http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/B...e-20150323

Quote:Quote:

Johannesburg - Former Grand Slam tennis champion Bob Hewitt was on Monday found guilty of two counts of rape and one of sexual assault by the South Gauteng High Court sitting in Palm Ridge.

"The State's evidence against the accused is overwhelming," Judge Bert Bam said.

"The three complainants have basic rights. Time did not erase the crimes. A guilty person should not go unpunished. The scales of justice tip against the accused," he said.

Tennis lessons

Australian-born Hewitt, 75, a former Grand Slam tennis champion, was on trial for the alleged rape of two of his former students, Theresa "Twiggy" Tolken and Suellen Sheehan in the 1980s, and the sexual assault of a third woman, who may not be named, in the 1990s. He gave tennis lessons to the girls. He pleaded not guilty.

During the trial Tolken testified that Hewitt touched her inappropriately and forced her to perform oral sex on him 34 years ago when she was 12. They were driving to Sun City at the time.

A third woman, who cannot be named, claimed Hewitt had rubbed up against her while coaching her in the 1990s.

Another of Hewitt's students testified in his defence. The woman, who may not be named, said Hewitt was a strict coach but was never inappropriate. Hewitt coached her and Sheehan in the 1980s.

Hewitt's wife Delaille has testified that she did not believe her husband committed the crimes.

The defence team closed its case on 18 February. State prosecutor Carina Coetzee tried to apply to re-open her case to call another witness but this was unsuccessful.

So oral sex and dry humping are forms of rape and sexual assault? I'm curious to know what the 'overwhelming evidence' was 34 years after the fact.

Terrifying.

Quote: (03-23-2015 02:49 PM)Basement Dweller Wrote:  

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/B...e-20150323

Quote:Quote:

Johannesburg - Former Grand Slam tennis champion Bob Hewitt was on Monday found guilty of two counts of rape and one of sexual assault by the South Gauteng High Court sitting in Palm Ridge.

"The State's evidence against the accused is overwhelming," Judge Bert Bam said.

"The three complainants have basic rights. Time did not erase the crimes. A guilty person should not go unpunished. The scales of justice tip against the accused," he said.

Tennis lessons

Australian-born Hewitt, 75, a former Grand Slam tennis champion, was on trial for the alleged rape of two of his former students, Theresa "Twiggy" Tolken and Suellen Sheehan in the 1980s, and the sexual assault of a third woman, who may not be named, in the 1990s. He gave tennis lessons to the girls. He pleaded not guilty.

During the trial Tolken testified that Hewitt touched her inappropriately and forced her to perform oral sex on him 34 years ago when she was 12. They were driving to Sun City at the time.

A third woman, who cannot be named, claimed Hewitt had rubbed up against her while coaching her in the 1990s.

Another of Hewitt's students testified in his defence. The woman, who may not be named, said Hewitt was a strict coach but was never inappropriate. Hewitt coached her and Sheehan in the 1980s.

Hewitt's wife Delaille has testified that she did not believe her husband committed the crimes.

The defence team closed its case on 18 February. State prosecutor Carina Coetzee tried to apply to re-open her case to call another witness but this was unsuccessful.

So oral sex and dry humping are forms of rape and sexual assault? I'm curious to know what the 'overwhelming evidence' was 34 years after the fact.

You left that part out. Dude sounds like a dirt bag. This does not seem like some Bill Cosby witch hunt. This sounds more like a dude of prestige who was kept safe by the old folly of South Africa's apartheid system that likely never brought any charges against him back in the day to light.

Not sure how OP is going to defend a dude forcing his dick down a female child's throat. But go ahead and try, I have my popcorn ready.

Photos of the accusers:

Quote: (03-23-2015 02:57 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Quote: (03-23-2015 02:49 PM)Basement Dweller Wrote:  

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/B...e-20150323

Quote:Quote:

Johannesburg - Former Grand Slam tennis champion Bob Hewitt was on Monday found guilty of two counts of rape and one of sexual assault by the South Gauteng High Court sitting in Palm Ridge.

"The State's evidence against the accused is overwhelming," Judge Bert Bam said.

