Man’s Terror Over False Rape Claims

.

Man’s Terror Over False Rape Claims

A WOMAN terrorised a man she falsely claimed had raped her after a one-night stand five years earlier.
Debbie Oldham, 27, went to the man's flat in Glasgow's West End with three masked men and her rottweiler dog.
Oldham demanded cash, and the 25-year-old victim was threatened, assaulted and had possessions stolen and trashed.
The man's one-hour ordeal only ended when he was forced to make a false confession of rape.
At Glasgow Sheriff Court yesterday, Oldham was ordered to perform 240 hours' community work.
But Sheriff Ian Peebles QC warned her if she failed to carry out the work she could be jailed.
She earlier admitted the extortion bid, which was said to have ruined the man's life and given him recurring nightmares.
Oldham, of Buccleuch Street, Cowcaddens, and the man went the same school. In 2000, they bumped into each other in a nightclub and later had "a brief sexual encounter" but did not stay in contact.
In late 2005, Oldham discovered where he was living in Glasgow.
Joe Stewart, prosecuting, said a series of phone calls were made on October 10, accusing the man of rape five years earlier.
The next day Oldham appeared at his door with her rottweiler before three men in balaclavas barged in.
Mr Stewart said: "Oldham and two of the masked people shouted and swore at the man, calling him a rapist.
"He was threatened and pushed around the room, Oldham slapped him on the face and one of the others punched him."
The gang made the hysterical victim confess to raping Oldham.
He was robbed of clothes, audio and computer equipment and Oldham trashed expensive DJ decks and speakers.
Before fleeing, Oldham said she would be back to get money and could get £18,000 compensation for the alleged rape.
Oldham told police she was raped by the man in 2000 - but prosecutors did not proceed with the case.
She was later quizzed by police about the raid on the man's flat and admitted being there.

.

Suspected Paedophile Murdered

.

Suspected Paedophile Murdered A man with learning disabilities was humiliated, tortured, and then thrown into a river to drown by four neighbours who suspected that he was a paedophile, a murder trial has heard.

The two men and two women, who are sisters, lured "trusting and vulnerable" Sean Miles, 37, to a house where he was beaten and stuck with knives. He was then taken to a different address where he was made to strip and hit with a golf club.

I hope that they each get 30 years.

.

Terry Hunt Avoids Prison

.

Terry Hunt Avoids Prison

A father has narrowly escaped jail for harassing his ex-wife's sister, in vain attempts to see his own children.
Terry Hunt has been kept from his children since he split from his wife four years ago.
Hunt, who appeared in court on the day of his eldest daughter's 14th birthday, complained to magistrates he could not even wish her happy birthday.
It was revealed that he: * Made a throat-slitting gesture at Linda Murphy.
* Ranted at Mr Murphy on the phone while parked outside his house.
* Threatened to make a protest outside Mrs Murphy's workplace.
* Accused Mrs Murphy and husband John of kidnapping his children.
* Made hand gestures and shouted at Mrs Murphy as he pursued her in his car.
* Shouted and made aggressive gestures at her in the street.
* Sent her a letter alleging she was mentally and emotionally abusing his children because he could not see them.
Hunt, aged 45, of Chadwick, Warndon Villages, a former Fathers 4 Justice campaigner, hit the local headlines with his Spiderman protest on the roof of Worcester Crown Court in July 2004.
He was fighting for the right to see his two daughters following the collapse of his 13-year marriage four years ago.
But he appeared in ordinary clothes for sentence after he was convicted of harassment. This placed him in breach of a two-year conditional discharge handed out after the roof-top protest.
Paul Vaughan, chairman of the bench, said: "There's no doubt in our mind that those on the receiving end of your actions were indeed put in fear."
He added: "I think I should say that we do not believe that the offences pass the custodial threshold. We're not going to send you to prison today but it's a fine decision."
Gemma Goode, prosecuting, said he called his sister-in-law several times, wrote letters demanding to see his children, said he would mount a protest at her work, shouted at her and made aggressive gestures at her in the street and followed her in his car between October 31, 2003, and April 2 last year.
Apart from the community order he was given a restraining order preventing him contacting Linda Murphy or her husband John and his mother-in-law.
He must not enter Hetherington Rise, Warndon, where his mother-in-law lives or go near the home of his ex-wife's sister in Cartwright Avenue, Warndon.
Mrs Murphy, who is now taking anti-depressants, said in a statement read out by the prosecutor: "I feel embarrassed and humiliated at work. I feel increasingly anxious and vulnerable. I would just like him to leave me alone."
Chris Hilton, defending, said Hunt had not been involved with Fathers 4 Justice for the last 18 months and had not breached his bail conditions.
He added: "Since he split up from his wife four years ago he has had no direct face-to-face contact with his children other than passing them in the street by chance."
Hunt was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work and pay £625 prosecution costs instead.
Speaking after the case Hunt spoke of his great relief he was spared prison.

