My teenage sex lies wrecked man’s life
Nigel Oldfield
By ALEX WEST
Published: Today
A WOMAN yesterday admitted destroying an innocent man's life by
falsely accusing him of indecent assault.
Guilt-ridden Carrie Crownshaw, 34, went to police earlier this year to
admit MAKING UP the allegation against her mother's then-boyfriend Ian
Henderson when she was 14.
He was convicted and sentenced to three years' jail in 1990 - and
yesterday Judge Nic Madge told Crownshaw: "It would not be an
understatement to say that you wrecked his life."
Defiant ... Crownshaw flicks finger from under coat
His sentence at Acton Crown Court, West London, was reduced on appeal,
but Crownshaw's trial heard he had still spent a nightmare 15 months
in a sex offenders' wing, later lost his job - and even felt guilty
changing his childrens' nappies.
Prosecutor Adrian Slasher said: "Mr Henderson had to serve in a
separate unit. Food often had to be sent back because it was believed
to be contaminated with urine and other things.
"He felt uneasy changing the nappies of his own children in case
anyone misconstrued what he was doing.
"He didn't want to go out. He was always concerned who he would meet.
"He said he didn't trust people - even people he knew. He was worried
he might say something wrong."
The lawyer told how Mr Henderson's bond with his parents had been hit
because he always wondered whether they believed in his innocence.
And he once began a relationship only for the woman to end it when she
found out about his conviction.
He had also lost his job as a coach driver because of his criminal
record.
Crownshaw, married with four children in Luton, Beds, pleaded guilty
to perverting justice at Harrow Crown Court in North West London.
She bowed her head as Judge Madge told her: "Twenty years ago you
fabricated an allegation of indecent assault against Ian Henderson.
You gave false evidence at his trial. There can be no doubt that what
you did had a devastating effect upon his life.
"False allegations increase the plight of women and girls who have
actually suffered sexual abuse."
But he spared her jail - sentencing her to 16 months in jail,
suspended for two years.
The judge took into account her "traumatic upbringing" and a
psychiatric report which described her depression personality
disorders.
She has attempted suicide several times, most recently in April, and
her children suffer a range of illnesses.
Hannah Fish, defending, said: "She stated that an injustice had
happened. She wanted to rectify the situation."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2992275/My-teenage-sex-lies-wrecked-mans-life.html
WM
Sussex_by_the_sea
wrote:
>
> WM
A very depressing story. For what it's worth, I think the sentence
handed out to the female offender was probably fair. At the same time,
Henderson has clearly suffered a terrible injustice. What the solution
to this is, I do not know. Requiring any newspaper that ran the story
of his conviction to print an apology, according the apology exactly
the same prominence as the original article, would be a step in the
right direction. Then I suggest he should receive a ginormous sum of
money courtesy of the tax payer. This may seem shallow, but as a
nation we have ruined his chances of earning a living, and so as a
nation we need to make amends as best we can.
Colonel Colt
news:aec90595-7a34-4446...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> A very depressing story. For what it's worth, I think the sentence
> handed out to the female offender was probably fair. At the same time,
> Henderson has clearly suffered a terrible injustice. What the solution
> to this is, I do not know. Requiring any newspaper that ran the story
> of his conviction to print an apology, according the apology exactly
> the same prominence as the original article, would be a step in the
> right direction. Then I suggest he should receive a ginormous sum of
> money courtesy of the tax payer. This may seem shallow, but as a
> nation we have ruined his chances of earning a living, and so as a
> nation we need to make amends as best we can.
>
to him for 15 years, and paying him mountains of cash, would be to change
the law to ensure that no other innocent can be convicted solely on the word
of a child.
Periander
news:OGeMn.82740$YL2....@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com:
>>
> The best thing we could do, other than imprisoning the bitch that did
> this to him for 15 years, and paying him mountains of cash, would be
> to change the law to ensure that no other innocent can be convicted
> solely on the word of a child.
Quite true, after all children aren't real people and it's an offence
against humanity that they should have rights.
--
Regards,
Periander
Paul
> My teenage sex lies wrecked man�s life
>
> By ALEX WEST
>
> Published: Today
>
> A WOMAN yesterday admitted destroying an innocent man's life by
> falsely accusing him of indecent assault.
>
Amd Nige's point is that ALL women are temptresses at 14 that want sex
and ruin men;s lives. Dirty little girls!
Fredxx
>
> A very depressing story. For what it's worth, I think the sentence
> handed out to the female offender was probably fair.
I couldn't disagree more. I also don't see why her name should be mentioned
in the press. She was 14 at the time and made the accusation at the time
for any number of reasons.
I dislike the idea of "victims" being dissuaded from coming out with the
truth later on by a prosection against them. Especially when various
government departments will bend over backwards to gain convitions aganist
men, and where courts are happy to convict on the say so of one witness
without any further corroberating evidence.
Doug
wrote:
manifestations of their animal nature, particularly sex, and that is
why the State cracks down on it.
In the animal world they copulate freely and publicly regardless of
age or sex and humans have similar instincts which they sometimes find
uncontrollable. It follows that sexual acts often lead to serious
criminalisation of citizens by the State, whether warranted or not.
