter present likely wasn’t possible. Perhaps the police who arrested this man had a bias against people of his ethnicity. Perhaps they realized, after briefly interacting with him, that he did not understand English well at all, and did not understand his legal rights in the UK, and proceeded to take advantage of this situation by arresting this man and charging him with rape. Then later in court, after the arresting officers had lots of time to plan their testimonies for whenever the case went to trial, they claimed that the accused made statements admitting guilt to the charges. I think there is a possibility that he did not and could not have made any such statements because he did not know English well enough to even be capable of formulating such statements. If, by the time of trial, he did not know the English words for “birth control” and “dashboard”, it makes me wonder how many other English words he did not know back at the time of the alleged crime. The reason for his seemingly improved English fluency by the time of the trial can be explained by his having spent the five years since the alleged crime working in a place where he was forced to use the English language every day. I think his defense counsel could have tested his English fluency in front of the judge and jury by showing him some pictures of a series of objects and asking him to tell the court the names of those objects in English. It would have been interesting to see how many of them he would have been able to name. I think the defense counsel could have questioned the alleged victim about whether or not her father knew where she had gone and who she was with the night of the rape. After all, he asked her if her father expected her home by a certain time every night (a question he seemed to already know she would answer YES to), so why not ask if the victim’s father placed any restrictions on whether or not or whom she could date while she was living under his roof? If her father knew she was seeing her boyfriend Edwin, how did her father feel about him? Did she marry Edwin before or after her father’s death? I can understand that in a county like the UK, it is probably very common for people not to own cars or have a driver’s license. But I think it would have been interesting to know if her boyfriend Edwin had a driver’s license and a car? If he had a car, why didn’t he drive her home instead of trying to hail a cab at 1:00 a.m.? At the very least, if he lacked a car of his own, he should have been concerned enough for her safety to have at least found someone he knew to give her a ride home instead of shoving her into the car of the first total stranger that stopped on the street!!! If push came to shove and no safe ride home could be found, why didn’t he have her stay at his home for the rest of the night and then hail a proper cab to take her home the next morning? Granted, she would have been in a heap of trouble with her father, but at least she wouldn’t have been raped! She said she was uneasy about riding in the accused man’s car, but why didn’t she insist on refusing to ride with him? Or was the reason for all of these things because her father did not know where she was or who she was with that night? Did her father not approve of her dating Edwin or any man at all? If her father did not know where she was or who she was with that night, what explanation would she have offered her father if he had caught her arriving home after the curfew and she hadn’t claimed to have been “raped”? Questioning the alleged victim about these things along with the questions about her undressing and dressing in the back of a small two-door car, and her arriving home without physical injuries and with all of her clothes on and intact, might have helped to further call into question the alleged victim’s honesty in the minds of the jurors and the judge. The fact that she admits to having entered her home through the side window instead of using the key to the door and she did not want to ring the doorbell because she knew she was way past the curfew time also call into question her honesty. Doctor finds no bruises, scratch marks or bleeding, but hymen stretched due to recent intercourse. Perhaps she had intercourse with her boyfriend that night, maybe? Since he frequently gave her money for mini cabs, why was her boyfriend not able to tell that the car that stopped on the street that night was not a mini cab? Since a real mini cab driver would have made sure to ask for money before driving her anywhere, the fact that the accused did not ask for cab fare should have been a clue to the boyfriend that the car he was shoving his girlfriend into was not a legitimate cab. This supports the defense counsel’s statement that the alleged victim was hitchhiking home What he did that night was totally asinine and shows negligence on his part for her safety! The man gave “an impression”!! How many other “impressionists” would he have fallen for!!!
I think you mean "not guilty". There is an important if subtle difference. "Innocent" means you are reaosnably sure the defendant is innocent, whereas "not guilty" means that you have reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, which is not entirely the same! In t he case where as a member of a jury you are unsure, you should decide on a verdict of "not guilty" which really means "not proven to be guilty" not neccesarily "I am 100% sure this person is innocent".
