Man accused of rape acquitted

25 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:27

Feather Sky

Frank D'Angelo was found innocent. The judges words were curious though:

"At most, he may be or probably guilty"

In other words, he's probably guilty but we don't know 100%, so let's let him off the hook.

What I find the most astonishing, is that it seems to imply that because the victim didn't scream and yell, and have gouges torn out of her back, it must mean that she is OK with everything.

They should have these judges take courses so that they understand rape, and understand the power that men exert over women, and understand the paralysis of fear that some women go through in these situations. They are fearing for their lives, and go along with it. Even afterwars, they are scared for their lives, and need time to work up the courage to do something about it. Because of our twisted society, someone feel ashamed as if it is their fault, and need to sort things out before they can go to the police.

The fact that they don't immediately run out of the hotel room yelling rape at the top of their lungs, does not indicate that the rapist is innocent.

I hate our country and our so-called 'justice' system.

Wed, 2009-04-22 13:22

Snert

Quote:

In other words, he's probably guilty but we don't know 100%, so let's let him off the hook.

I think it's more like "the Crown couldn't meet the burden of proof, so there's no other choice".

Quote:
If anyone has seen the Steelback commercials, it should be obvious that [deleted by moderator].

I haven't seen them. Is he shown raping a woman in them??

Or does he just look like "one of them"?

Wed, 2009-04-22 13:46

Daedalus

I would be comforted to know that this was about the burden of proof not being met. I'm not a fan of convicting people on the basis that we 'just know' the person's guilty.

However, I saw this one presented in the media and there was talk about how they were seen kissing afterward on security footage, as she left the hotel. I'm interested to know if that was introduced in evidence and if it played any role in the decision because I do not see how it disproves any evidence against him. Such a thing could happen after a rape. The victim could be emotionally confused and not react in ways that might be expected. She may not have the strength, at that point, to make a scene. She may be so intimidated she submits to it, even once they are in public. Could even be a Stockholm syndrome going on. It does not demonstrate prior consent.

There seems to have been convincing evidence introduced against him - the judge mentioned he was "probably guilty". I wonder if he felt that the security footage introduced sufficient doubt to collapse the case against him.

If that's what got him off the hook, I cry foul.

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:15

Star Spangled C...

Was this a judge who let him off or was he found not guilty by a jury?

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:24

Michelle

Oh, I don't freakin' think so. Expose your own web site to libel claims, not ours.

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:30

Star Spangled C...

yeah, good point, michelle. probably not the kind of thing you want to put in print.

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:52

Snert

I had a similar reaction at TAT, but in this case, it's the judge who said he's a probable rapist. Better safe than sorry, I suppose, but at any rate, it wasn't a solely inflammatory thread title.

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:54

Michelle

If someone wants to post a link and source the claim that the judge said this, then fine. But there was no link in the opening post, and I prefer to err on the side of not getting our asses sued. :)

Wed, 2009-04-22 14:59

Unionist

Are we going to be re-trying a lot of criminal cases here from now on? Is popcorn and a keyboard good enough, or should we order the full trial transcript and copies of the evidence just to be sure that we can get to the right verdict? Do we need 12 babblers to agree on a verdict? If so, forget the whole thing.

I find the OP disturbing in the extreme.

Wed, 2009-04-22 15:05

#10

Daedalus

Michelle wrote:

If someone wants to post a link and source the claim that the judge said this, then fine. But there was no link in the opening post, and I prefer to err on the side of not getting our asses sued. :)

[i]“At most, he may be or probably guilty, but I am left with a reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence and so he is acquitted,” said Justice John Hamilton in exonerating the flamboyant entrepreneur of allegations that D’Angelo assaulting the woman, now 22-year-old, at his Yorkdale Holiday Inn hotel room on June 3, 2007.

“I find the complainant to be credible and the accused’s evidence is also credible and I also believe him,” said Hamilton.[/i]

Reported in the London Free Press April 21st 2009: http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/04/21/9189316.html

The last statement has increased the suspicions I mentioned in my earlier post - what evidence did D'Angelo introduce? It seems to have played an important role in the judge's decision.

Wed, 2009-04-22 15:11

#11

Michelle

That's fine. The judge can believe that, but he acquitted him. We're not going to call him a rapist here after he's been acquitted. We can discuss the issue of people committing rape and getting away with it without labelling specific individuals who have been acquitted as rapists, because that leaves us open to libel issues.

Wed, 2009-04-22 15:15

#12

Feather Sky

What infuriates me is that the victim is being villainized.

Their defense in this trial seems to be that she wanted to take advantage of him because he was rich.

You should never, never, never blame the victim in these cases, and make them look like the villain. It's horrendous. It's our government's way of telling all rape victims to just shut up, or else we'll humiliate you and run you out of town.

Wed, 2009-04-22 15:21

#13

Daedalus

I just want to be clear that I haven't claimed he is guilty.