"The three complainants have basic rights. Time did not erase the crimes. A guilty person should not go unpunished. The scales of justice tip against the accused," he said.

Tennis lessons

Australian-born Hewitt, 75, a former Grand Slam tennis champion, was on trial for the alleged rape of two of his former students, Theresa "Twiggy" Tolken and Suellen Sheehan in the 1980s, and the sexual assault of a third woman, who may not be named, in the 1990s. He gave tennis lessons to the girls. He pleaded not guilty.

During the trial Tolken testified that Hewitt touched her inappropriately and forced her to perform oral sex on him 34 years ago when she was 12. They were driving to Sun City at the time.

A third woman, who cannot be named, claimed Hewitt had rubbed up against her while coaching her in the 1990s.

Another of Hewitt's students testified in his defence. The woman, who may not be named, said Hewitt was a strict coach but was never inappropriate. Hewitt coached her and Sheehan in the 1980s.

Hewitt's wife Delaille has testified that she did not believe her husband committed the crimes.

The defence team closed its case on 18 February. State prosecutor Carina Coetzee tried to apply to re-open her case to call another witness but this was unsuccessful.

So oral sex and dry humping are forms of rape and sexual assault? I'm curious to know what the 'overwhelming evidence' was 34 years after the fact.

You left that part out. Dude sounds like a dirt bag. This does not seem like some Bill Cosby witch hunt. This sounds more like a dude of prestige who was kept safe by the old folly of South Africa's apartheid system that likely never brought any charges against him back in the day to light.

Not sure how OP is going to defend a dude forcing his dick down a female child's throat. But go ahead and try, I have my popcorn ready.

The important and scary thing about these kinds of cases is the fact that they can be tried on a he-said-she-said basis over 3 decades later.

The crime or whoever is allegedly involved isn't really what's relevant, in my opinion.

Where's the proof?

Was the statute of limitations tolled because of the "repressed memory" of a 12 year old minor?

I'm trying to figure out why something this old is still able to be prosecuted. There is a statute of limitations for every crime. The only way around it is if it is "put on hold" or "tolled" for some reason.

What was the reason here? The article is silent.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:07 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Was the statute of limitations tolled because of the "repressed memory" of a 12 year old minor?

I'm trying to figure out why something this old is still able to be prosecuted. There is a statute of limitations for every crime. The only way around it is if it is "put on hold" or "tolled" for some reason.

What was the reason here? The article is silent.

A lot of jurisdictions have long tolling of the statute of limitations for child rape.

The rationale is that the child may be under the control of the rapist or otherwise prevented from reporting. Makes some sense, the Catholic priest cases took years to surface.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:02 PM)Basement Dweller Wrote:  

Where's the proof?

Seriously, unless there's pictures or something he should just be able to say "no I didn't" and there's not even a preponderance of evidence.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:00 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

The important and scary thing about these kinds of cases is the fact that they can be tried on a he-said-she-said basis over 3 decades later.

The crime or whoever is allegedly involved isn't really what's relevant, in my opinion.

Exactly. He may actually be guilty as hell for all I care, but that doesn't matter at all. If this guilty man is being sentenced today only based on the testimonies of the accusers 34 years after the fact, tomorrow innocent men will follow him. This case should scare every red blooded man out there.

I'd have to see the "overwhelming evidence" before deciding one way or another. The article only mentions their testimony but there might be more than that. Or there might not be. Typical clickbait.

I think kosko and a few others here have jumped to conclusions.

It's important to remember to never let emotion or the instinct to protect children or women cloud your judgment in matters of law because that instinct will be used to manipulate you at some point.

This is not much different from any other he-said/she-said rape case if the trial is conducted properly, with an aggressive defense.

People can remember incidents from 35 years ago. So that's not an issue. A kid who's raped is not going to know what to do, especially if the rapist is in a position of authority or prestige. A too-short statute of limitations can be a license to rape kids.

I don't know if they have juries in SA - without juries, there's more of a chance of innocent people being convicted, but that's a separate issue.

In any such case, the question of the fact-finder is "Why are they lying?" If the defense has a good answer to that question, acquittal. If not, conviction.