A lot of the Plays were edgy or downright bonkers at times. I just liked a good all round story without the Marlon Brando mumblings or what the heck goings-on!
acepting a majority after 3hrs 19 min. 1 day 3hrs 19 perhaps. as for criticising the jury 'for taking so long' cheeky old bastard, judicial complaint is a possibility these days, then perhaps not.
I have read that women are no more likely to convict in such cases than men. Perhaps it is because women know very well what women can be like and men know very well what men can be like.
is this what the Russell Brand trial will be like? oh i forgot the court of social media already found him guilty. no need to bother with a trial then, i guess!
The problem with Russell brand is that he made a thing back in the day of being hypersexualised and has spoken quite candidly of his heroin addiction so he has kind of left himself wide open to allegations without a leg to stand on! Frankly quite surprised it's took this long for salacious rumours to have emerged!
What is your statement supposed to mean? Does it mean that everytime a woman says a rape was committed every man in the world has to fall down and say "yes yes yes oh my God castrate us" or what do you mean?
Storytelling has several evident weaknesses, but it also depicts quite powerfully the anti immigrant prejudice entrenched in the British police and legal system. A tendency still prevalent today.
I have just wasted 1hr 15mins of my life watching this tosh. I felt absolutely sure there was going to be some profound revelation or dramatic twist in the tale to make this a very clever story- not one bit of it !!!! Don't waste your time
@Albertine Rehoune The vulnerability of being a woman??? All I could see was a vulnerable man, accused of rape. The outcome is a farce. It was her word against his. The doctor wasn`t able to provide any proof of rape. So, the accused was sentenced to 5 yrs in prison just because a "vulnerable" woman accused him of allegedly raping her. If anything, this trial is demonstrating the overwhelming Power of this one woman, not her vulnerability. In most cases, especially if the men are well-situated, things don`t go so smoothly for rape victims. This trial (play) is an insult to all women who were true victims of rape and had to strip themselves emotionally to the bones in a courtroom full of men, in order to prove that they had been raped. And still, the perpetrators had been freed of all charges. The worst thing in court is the fact that judges have so much power. No jury is immune to a judge`s prejudicial hints and/or statements. In this play, a foreigner was on trial, not so much a rapist. The judge and jury accused him of what he was or wasn`t, not what he had supposedly done. In my opinion, this play is a carrier of some very controversial messages of the prejudicial British (Western) society, we are and can be or aren`t and can`t be a part of. In most Western countries, being a foreigner is a "crime" in itself. The minute you enter a Western country, and you are foreign, especially when you are a young male, unknowingly to you, you are listed as a potential criminal. Even if your skin is just slightly toned, you are higher on that list. Of course, the same goes for white young males in Eastern countries. It is a fact that humans function this way. We are very distrustful of foreign people, and it takes lifelong practice or special practical experience (that we usually don`t have) to abolish distrust, suspense, and animosity towards foreigners. So, I ask you, Albertine, who is the vulnerable one in this play? Maybe, you could give it a second thought. Forgive me for my far too long reply, and all the errors it contains. Take care, my dear🌺
Why? It is to the detriment of women that it has. That's why women are attacked without impunity . Males are no longer raised to take care of women, to protect them etc And we also have women attacking men, acting like men etc It has not changed for the better in that respect.
![PC49 The Case Of The Guardian Angel [1949]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/H90fFhN_ILs/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve just come across this and find that the defendant is being played by my old school drama teacher! 😊
i'm surprised he got a job in a school after that verdict.
did he really do it ? as this play is very inconclusive ~(jury & judge aside) :)
Shows he was too good for being a teacher his acting was very good hope he did well
@@eatmywords😂😂
What's the defendents name as this hasn't been revealed on the opening credits
High class drama, a brilliant and very accurate fictional re construction of a trial. Television really had some class back then
Check out Crown Court, a long-running TV series very similar to this. From the old days, so not corrupted by stupidity etc.
@@pmays4 Thanks I remember seeing Crown court from the 1970s and now have the boxed sets . I agree, the golden yeasrs for intelligent TV and even daytime TV which it was.
