The Police
Morally Wrong : Man With Multiple Rape Allegations A Witness
After investigating multiple rape allegations against the same man since 2010; two months after trying to prosecute him in Court for rape, the CPS and Police use him as a witness against Jemma.
Luke Williams has been known to the Metropolitan Police Rape Unit since 2010. Known by the same officers leading the conviction of Cassim and now also against Jemma.
How is this morally acceptable?
We are not referring to different Police forces at opposite ends of the country; we are referring to the same officers in the same rape unit.
We are not referring to Williams as a man with an impeccable character, who has been misunderstood on so many occasions, the reasons why he has never been found guilty of any sexually related charges; we are referring to Williams with numerous alias names and a wide range of convictions and allegations, some petty and some serious involving prison, throughout his whole life.
You could argue he is entitled to defend himself against accusations made against him and that his life to date should not be held against him. We agree to this line of thought.
But for these 'specially trained officers' to take his word over that of his victim, to the extent the CPS agree to prosecute the victim, cannot morally be correct or in the public interest.
Documents show that this is not the first time a victim of Williams has not been believed, allowing him to continue to allegedly sexually assault and rape women and children, whilst he is on bail for the same offences.
Police statements from victims show that Williams is predatory, with a pattern of meeting in shops/internet, cigarettes, drink and drugs, back to a party, assaulted outside. Some allegations have included his accomplices.
He knows to shout it was consensual, that not many women actually make it to trial to prosecute. He knows exactly what to do and say and what not to.
Rape victims already have fears about reporting rape, with the evasion of privacy and the risk of not being believed. Taking the account of a known sexual predator to prosecute the victim will only serve to raise these fears further.
Source:
Police : CRIS Report : March 2010
Defence Paralegal : June 2017
Trial Transcript : R v Beale : June 2017
Defence QC : Advice on Appeal : August 2017
Police : PNC Report Luke Williams : 8 December 2014
Police : Victim Statement : May 2010
Police : Victim Statement : September 2011
Police : Victim Statement : December 2011
Police : Jemma Beale Victim Statement : November 2013
Police : Victim Statement : January 2016
Police : Victim Statement : January 2016
Police : Victim Statement : May 2016
Why Wasn't He Arrested? : Drunken Sexual Intercourse Aged 14
Stonehill’s first interview statement clearly states he had sexual intercourse with Jemma when she was 14 (within a few months of meeting her). Based on his admission he should have been arrested for rape when he made this statement.
Stonehill has not been arrested for this offence.
If he was arrested, there would not have been any credible new evidence in relation to Cassim; as everything else in relation to Cassim was used in the trials and conviction against him.
If the Police had arrested Stonehill,there would not have been any perjury or perverting the course of justice charges against Jemma relating to Cassim. Without these four Cassim charges against Jemma, it is very unlikely the CPS would have charged Jemma with anything.
The whole ‘Operation Vicarage’ would have crashed to a grinding halt.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4hPrqzTRSBvvzHkTckNYNZ5/age-of-consent
Police : Jemma Beale Interview Statements
Police : Ben Stonehill Statement : 3 July 2014
Police : Ben Stonehill Statement : 5 July 2014
The Older Cousin : Why Admit To Grooming?
Andrew Hewett is a cousin; he is 8 years older than Jemma.
Jemma has never accused him of anything whatsoever, not a single thing.
Yet for some unknown reason, after his name is passed to Police by Anuska Pritchard, he makes two Police statements admitting in detail how he "took advantage" of Jemma; which was all about getting Jemma to satisfy him via masterbation, with failed attempts to persuade Jemma to perform oral sex on him.
He clearly states that Jemma would not let him touch her at all, she was "not confident in her own body to let me touch her".
Not confident with Hewett, her,older cousin, who she has known all of her life; yet the Police claim she led men who she had only just met, to garages for sex.
He only gave evidence in Court on the basis that the papers could not name him or identify him as a relative. An empty promise by the Police and CPS, considering any reporting restrictions would not apply when the trial ends.
Details of his grooming of Jemma in Court, was contradictory to the details within his Police statement. In his statement, he said that Jemma was 20, making these incidents after the assault by Cassim; but in Court he said she was 16, making him 24 at the time and
these incidents now occurring before the assault by Cassim.
HRH Lorraine-Smith, when summing up the trial, referred to the evidence given by Hewett, as "deeply disturbing" and directed the Jury not to use his evidence in the deliberation of charges related to Cassim.
We are not aware of the papers writing about him.
Source:
Trial Transcript : R v Beale : June 2017
Police : Andrew Hewett Witness Statement : 4 August 2014
Police : Andrew Hewett Witness Statement : 8 March 2017
DS Lynott : "Credible Evidence That Cast No Doubt On Her Allegations"
On the 24 August 2017, The Telegraph reported the sentencing of Jemma, quoting the following from DS Lynott, the lead investigator in the charges against Jemma:
"DS Kevin Lynott from the Metropolitan Police, which investigated three of the four allegations" , "insisted that each of her claims
had been investigated independently and that there was “credible” evidence that cast no doubt on her allegations".
This credible evidence still exists.
Source:
The Telegraph : 24 August 2017