Quote: (03-23-2015 02:57 PM)Basement Dweller Wrote:  

Photos of the accusers:

Case dismissed.

Quote: (03-23-2015 02:57 PM)kosko Wrote:  

You left that part out. Dude sounds like a dirt bag. This does not seem like some Bill Cosby witch hunt. This sounds more like a dude of prestige who was kept safe by the old folly of South Africa's apartheid system that likely never brought any charges against him back in the day to light.

Not sure how OP is going to defend a dude forcing his dick down a female child's throat. But go ahead and try, I have my popcorn ready.

The alleged victims were white. In what way would apartheid have protected this man if he really were guilty? South Africa back in the day may have been a racist society, but it was not a 9th century lawless free-for-all where marauding bands of feudal lords could rape and pillage with impunity. At least not among the white population, to which the accusers belonged. Not to mention, these girls were receiving private tennis lessons by a grand slam champion. I highly doubt they were anything but top of the economic ladder.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

People can remember incidents from 35 years ago. So that's not an issue. A kid who's raped is not going to know what to do, especially if the rapist is in a position of authority or prestige. A too-short statute of limitations can be a license to rape kids.

Really? In my experience, most people can barely remember what happened **35 days** ago to any degree of accuracy. It's true that some people will tell incredibly detailed stories from the past; it's equally true that many details of these stories, as well as, often enough, the most basic parts of the narrative, are wildly inaccurate or flat out false.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

In any such case, the question of the fact-finder is "Why are they lying?" If the defense has a good answer to that question, acquittal. If not, conviction.

"Why are they lying" is a good question -- a good question to ask of the MILLIONS of f'ing bitches each and every one of whom was "raped" or "molested" at some remote point in her childhood or adolescence. Why are they lying? Who knows -- and if it didn't end up putting innocent men in prison, who cares?

Either there is hard physical evidence or it didn't happen. These cases, prosecuted decades later on the say-so of females who suddenly decided that something happened to them, are outrageous.

How exactly does she have proof that it happened? It was 30 years ago. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but this sounds fishy to me.

That's a shitty situation if it did happen to her as a little girl. The fact of the matter is, it's always he-said she-said with rape before the age of electronic recording devices.

That said, it's better to protect innocent men even if a few dirt bags get lose.



^ These are the two in question.

Quote: (03-23-2015 06:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  



^ These are the two in question.

She looks like a boy with pigtails. WNR - Would Not Rape.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

This is not much different from any other he-said/she-said rape case if the trial is conducted properly, with an aggressive defense.
...
In any such case, the question of the fact-finder is "Why are they lying?" If the defense has a good answer to that question, acquittal. If not, conviction.

So just someone's word, without any corroborating physical evidence, is adequate to convict of a serious crime?
Are you saying that is how it works and you agree, or just how it works whether it's fair or not?

What if he didn't recommend her for a team she wanted to be on and she holds a grudge, what if....ANYTHING?

Quote: (03-23-2015 06:57 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

This is not much different from any other he-said/she-said rape case if the trial is conducted properly, with an aggressive defense.
...
In any such case, the question of the fact-finder is "Why are they lying?" If the defense has a good answer to that question, acquittal. If not, conviction.

So just someone's word, without any corroborating physical evidence, is adequate to convict of a serious crime?
Are you saying that is how it works and you agree, or just how it works whether it's fair or not?

What if he didn't recommend her for a team she wanted to be on and she holds a grudge, what if....ANYTHING?

Sp5 has a point. If you rape a minor and then make her shower off the spunk, it's now a he-said-she-said case 15 minutes later (assume no signs of struggle, that isn't farfetched in a case like this). That's not good either. The right rules of evidence must go in between memory on one side and obvious violent rape on the other side.

Quote: (03-23-2015 05:09 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

People can remember incidents from 35 years ago. So that's not an issue. A kid who's raped is not going to know what to do, especially if the rapist is in a position of authority or prestige. A too-short statute of limitations can be a license to rape kids.