I kept waiting for the Crown Court theme tune to kick in every now and then 😂
So did I!😂
Me too 😂
The cardboard court walls were borrowed from set of Crown Court MeLord😮
😂😅😂😅
Very good. I was surprised at the verdict.
Superb. Gripping drama from start to finish! Thank you.☺
I was pleased to see Peter McCarthy as the boyfriend. A splendid author, taken far too early. His book, McCarthy's Bar, is exceptional! Regarding the plot, I believe the crucial line occurs at 1:13:07.
Agreed. An appeal based on the judge's biased summation would stand every chance of success.
Brilliant defence.
What he said at 1.14.00 summed up my view
I am unanimously found guilty of enjoying courtroom drama.
It is the sentence of this court , that you will be taken from this place ........
Watch the excellent Crown Court series. The jury are members of the public not actors & actually decide the ending.
Wow fantastic video. I went well back to the 70s
.hot tv fa the time.thank you.😂😂😂
@Executive Decision
Thank you very much for uploading this very interesting play :)
There are twelve members to a jury, and the verdict has to be "unanimous". However, at the end of the trial, the jury was asked, "Have ten of you come to the same decision". That is not a "unanimous" decision!
They said hàve at least ten of you reached a verdict
Судья предвзято отнёсся к обвинению, хороший фильм, thanks🌹 very much
Very good. Thank you for the upload.
Excellent courtroom drama and (no spoiler here!) a surprising verdict. The loose end in the evidence was why the woman entered her father's house via a side window when she stated that she had a front door key and she knew that her father was inside and strict about her returning after midnight - it was about about 3am, she had said. Her father had died before the trial, so he couldn't give evidence. The defence barrister didn't press that odd detail, beyond getting the explanation that it was 'habit, I suppose'. I think she was confronted about the late return by an angry father and gave the reason which we heard in court.
Completely agree with you! I think if I had been a member of the jury that ts is the point which would have worried me especially. The more I think about it, the more suspicious it sounds.
Just what I though!
I keep laughing whenever Patrick Troughton said, "the Doctor".
@jellyfishattack
Which doctor? Who are you referring to?
Defence lawyers. Strange creatures then. And now.
You can't convict a person unless it has been shown they have had a fair trial with a defence.
He is the act off god you cannot insure against !! what a great line & so true
Ye Gods, the acting back then was so much better than what we get now
He needed Rumpole on the defense. The judge didn’t seem particularly impartial to me, it was a question of his word against hers. The defendant was definitely guilty of poor judgement.
I suppose the light in the tunnel in this story is the possibility of appeal based on biased comments by the judge in the summing up, mentioned at 1:13:00 .
Rumpole is the man
The Judge was blatantly biased. This would go to appeal, which the Defence would win on the grounds of the Judge's bias.
The judge was blatantly biased.
Thank you 🙏🏼
If I had been a juror I would have found the defendant not guilty but this proves how much the law has changed in our country in cases of abuse especially Children under the care of local councils where history has proven are reluctant to prosecute offenders and when they are leniency is shown by the Law with no defence of the victims.
Patrick Troughton was barely recognisable in this and in my opinion was the best ever Dr Who.
Hmm.. I thought things couldn't get any worse after David Tennant. ...I was wrong..!
Did anyone notice Spencer Banks (a policeman) who played Simon Randall in the science fiction show "Timeslip"?
And yet she admitted noticing the knobs on his dashboard from a rear seat position with the light off.
The verdict reminds me of the reason I left the legal profession back in 2007.
Are you English..did agree with the judgement 😮
You left the legal profession for that reason..?!?? What were you ? Office cleaner.? Cafeteria staff..??
And she entered her house through the window, despite having a key? Er ok
I wonder why
I found this astonishing to watch! An excellent screen play but what a cultural difference to today! Its hard to believe that this ever could have been taken seriously as a court case, though I think the result was part of its protest. Given how very few rape cases go to trial and that even fewer are won, I think it inappropriate to example a case where the woman is in the wrong. 1970's misogyny!
@minnjony. I agree
A cultural difference indeed. What bs you are speaking butyour are speaking in the name of the ninny ultra sensitive mantras of our time so comments such as yours are predictable.
