man charged with "rape" 32 years latter *** case dropped!

[waggy]

NARRAGANSETT, R.I. (AP) -- A Narragansett man is charged with rape -- 32 years after the alleged incident.

The attorney general's office announced last week that 48-year-old Harold Allen was indicted last month for a 1975 rape when he and the alleged victim were 16-years-old.

The rape allegedly occurred in North Kingston.

Allen has pleaded not guilty and was released on 10-thousand dollars surety bail.

The A-G's office said the victim decided not to tell anyone when it happened, and then repressed the memory of it until recently

Allen's attorney said his client is shocked by the allegations and questioned whether prosecutors have any evidence apart from the allegation.

The attorney said Allen-who is married with children-knew the victim, but never had sex with her.



Unless they have it on tape this is a waste of time and money. Another DA pushing on rape when he shouldnt.

 

[Kirby]

Is there no statute of limitation on rape?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Is there no statute of limitation on rape?

thats what i was wondering? and why the hell would you wait so goddamn long????

someone just wants some quick money is my guess

 

[Skacer]

....thirty two years later....

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Is there no statute of limitation on rape?

thats what i was wondering? and why the hell would you wait so goddamn long????

someone just wants some quick money is my guess

nope. no statue of limitations.

another article
48-year-old Narragansett man has been charged with raping someone 32 years ago when both he and the alleged victim were 16 years old, the attorney general's office said this week.

Harold Allen, of 30 Riverview Rd., was indicted last month on a charge of first-degree sexual assault, and he pleaded not guilty, court records show. Allen is accused of raping the girl in North Kingstown between April 1 and Oct. 31, 1975, the records show.

"The traumatized victim decided back then not to tell anybody what happened and repressed the memory of it until recently," said Michael J. Healey, a spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch?s office. "The victim came forward and made a complaint to the North Kingstown Police Department on June 15, 2006."

No statute of limitations applies to charges of first-degree sexual assault ....

"If this incident happened today, it would be [handled in] Family Court," [Healey] said. "But Family Court never attained jurisdiction because no petition was filed against the defendant before his 21st birthday saying he had committed the crime before he was 18 years old. So you bring the charge in the court that would have had jurisdiction if the crime was committed by an adult. And that means the Superior Court." ...

[Allen's lawyer says that] "[Allen] says they never had intercourse -- willing, unwilling or otherwise."





messed up story. the DA better have proof. such as video or a child.

 

[Safeway]

That is pretty crazy. She is ruining his life 32 years later.

 

[GoPackGo]

Wow...thats messed up....so I can make a claim of something 30 years ago against anyone and they will be charged with a crime?

 

[Roguestar]

This is terrible. If this guy is completely innocent, he'll still be remembered as the guy who was accused of rape. When you fling this kind of mud at someone it doesn't come off. There's always a media uproar about "local man accused of raping 16 year old, disgusting rapist sat on knowledge of his terrible crime for years" but never, ever a headline of "man cleared of raping 16 year old, case of mistaken identity/whatever, apologies to John Smith, he is a man of upstanding character". That they give so much publicity to these before they're done is complete sensationalism, and ends up crucifying the guy's reputation whether he did it or not.

 

[GoPackGo]

Also how can you be charged as an adult for something you are accused of doing when you were 16? 32 years later?

The Hell!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

this is nonsense. Sorry lady you lose.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wow...thats messed up....so I can make a claim of something 30 years ago against anyone and they will be charged with a crime?

no you can not.

some crimes such as rape do not have a statue of limitations. so in that yes you can be accused of it latter. but not any crime.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Is there no statute of limitation on rape?

Depends on the jurisdiction. Most states DO have one that this would fall outside of, but some states have no SoL for any felony, and others have no SoL for capital crimes (and in some jurisdictions rape is a capital offense).

As for the case at hand, I am very wary of the wisdom of prosecuting a 32-year-old rape case based only on repressed memory. With no corroborating evidence I am at a loss to see how the prosecution can prove this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and one wonders whether he is even guilty. Without knowing more I tend to think this case shouldn't have been brought.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wow...thats messed up....so I can make a claim of something 30 years ago against anyone and they will be charged with a crime?

no you can not.

some crimes such as rape do not have a statue of limitations. so in that yes you can be accused of it latter. but not any crime.

there should be. The human memory is not accurate enough to be the only source of evidence.......30 years after the fact.