You can comment in the newspaper here.

.

Innocent Men Must Pay Costs For Prison Stay

.

Innocent Men Must Pay Costs For Prison Stay Three men who spent years in jail because of miscarriages of justice must pay “living expenses” for the time they spent behind bars, the law lords ruled yesterday.

By four to one, the judges decided that, although the men were wrongfully jailed, they must forgo 25 per cent of their compensation.

And I bet that most of you will continue to think that our judges are 'honourable' people.

Huh! You poor fools.

.

200 Year Sentence For Possession of Porn Stands

.

Court: 200-year child porn sentence stands WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) --

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rule whether a 200-year prison sentence for an Arizona man convicted of possessing child pornography is excessive.

Morton Berger, 57, appealed Arizona state law that stipulates the maximum sentence of 10 years for each of his 20 convictions must be served consecutively, rather than concurrently, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

The former high school teacher's credit card number was found in the records of a child pornography Web site and police found images stored on his computer.

In his appeal to the high court, Berger's lawyers claimed the consecutive terms were unconstitutional.

"If this court reviews Berger's entire punishment instead of examining the sentence for a single count, it would find Berger's punishment cruel, unusual and unconstitutional," the legal brief said.

Earlier, the Arizona Supreme Court also refused to hear the case, saying with only one dissenting note the sentence of 10 years for possessing a single pornographic image was not excessive or disproportionate.

.................................

Dear Harry

My country continues to amaze, sicken, and bewilder me, almost on a daily basis. Unbelievable. Appalling. Horrible. I'm just beside myself with rage and disbelief. No matter how disturbed one is by this guy's behavior, how can any sensible, reasonable, fair, mature person support a sentence of 200 yrs in prison, with no possibility of parole or early release (essentially a death sentence in all but name), for possession of 20 child porn images?! POSSESSION. TWENTY. IMAGES. The guy didn't abuse the children; he didn't produce the images; he didn't distribute them to others; he didn't profit off them; he didn't have thousands of images and videos in his possession; he wasn't running a kiddie porn business and supervising the abuse of children. He also had no prior criminal record. And he's been given a death sentence for having twenty images of kids engaged in sexual activity. That's not justice, that's cruel and inhumane torture. Why didn't they just make child porn possession subject to the death penalty? It would have been more humane than the law they actually implemented. So let me see if I have this right--the Supreme Court would have overturned a law implementing the death penalty for this crime as cruel and unusual punishment, but they upheld THIS?! Apparently de facto torture and a de facto death sentence for looking at pictures is not cruel and unusual punishment. Wow. The witch hunt hysteria and moral panic about sexual offenses in this country has to be approaching critical mass, if it's not there already. How long will it take, how many lives have to be needlessly destroyed, before the public realizes that things have gone way too far and there's a backlash? We really, truly are insane in America. Let there be no doubt. INSANE. And barbaric. We insult the meaning of the word to call ourselves civilized. Good grief, I need a cold compress now!

G


.