Another false rape claim. The case was thrown out after less than three hours’ deliberation.
The jury had heard that Mr Gillett’s accuser, the daughter of a well-known personality, had twice left the room on the night of the incident, but returned.
Two students in a nearby room testified that they had not heard her calling for help, even though their door and Mr Gillett’s were left ajar throughout the alleged ordeal.
Another student revealed he had shared a bed with the slightly-built blonde on two occasions, weeks before the alleged sexual assault.
She later told a friend the man had sexually assaulted her but she never made a formal complaint – even when interviewed about her allegations involving Mr Gillett.
Remember, this actually went all the way to the Crown Prosecution Service, who is supposed to decide whether a case has sufficient evidence to justify a court case. It would seem the mere words of a woman, even if they contradict reality, would suffice. Anything to prop up the falling rape conviction statistics…
The court heard the woman went to Mr Gillett’s room after bumping into him outside the Trinity College bar on the night of June 4 last year.
They began kissing but she said Mr Gillett, who admitted having several pints earlier that evening, became increasingly aggressive and pulled off her clothes.
“I was telling him to stop over and over again. He was pressing down on me quite hard, simulating the sex act,” she said.
She claimed he had forced his hand into her pants when he “suddenly seemed to hear me” and agreed to stop.
Mr Gillett insisted it was only at this stage that she asked him to stop, which he said was “absolutely fine” and he did.
A friend of the accuser said last night that she had not wanted Mr Gillett convicted, but just wanted to “give him a scare so he wouldn’t do it again”.
‘Teaching him a lesson‘ by trying to get him put in prison for 10 years?
Mr Gillett’s mother Clare last night questioned the 32-year-old law that protects the anonymity of victims of sex attacks, even if the claims are found to be false or malicious.
“My son’s reputation has suffered, while she remains anonymous,” she said. “If she could have been named maybe she would have held back.”
His father, Simon, said the case was a “dangerous nonsense which dragged Jack’s name through the mud”.
The only reason this selfish attention seeking bitch made these claims is because she knows she will be protected, regardless of the outcome. Think about it. Right now, the man in the case was found innocent, the woman is guilty of a false claim.
Yet his face is in the media, and hers is protected by the ‘law’. Why? Because she is a woman, and women get preferential treatment in courts of law.
The behaviour of people is regulated by threat of punishment for breaking the law. With no threat of punishment for a particular group, that group’s behaviour will not be regulated, hence the disgusting, dangerous, selfish and despicable behaviour of these unaccountable females. The law is not applied equally. Men are being unfairly treated. How simple can I make it?
A woman who accuses a man of rape or sex assault has the protection of anonymity for life.
But the accused must live with the slur on his character, even if it is entirely false.
Anonymity was granted to women in 1976 on the grounds that publicity of a trial was hugely damaging to victims.
It was rationalised that the privacy would also encourage victims to come forward.
But the argument has come under increasing criticism with critics asserting that the scales of justice are often now tipped against men.
There have been a string of cases in which false and malicious accusations have been laid, and a number of other prominent cases in which the charge appears based on flimsy evidence and the accuser appears to have exploited the privilege of anonymity.