First off, it is left open who is lying. The audience is invited to make its own mind up, and that is the whole point. We simply do not know and cannot know who is innocent and who guilty although the evidence such as it is points in my opinion to the likilihood that the women is lying, but one cannot be sure. This is after all a work of fiction.
Secondly, in today's emancipated liberated enlightened "metoo" world, in which women are always sweet and innocent and all men droooling rapists or emasculated, the bias is heavily in favour of the plaintiff when anyone accuses someone else of rape. "Women and children never lie" is the mendacious mantra of the metoo generation and most feminists. The prevailing belief is that anyone accused of rape is guilty until proved innocent,a reversal of the most fundamental principle of justice. . What you are arrogantly calling "1970's misogyny" is the presentation of a fair trial.
@minnjony
There are so many transsexuals today; imagine trying to sort that out in court if one of them is allegedly raped!
It wouldn’t have even got to court,circumstantial evidence.
Cant remember ever seeing a 2 door Austin 1100.
I have.
Basil Fawlty thrashes a red one.
@@richardcummins5465 I have. Martin Shaw drove a police car version when he was a Bobby during a flashback scene on a Professionals episode.
1:29 Hear the defendent`s accent and immediately know what the verdict will be.
His word against her word, a hard one to defend.
Just watched The Brothers tv drama and see ‘Nicholas Fox’ re-emerges here.
Brilliant the comments prove how good this was. Even with pesky adverts 😂
Demonstrates how recorded interviews of suspects has proved to be essential...
Not the verdict I would have expected...It's a She said, He said situation...It's very dangerous to convict on uncorroborated evidence.
That was the very much expected verdict, considering he was a stranger. If he would have been English, the jury may doubted, but with the foreigner all was clear.
Those darn Masons.
Obviously the right verdict was given by the jury. She definitely would not have wanted to stay out even later.
Wow! How interesting for you.
Chris Kewbank, what sort of monicker is that ? I Ask myself.
Not a bad play, but I did find it a bit puzzling. One side was expecting you to believe something incredible, that a young woman in a long-term relationship would have consented to sex with a stranger half an hour after an evening with her boyfriend. Plus, the accused had jumped bail without informing the court of his reasons, for which he presented no evidence. The other side failed to present an alternative scenario by asking some more questions: say, grilling the boyfriend in detail as to whether the woman was indeed a virgin at 23, had she had alcohol, had they had a row that night, what happened when she came home and was confronted by her father, and so on. And what was all that about the anti-rape charity Helen was supposed to be a member of?
the defence barrister did explain the solicitors rep why he did not grill witnesses that jury would be sympathetic to..
"what was all that about the anti-rape charity Helen was supposed to be a member of?"
it served as a dramatic device with the pay-off at the end - so that the barrister could say to her that rape trials are unfair to men cos of those kind of pressure groups.. an audacious perspective - given how things conspire to not get many rapists convicted.. but back then BBC was liberal without always being politically correct..
Yes quite a lot of confusion but maybe it always is????
it all seemed a bit thin to me. Perhaps a thin script? So much detail was not examined (see many comments below). Thanks for the upload - it made me think:)
There was a Crown Court episode with a similar storyline except instead of rape it was violence against a Turkish Cypriot living in the UK. I wonder if the writer used a different name or was "inspired".
Guilty till proven innocent
👍👍
Remember, all -- this is not Crown Court, lol.
who is the judge ?
Dr Who
Social opinion of the times weighed against the defendant, as though women a completely defenceless when in actual fact they can be very manipulative. If I had been on the jury my verdict; not guilty. Judge was bias without doubt.
But WAS he guilty or innocent ?
I'd have loved a flashback of the reality.
The whole point of tbe play is that it places us in the same position as the jury and maybe even the writer doesn’s know and wants us to be debating and thinking about it long after the play is over…. The evidence for both sides seemed equally weighted. If I were the jury I would have wanted more information.
@@spivvo What would you, as a hypothetical jury member call?