 

[manowar821]

Well, if he actually did it, that's a pretty wicked way of getting back at him. Wait for years, then screw him over when he's most comfortable.

I'd say he deserved it if he actually did it, but only if he did.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Wow...thats messed up....so I can make a claim of something 30 years ago against anyone and they will be charged with a crime?

no you can not.

some crimes such as rape do not have a statue of limitations. so in that yes you can be accused of it latter. but not any crime.

there should be. The human memory is not accurate enough to be the only source of evidence.......30 years after the fact.

yeap. i agree.

to many problems trying to remember something 30+ years ago. why the DA is pushing it is beyond me. UNLESS there is something big like a child (wich would be known) or something.

going off memory is not going to work.

 

[child of wonder]

Seems like an easy dismissal.

There could not possibly be any physical evidence unless this woman held onto the clothes from the night of the alleged act for 32 years. Even then, all that would prove is that they had sex -- nothing more.

 

[Turin39789]

I thought the whole regressed/repressed memory thing was proven to be inaccurate and largely implanted memories from overzealous psychs like 97% of the time?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, if he actually did it, that's a pretty wicked way of getting back at him. Wait for years, then screw him over when he's most comfortable.

I'd say he deserved it if he actually did it, but only if he did.

err no. if she planned this then she is a fucking retard.

its not going to hurt him that bad. To much time has passed and its a "repressed memory". That phrase ahs ruined many lives over stuff that has not happened. so when someone claims a crime based on it very few belive it.


what she should have done is go to the police as soon as it happened (IF it did wich i do not beleive it did). that way he is punished for it and a criminal record.

this way if he did it he will not only get off but her reputation will be ruined.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, if he actually did it, that's a pretty wicked way of getting back at him. Wait for years, then screw him over when he's most comfortable.

I'd say he deserved it if he actually did it, but only if he did.

Yea, real wicked way.

Open a case 30 some odd years later with absolutely no proof whatsoever, as opposed to going to the police right away 30 years ago with obvious signs of vaginal trauma and possible bodily fluids, along with all sorts of corroborating evidence.

Simply put, it's absolutely retarded.

Like waggy said, there's going to have to be something big for any chance of a conviction.

My guess is this lady has some serious mental problems, and may very well have been raped/molested in the past. Whether it's this guy (which is going to be pretty damn hard to prove), or someone she trusted such as a family member, we probably won't ever know.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Just some dumb cVnt that thinks she can get a paycheck out of this.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
I thought the whole regressed/repressed memory thing was proven to be inaccurate and largely implanted memories from overzealous psychs like 97% of the time?

It was largely discredited during the daycare child-sex scandals of the late 1980s/early 1990s. That being said, I believe that only the form of repressed memory that is teased out through hypnosis has been thoroughly discredited. That being said, even recent eyewitness evidence is of questionable accuracy, and after 32 years it's very difficult for me to imagine memory alone leading to a conviction.

 

[mugs]

If he did not do it, it is unfortunate that people will think he did.

But if he DID do it, it is just as unfortunate that he will probably get away with it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Just some dumb cVnt that thinks she can get a paycheck out of this.

This is sheer stupidity. The statute of limitations for a personal-injury case will have lapsed decades ago. I really don't respect the fact that many men assume all rape accusers are out for money. In this case, she may have mental problems - I have no idea - but there is no way she can get any financial reward even if he's convicted.

 

[Wheezer]

I hope the judge has the common sense to throw this out. It's a disgrace to the justice system. Apparently the D.A. here learned nothing from the whole Duke Lacrosse fiasco.

If this goes to trial and she wins.....they are going to be flooded with cases like this.....the D.A. is going to wish they had never opened this door.

I don't normally believe in suing someone, but I hope he can turn around and sue her for defamation of character, and if possible go after the state.

 

[Zolty]

honestly I can barely remember what happened 5 years ago, I can't imagine what testifying on 32 years must be like.