Discussion in 'Trials' started by RobinCAL, Sep 12, 2020.
I can only say what I saw with my own eyes on more than one occasion in a professional capacity.
@SaintMoore. Your posts about rape allegations - are you circling a specific point here for the case in question?
Also, absolutely no-one...NO-ONE...has alluded to Scott being 'a big softie.' Where have you gleaned this from? An MSM source?
Sarah and Scott have BOTH acted with evil intent. They are BOTH monstrous individuals.
With these two, I'm not particularly interested in a sliding scale of wickedness, if I'm honest. I believe that Sarah and Scott both decided to kill Bernadette, with Scott dispatched to do it.
This talk of baiting...yes, this is not the first time that I feel as though I'm rising to the bait in replying to your posts.
Thanks for your clarifications.
I wasn't intending to bait
A child under the age of 13 is legally incapable of giving consent. So any SI would be rape.
13-16 consent is legally 'allowed'.
Surrounding circumstances would be very closely examined ie both parties of a similar age? They are in a 'relationship'? That sort of thing. Consent must be a true, and informed, consent. Not obtained through force, fear or fraud. Libby Squire was totally incapable of consent, due to her inebriation. Therefore, no matter what PR said, the moment his semen was found in her body, it was rape.
SI 13-16 is not automatically an offence of rape.
That is why the offence of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse existed. [Does it still, or has it been amended under more recent legislation?]
The bathroom camera, unless it shows abuse, is only evidence that 'someone', for whatever perverse or unbelievable reasons, put a camera there. Unless someone explains why, and I believe ScW *did* offer up a fairy tale, it is just that - a hidden camera in a bathroom. No proof of who installed it, who it was intended to film, or even what it was intended to film.
It sucks, and the whole case is utterly heartbreaking.
You should have written age 14 to 15.
Its not 'allowed', as sex under 16 is illegal.
More 'not automatically prosecuted' unless there's extra aggrevating factors.
It is illegal regardless as he was her step father.
The CPS wouldn't need to prove an absence of consent in Bee's case.
In relation to many other offences there is no requirement to prove an absence of consent. Only the act itself and the age of the victim/complainant or other criteria need to be proved. They include:
Rape of a child under 13
Assault by penetration of a child under 13
Sexual assault of a child under 13
Inciting or causing a person to engage in sexual activity with a child under 13
Child sexual offences involving children under 16
Children under 18 having sexual relations with persons in a position of trust
Children under 18 involved with family members over 18
Persons with a mental disorder impeding choice
Persons with a mental disorder who are induced threatened or deceived
Persons with a mental disorder who have sexual relations with care workers
Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 6: Consent | The Crown Prosecution Service
So back to the point in question, could further charges be brought?
Hes going to get a life sentence, would additional convictions extend his sentence? If not, they might not bother. I've seen serial killers in the us not prosecuted for murders they know they were guilty of as they know they'll be locked up for the rest of their life in any case. Different circumstances here in the uk of course.
Is it true he wont be released however many years down the line until he tells us B's resting place? If true, that is a great law
I do apologise for not being clear.
Under the age of 13, a child CANNOT CONSENT IN LAW.
From 13 to 16, CONSENT is allowed in law. It doesn't mean that SI is 'allowed', it means that CONSENT may be given.
Thank you, LB.
I need to make myself more familiar with SOA 2003.
Sorry if I'm directing this question at you when it shouldn't be, but are you suggesting sex between a 14 year old and her 50+ year old step dad could be deemed as consensual?
We are here talking about this tragic case.
Its child sexual abuse. Full stop.
I would say it’s vital. He could be released in 20 years, I would like to think a 70 year old is on a register somewhere and not allowed near other kids. I don’t want to hear he’s got a new identity and may return to my city
We heard about Scott in the questioning answered no comment to multiple questions. Did Sarah do the same (I’ve seen the brief footage that was released but I didn’t know if that was under caution?)
Did the prosecution think she wouldn’t take to the stand and thus didn’t attempt to get a joint charge for murder? I hope police will really start to narrow in on where the body is, I do hope ScW will be kept monitored for a long time at least until he gives up the information that can hopefully give everybody closure.
It wants to be the law, but unfortunately it isn’t. They say you shouldn’t be legible for parole unless you have “come clean” but there’s already been exceptions to this. Likewise if he serves a full term (say he gets 14 years) then he can walk free whether he talks or not.
personally if you think prison is rehab, then you stay until you are sorry for what you have done, admit responsibility and prove you aren’t a danger. If you are going to sit there and refuse to admit it, prevent a proper burial and sulk….well back to your cell you go
in respect of ScW I cannot see further charges being brought, firstly on the lack of evidence that it wouldn’t pass the evidential test part of the full code test. (I say this in respect of the Sexual abuse)
Secondly, if any other offences are brought to light, in relation to the murder of Bea, they also won’t proceed with them under the totality principle, that being he has been found guilty of murder and will be/will have been sentenced to a period of custody that any further charges won’t make any difference to the sentence he will get or be serving, save for additional offences of murder
As for SaW, we’ll she could cop the lot of further charges including murder. There’s nothing to stop ScW opening his mouth and saying she had more involvement and was part of it and her being charged. This is exactly why her defence counsel didn’t let her give evidence because as I said before she would likely incriminate herself. These charges can be brought anytime in the future.
as for prisoners being released without declaring where a body is, this is known as Helens Law and is now law only being passed earlier this year. This doesn’t prevent a murderer from being from being released if they don’t reveal the relevant details, all it does is give significant weight that a parole board must take into account when deciding if a convicted murderer should be released. If they believe them to no longer be a risk then they can still be released, but they must take into account if they have been cooperative. Don’t forget some people convicted maintain their innocence way beyond serving their tariff.
On a separate note (and many members have said she wasn’t involved in the actual murder) people have been thinking along the CPS assumption of events. There is nothing to say after collecting Bea from the grandparents that they both did in fact return home and she was murdered at a different time with both ScW/SaW involved in that 1hr 31mins ScW phone was off
I am still not convinced SaW is guilty of knowing B is dead. IMO she believed whatever Scott told her but seriously doubt it was about murder. She maybe guilty of being gullible and naive, selfish even, but..
No, absolutely not. There is an enormous amount in the SOA 2003 around the issues of consent, and I haven't yet got to grips with it.
What I am trying to explain, in the simplest terms, (and obviously failing miserably) is that under the age of 13, there are NO circumstances where the law allows consent. None, not ever. From 13-16 there are SOME circumstances where the law allows that consent *may* be given. A 14yr old engaging in SI with her 50+ stepfather would not be one of them. [From my brief acquaintance with the 'bones' of the updated legislation]
unfortunately the jury disagree. If she thought she was alive and about to walk in the door any minute, why would she be sending messages via reset accounts and text to hinder any investigation? Giving false information to the police? Lying about previously running away? Pressuring people to make fake sightings?
This would all come crashing down if she thought she was alive, as the girl has been disconnected from all her social media accounts so she can’t reach out, and surely will see it the second she returns from her running away episode
Have there been any reports of his, or her reaction to the verdicts? I would have thought there was some emotions on show given his breakdown in the dock during questioning, and her shouting out just prior to the jury being directed for a majority on her charges, but I can’t recall seeing anything mentioned.