(Without any further information)
What the defence said at 1.14.00 summed it up
The whole point of this play is that you dont know. Life doesnt always given you nice neat answers wrapped up for you to consume and appreciate
I strongly feel that it was a wrong verdict. He was innocent.
What the defence said at 1.14.00 summed it up
Or at least the evidence wasn't at all compelling. There's a reasonable doubt
Mrs Armstrong was not asked for her name and address before giving evidence in court, she wasn’t asked for her occupation, the defendant had no character witness, summary was by only seen by the judge by the defendant’s barrister only, not also by the prosecution barrister, so one-sided, five years on, the case may have been a weak one to come to court, in the end, was word against word with no witnesses in the car, the just should have thrown out the case for a re trial, as the witness, Mrs Armstrong’s case may have been weak, the judge and jury after the police surgeon checking her for intercourse five years on.
The Police were seen as unimpeachable then. The PACE Act changed that.
Beautiful 💝 my first impressions were right. Racism , always and pinning down the innocents.🌏
er.......it's a piece of scripted drama . NOT
real life...!!
The verdict was correct, though counter-intuitive.
Just one more comment: when juries return quickly, it's probably a guilty verdict. When they stay out for a long time, there is some doubt and disagreement among jurors - therefore a not guilty verdict is likely. On this verdict: no comment!
UA-cam ads every few minutes making this hard to watch.
Download them then! That way you can avoid the ads entirely.
You can buy ad-less You Tube Subscriptions. I use the Skip button frequently.
First World problems 😂
Why is everyone acting as though this is a true story? Is it?
Since only the accused and the alleged victim were present in the accused’s car on the night of the alleged rape, this is clearly a he said-she said case. The judge seemed to be known to be biased in favor of rape victims before this trial even started. It also seemed that the defense counsel was biased against the accused. Granted, the man’s admission to having had extramarital relationships despite being a married man, and whatever he said to the police that arrested him that they construed as a confession did not help his case. It would be also hard for any woman to say for a certainty what she would or would not do if she found herself confined to an automobile with a man intent on raping her until she is actually in that situation, as this young woman was. Even though she never mentioned that he threatened her with a knife, gun, or any other “weapon”, that doesn’t mean that he did not have something in his car that he could have fatally struck her with. She was in his car at 1 a.m. and there’s no way she could have readily seen any potential weapon. Most men can do a lot of damage to most women with just their fists. That fact alone would have been understandably intimidating to her.
It is amazing the things both the accused and the alleged victim claim to remember about this event, given the five years between the time of the event and the trial. Perhaps this can, in part, be explained by both the alleged victim and the accused having access to statements they gave to loved ones, the police, and, for the victim, the records of her medical examination? In the end, I think her version of events is more plausible than his. I highly doubt that she would have acted and done the sort of things that the accused man alleges she did. The judge seemed biased in favor of the victim, but I can’t help but wonder how this might have turned out if the defense would have spent more time on the items listed below. I will say this entire thing was definitely preventable! Both of these people allowed themselves to get into a compromising situation, and it backfired legally on the man.
The accused man’s English language fluency at the time of the alleged sexual assault should have been considered, and not his fluency at the time of the trial. Did this man really understand whatever customary arrest caution the police would have read to him at the time of his arrest? At the time he was arrested, having an interpreter present likely wasn’t possible.
Perhaps the police who arrested this man had a bias against people of his ethnicity. Perhaps they realized, after briefly interacting with him, that he did not understand English well at all, and did not understand his legal rights in the UK, and proceeded to take advantage of this situation by arresting this man and charging him with rape. Then later in court, after the arresting officers had lots of time to plan their testimonies for whenever the case went to trial, they claimed that the accused made statements admitting guilt to the charges. I think there is a possibility that he did not and could not have made any such statements because he did not know English well enough to even be capable of formulating such statements. If, by the time of trial, he did not know the English words for “birth control” and “dashboard”, it makes me wonder how many other English words he did not know back at the time of the alleged crime. The reason for his seemingly improved English fluency by the time of the trial can be explained by his having spent the five years since the alleged crime working in a place where he was forced to use the English language every day. I think his defense counsel could have tested his English fluency in front of the judge and jury by showing him some pictures of a series of objects and asking him to tell the court the names of those objects in English. It would have been interesting to see how many of them he would have been able to name.