Really? In my experience, most people can barely remember what happened **35 days** ago to any degree of accuracy. It's true that some people will tell incredibly detailed stories from the past; it's equally true that many details of these stories, as well as, often enough, the most basic parts of the narrative, are wildly inaccurate or flat out false.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:33 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

In any such case, the question of the fact-finder is "Why are they lying?" If the defense has a good answer to that question, acquittal. If not, conviction.

"Why are they lying" is a good question -- a good question to ask of the MILLIONS of f'ing bitches each and every one of whom was "raped" or "molested" at some remote point in her childhood or adolescence. Why are they lying? Who knows -- and if it didn't end up putting innocent men in prison, who cares?

Either there is hard physical evidence or it didn't happen. These cases, prosecuted decades later on the say-so of females who suddenly decided that something happened to them, are outrageous.

Indeed why would she lie? That question is a two edged sword. In a "word on word" scenario such as this, the jury are most likely to come down on the side of the complainant, because one needs to ask, why would she go through all of this if she wasn't telling the truth? In NSW, The questions "why would she lie" is deemed to be so prejudicial that no one is allowed to ask it without some evidence to corroborate a motive for lying. Think about it, if the defence was compelled to answer that question, it would shift the entire onus of proof onto the accused.

Quote: (03-23-2015 03:07 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Was the statute of limitations tolled because of the "repressed memory" of a 12 year old minor?

I'm trying to figure out why something this old is still able to be prosecuted. There is a statute of limitations for every crime. The only way around it is if it is "put on hold" or "tolled" for some reason.

What was the reason here? The article is silent.

How the hell can an accused mount a proper defence to that? The sad truth is that usually they can't.

Something that strikes me in reading this thread is that guys still have a hard time understanding the simple -- but to men, very strange -- fact that women lie all the time; they lie as easily as they breathe or suck or shit. They barely need a reason to lie -- not that reasons are hard to find.

Men know this in the abstract, perhaps -- but they tend to forget it in every specific case because it is so contrary to their nature and instinct. But knowledge that is so easily forgotten does not really go very far.

Recall the thread that Roosh posted recently about the white trash couple on Maury's show where the poor sap wanted to believe that he was a father to two black kids. That was a funny video but what went somewhat less noted is just how easily, passionately and -- were it not so absurd -- credibly the fat whale lied; she lied at all times and with perfect conviction; and as soon as the DNA evidence proved what required no proof, she abandoned the lie in an instant without so much as a pause, and pivoted to some other bullshit. It may get lost in the farce, but there is a lesson there for those with eyes to see.

Getting back to these ancient rape cases -- it is nothing less than evil madness that these cases get prosecuted on the say-so of females who "recall" their "rapes" decades later and in the absence of any evidence. In general if a rape is not reported RIGHT AWAY -- and if there is no physical evidence to back up the story -- then not only is there no reason to believe that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt (which should be the standard, of course), but it's a very good bet that nothing whatsoever happened or nothing resembling the story that is being told.

In my OP I was off the mark when questioning whether oral sex is now considered rape because the equation changed when it allegedly happened to a 12 year old girl, in which case the definition of rape become irrelevant, now we're talking pedophilia.

The point is that now a precedent is set for any scorned women to accuse a man of rape, abuse and pedophilia 34 years after the fact without a shred of evidence and he can be found guilty.

Rape is such a sensitive topic in South Africa because it really does happen on a level that most 1st world countries can't fathom. But when it allegedly happens to a privileged white girl the media and courts are quick to crucify.

Nobody ever questioned the possibility that these women might've gone insane in their post wall years and developed a deep hatred for men and sought to crucify this man in an effort to garner attention, fame and money.

As long as there is adequate evidence indicating that he did it, it doesn't matter if the crime happened 34 years ago or 34 minutes ago - the person needs to be punished.

However, the disturbing thing here is that it appears that this man was convicted purely on the fact that the accusers said that he did it. There is no actual evidence whatsoever. Why didn't they report the rape as soon as it happened?

I'm speculating that these sorts of cases occur because the women in question are no longer getting attention from men (and probably haven't received any attention from men in a very long time), so they use whatever else they can to get attention.