Mon, 2009-04-27 04:39

#14

Doug

That's the criminal law standard. Probably guilty isn't guilty enough. It can be tough to meet that standard in rape cases where there often are no witnesses but I'm not sure that the alternative is particularly just.

Fri, 2009-05-15 16:07

#15

Tommy_Paine

Or maybe you get a Cop and Crown Attourney to fix it for you:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/634817

Fri, 2009-05-15 16:38

#16

remind

Wow, I simply do not know what to say.

Fri, 2009-05-15 17:57

#17

Tommy_Paine

I'm trying to figure out just howthey think Basile is involved, and how they think a Crown Attourney could have helped D'Angelo in the sexual assault charge. If it was by leaking information, then I think they'd have some evidence of that-- and now that I say this, it strikes me that there must have been wire taps running for a while connected to the Bombardier investigation?

The other thing that occurred to me is perhaps Basile handled the discovery in the sexual assault case, and they think he made some questionable-- but ultimately difficult to prove malfeasance-- deals which saw evidence favourable to the Crown's case traded off for insignificant evidence for the deffence?

Either way, the Star article-- far and away the most detailed I could find this afternoon-- raises more questions than it answers.

Sat, 2009-05-16 06:45

#18

Michelle

Wow, that's incredible! This'll be an interesting one to keep an eye on.

Sat, 2009-05-16 14:22

#19

Tommy_Paine

I would think GTA crime reporters are checking their old notes in past cases for Rutiglaino's and Basile's names. The notes I'd check first might be the ones involving the Toronto Vice Cops. Just out of curiosity.

More central to the forum we are in, does this mean D'Angelo can be re-tried on the sexual assault charge, if found guilty of the current charges pertaining to that case?

I seem to have some nebulous memory of a case where someone was aquited, and it was later determined that person tampered with a witness or the jury-- and the law against double jeopardy still stood.

Found this interesting tidbit in the Globe that the Star didn't mention:

Sgt. Rutigliano appeared in a Brampton courtroom yesterday, sitting behind the Plexiglas wall of a prisoner's box. He will remain in protective custody at Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton until his bail hearing resumes next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.FRANK16ART2227...

Protective custody? Whatever for?

Sat, 2009-05-16 15:04

#20

G. Muffin

Tommy_Paine wrote:
More central to the forum we are in, does this mean D'Angelo can be re-tried on the sexual assault charge, if found guilty of the current charges pertaining to that case?

I would hope so.

And on a related point, I was thinking that if the allegations against the Crown attorney are proved, wouldn't that throw into question the results of every trial he prosecuted? What a mess.

Sat, 2009-05-16 15:34

#21

remind

Yes it would and yes it is.

Sun, 2009-05-17 11:36

#22

Refuge

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Found this interesting tidbit in the Globe that the Star didn't mention:

Sgt. Rutigliano appeared in a Brampton courtroom yesterday, sitting behind the Plexiglas wall of a prisoner's box. He will remain in protective custody at Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton until his bail hearing resumes next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.FRANK16ART2227/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

Protective custody? Whatever for?

Are you kidding or do you not know what happens to a cop in jail?

Sun, 2009-05-17 13:02

#23

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Refuge wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Found this interesting tidbit in the Globe that the Star didn't mention:

Sgt. Rutigliano appeared in a Brampton courtroom yesterday, sitting behind the Plexiglas wall of a prisoner's box. He will remain in protective custody at Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton until his bail hearing resumes next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.FRANK16ART2227/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

Protective custody? Whatever for?

Are you kidding or do you not know what happens to a cop in jail?

lol exactly cops, rapists, child molestors, what else they get it in jail still it the reality cops esp lol if this man goes to jail he gonna be scared to come out his cell. They proly will put him in solitary

Sun, 2009-05-17 14:32

#24

Refuge

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

Refuge wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Found this interesting tidbit in the Globe that the Star didn't mention:

Sgt. Rutigliano appeared in a Brampton courtroom yesterday, sitting behind the Plexiglas wall of a prisoner's box. He will remain in protective custody at Maplehurst Detention Centre in Milton until his bail hearing resumes next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090516.FRANK16ART2227/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

Protective custody? Whatever for?

Are you kidding or do you not know what happens to a cop in jail?

lol exactly cops, rapists, child molestors, what else they get it in jail still it the reality cops esp lol if this man goes to jail he gonna be scared to come out his cell. They proly will put him in solitary

That's my point, as much as cops who have used fear as a tactic probably need to feel the fear they are feeling both from the other inmates and gaurds, cops etc (and good reason to believe that most of that fear is coming from the fact that they themselves used fear to harm others) to fully understand the impact they had on other people, I don't believe anyone should have to suffer the torture or painful death sentence that they may get if they are released into the general population.

It is one thing understand the laws of Karma it is a completely different thing to wish for harm to another or not prevent harm when possible.

Mon, 2009-05-18 11:20

#25

Tommy_Paine

It is probable that it's just for general protection because he's a cop. But it could also be for other reasons at the same time.