I think the defense counsel could have questioned the alleged victim about whether or not her father knew where she had gone and who she was with the night of the rape. After all, he asked her if her father expected her home by a certain time every night (a question he seemed to already know she would answer YES to), so why not ask if the victim’s father placed any restrictions on whether or not or whom she could date while she was living under his roof? If her father knew she was seeing her boyfriend Edwin, how did her father feel about him? Did she marry Edwin before or after her father’s death?
I can understand that in a county like the UK, it is probably very common for people not to own cars or have a driver’s license. But I think it would have been interesting to know if her boyfriend Edwin had a driver’s license and a car? If he had a car, why didn’t he drive her home instead of trying to hail a cab at 1:00 a.m.? At the very least, if he lacked a car of his own, he should have been concerned enough for her safety to have at least found someone he knew to give her a ride home instead of shoving her into the car of the first total stranger that stopped on the street!!! If push came to shove and no safe ride home could be found, why didn’t he have her stay at his home for the rest of the night and then hail a proper cab to take her home the next morning? Granted, she would have been in a heap of trouble with her father, but at least she wouldn’t have been raped! She said she was uneasy about riding in the accused man’s car, but why didn’t she insist on refusing to ride with him? Or was the reason for all of these things because her father did not know where she was or who she was with that night? Did her father not approve of her dating Edwin or any man at all? If her father did not know where she was or who she was with that night, what explanation would she have offered her father if he had caught her arriving home after the curfew and she hadn’t claimed to have been “raped”? Questioning the alleged victim about these things along with the questions about her undressing and dressing in the back of a small two-door car, and her arriving home without physical injuries and with all of her clothes on and intact, might have helped to further call into question the alleged victim’s honesty in the minds of the jurors and the judge. The fact that she admits to having entered her home through the side window instead of using the key to the door and she did not want to ring the doorbell because she knew she was way past the curfew time also call into question her honesty.
Doctor finds no bruises, scratch marks or bleeding, but hymen stretched due to recent intercourse. Perhaps she had intercourse with her boyfriend that night, maybe?
Since he frequently gave her money for mini cabs, why was her boyfriend not able to tell that the car that stopped on the street that night was not a mini cab? Since a real mini cab driver would have made sure to ask for money before driving her anywhere, the fact that the accused did not ask for cab fare should have been a clue to the boyfriend that the car he was shoving his girlfriend into was not a legitimate cab. This supports the defense counsel’s statement that the alleged victim was hitchhiking home What he did that night was totally asinine and shows negligence on his part for her safety! The man gave “an impression”!! How many other “impressionists” would he have fallen for!!!
That's the longest YT comment I've ever seen !
@@manfromnocky Sorry. It is one of the longest I have ever posted. I guess i just had to voice my strong feelings about this video.
@Amanglophile no worries. It's a very coherent case you make. Thanks for the interesting take on it.
I would have said ' innocent;,
I think you mean "not guilty". There is an important if subtle difference. "Innocent" means you are reaosnably sure the defendant is innocent, whereas "not guilty" means that you have reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, which is not entirely the same! In t he case where as a member of a jury you are unsure, you should decide on a verdict of "not guilty" which really means "not proven to be guilty" not neccesarily "I am 100% sure this person is innocent".
Justice is aborted 😢
There is obvious doubt. And obvious bias.
A lot of the Plays were edgy or downright bonkers at times. I just liked a good all round story without the Marlon Brando mumblings or what the heck goings-on!
acepting a majority after 3hrs 19 min. 1 day 3hrs 19 perhaps. as for criticising the jury 'for taking so long' cheeky old bastard, judicial complaint is a possibility these days, then perhaps not.
I can't believe they used to let women sit on the jury. What chance has a rapist got?
I have read that women are no more likely to convict in such cases than men. Perhaps it is because women know very well what women can be like and men know very well what men can be like.
What an absolute dumb arse statement
Oh No
is this what the Russell Brand trial will be like? oh i forgot the court of social media already found him guilty. no need to bother with a trial then, i guess!
The problem with Russell brand is that he made a thing back in the day of being hypersexualised and has spoken quite candidly of his heroin addiction so he has kind of left himself wide open to allegations without a leg to stand on! Frankly quite surprised it's took this long for salacious rumours to have emerged!
There are no criminal charges against Brand
perhaps the most tedious and dismaying trial "issue play" I've ever seen. litening to men pontificate about rape is a highly overrated amusement.
What is your statement supposed to mean? Does it mean that everytime a woman says a rape was committed every man in the world has to fall down and say "yes yes yes oh my God castrate us" or what do you mean?
Storytelling has several evident weaknesses, but it also depicts quite powerfully the anti immigrant prejudice entrenched in the British police and legal system. A tendency still prevalent today.
Ask German or Swedish people about
relationship between immigrants and Crime...?? Sorry if facts are inconvenient..!!
I assume you found Britain so awful that you refuse to live here .??
@@2msvalkyrie529 Only fools think that they have an ultimate 'birth right' to a country
I have just wasted 1hr 15mins of my life watching this tosh. I felt absolutely sure there was going to be some profound revelation or dramatic twist in the tale to make this a very clever story- not one bit of it !!!! Don't waste your time
No twist, a thin plot.
i don't understand the verdict, nor the point here. Is this a social critique, an expose of the entire domination of British norms by xenophobia?
A 23 year old virgin with a steady boyfriend in that time period of "sex, drugs & rock and roll"?
Yes, I thought that very strange
Enjoyed it the film and was pleased on the outcome it showed the vulnerability of being a woman
And the vulnerability of being a man
and the vulnerability of being *insert pronoun here
@@martinworld7214 Brilliant 😁
@Albertine Rehoune
The vulnerability of being a woman???
All I could see was a vulnerable man, accused of rape.
The outcome is a farce. It was her word against his. The doctor wasn`t able to provide any proof of rape.
So, the accused was sentenced to 5 yrs in prison just because a "vulnerable" woman accused him of allegedly raping her.
If anything, this trial is demonstrating the overwhelming Power of this one woman, not her vulnerability. In most cases, especially if the men are well-situated, things don`t go so smoothly for rape victims.
This trial (play) is an insult to all women who were true victims of rape and had to strip themselves emotionally to the bones in a courtroom full of men, in order to prove that they had been raped.
And still, the perpetrators had been freed of all charges.
The worst thing in court is the fact that judges have so much power.
No jury is immune to a judge`s prejudicial hints and/or statements.
In this play, a foreigner was on trial, not so much a rapist.
The judge and jury accused him of what he was or wasn`t, not what he had supposedly done.
In my opinion, this play is a carrier of some very controversial messages of the prejudicial British (Western) society, we are and can be or aren`t and can`t be a part of.
In most Western countries, being a foreigner is a "crime" in itself.
The minute you enter a Western country, and you are foreign, especially when you are a young male, unknowingly to you, you are listed as a potential criminal. Even if your skin is just slightly toned, you are higher on that list.
Of course, the same goes for white young males in Eastern countries.
It is a fact that humans function this way. We are very distrustful of foreign people, and it takes lifelong practice or special practical experience (that we usually don`t have) to abolish distrust, suspense, and animosity towards foreigners.
So, I ask you, Albertine, who is the vulnerable one in this play?
Maybe, you could give it a second thought.
Forgive me for my far too long reply, and all the errors it contains.
Take care, my dear🌺
@@lechat8533 true , don’t sweat it though , it’s just a play …. The judge & the woman were probably wronguns .
A woman is hallowed ground “Even in marriage!” Yikes. Glad that has changed.
Why? It is to the detriment of women that it has. That's why women are attacked without impunity . Males are no longer raised to take care of women, to protect them etc And we also have women attacking men, acting like men etc It has not changed for the better in that respect.
Your statement has nothing to do with this play as far as I can see.
At the end of the credits, you will see MCMLXXIX = 1979