--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
Colonel Colt
news:Xns9D87E3117C4C...@69.16.176.253...
immune to understanding morality.
Periander
I take it then that the parody I posted above does in fact represent your
point of view?
--
Regards,
Periander
Colonel Colt
the sole say-so of a lying child represents your position?
Periander
He had a fair trail, clearly there was enough there to convince a jury.
If people lie to the court the court has a range of options open to it.
--
Regards,
Periander
Colonel Colt
innocent man'.
> If people lie to the court the court has a range of options open to it.
>
Better still not to take the uncorroborated word of a child.
BrianW
> On 29/05/2010 17:56, Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>
>
> > By ALEX WEST
>
> > Published: Today
>
> > A WOMAN yesterday admitted destroying an innocent man's life by
> > falsely accusing him of indecent assault.
>
> Amd Nige's point is that ALL women are temptresses at 14 that want sex
> and ruin men;s lives. Dirty little girls!
<cough>
I think you'll find Nige prefers his girls to be a little younger.
Like nine, for example. Obviously, your point about them being
temptresses is equally applicable - in NigelWorld.
BrianW
I wondered how long it would take for you to respond to the challenge
posed by Nigel - the challenge to your former title as "Most repulsive
poster to usenet". Are you going to add paedophilia to your list of
other causes e.g. granny digging, Holocaust denial, firebombing
nurseries?
Fredxx
The trial would have included a form of words regarding truth and lies where
the witness would subsequently be assumed to be telling the truth. The
defendant in the witness box will be assumed to be less truthful by the very
nature of the accusation. Consequently the circus becomes a David and
Goliath, where a stone will outweigh anything thing the defendant can
muster. We also don't know the calibre of legal aid solicitor representing
the young man, nor the experience of the prosecuting council.
Nigel Oldfield
That is the point, it never can be under those circumstances.
WM
Big Les Wade
>
>He had a fair trail,
In your opinion, but not in mine. A trial is not fair IMO if the
prosecution's only evidence is the uncorroborated word of a child.
In fact, (to address your point about children's rights) I would go
further. A trial in which the prosecution's only evidence is the
uncorroborated word of the alleged victim is not IMO a fair trial,
whether the alleged victim is or is not a child.
>clearly there was enough there to convince a jury.
That is a pretty feeble argument. Even the judicial system as it stands
recognises that juries will wrongfully convict if they are presented
with certain types of evidence.
>If people lie to the court the court has a range of options open to it.
And some of these options will be wrong and will produce extremely
harmful consequences. Judicial policy ought to be formulated to minimise
the risk of that happening.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
Periander
news:hrbmBmH3...@obviously.invalid:
>>He had a fair trail,
>
> In your opinion, but not in mine. A trial is not fair IMO if the
> prosecution's only evidence is the uncorroborated word of a child.
>
The alternative is stark, it means that there could never be any trial
where the only physical witness is a child. That gives offenders a green
light in the same way as the proposition that there can only be a murder
trial if there's a body. Burn the body in a remote place and scatter the
ashes or bury it at sea (not freshwater as freshwater preserves the body)
and the murderer goes free.
But of course the reality is that there is never a trial soly on the
uncorroborated word of a child, never. There is always something else, it
may not be direct evidence, is the evidence of another witness to the
actual offence or even an admission, there's always something and that's
why threads of this nature are to me water of a ducks back. The posters are
eitehr ill informed, to be frank niave or are trying to make some point
that would justify thier own previous offending, Nigel being a case in
point.
--
Regards,
Periander
Nigel Oldfield
> point.
What has my history got to do with sexual offending on minors?
Yes, you are correct, they are the outcomes which may arise in some
cases.
They are decidedly more acceptable, in a civilised society, than a non-
offending person being convicted.
I am aware you will never be able to accept this.
WM
Big Les Wade
>Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>news:hrbmBmH3...@obviously.invalid:
>
>>>He had a fair trail,
>>
>> In your opinion, but not in mine. A trial is not fair IMO if the
>> prosecution's only evidence is the uncorroborated word of a child.
>
>The alternative is stark, it means that there could never be any trial
>where the only physical witness is a child.
No, it means there could never be any trial where the only physical
witness is a child AND there is no other evidence to corroborate the
accusation.
>That gives offenders a green
>light
Do you mean "Offenders will then know they can escape prosecution if
there is no other evidence than the word of their victim"? Well yes,
obviously, but that doesn't really advance the argument, does it? If you
want to argue it, you have to show *why* people should be prosecuted
when there is no other evidence than the word of the alleged victim. You
can't just assume it.
>in the same way as the proposition that there can only be a murder
>trial if there's a body. Burn the body in a remote place and scatter the
>ashes or bury it at sea (not freshwater as freshwater preserves the body)
>and the murderer goes free.
That's your proposition, not mine. I've never argued it, so it's
irrelevant here. A "straw man" as the saying is.
>But of course the reality is that there is never a trial soly on the
>uncorroborated word of a child, never. There is always something else, it
>may not be direct evidence, is the evidence of another witness to the
>actual offence or even an admission,
It depends what you mean by "something else". As I have stated before on
uk.legal, I personally have sat as a juror at a trial where there *was*
no other evidence indicating the defendant's guilt, other than the word
of the accuser. (There was of course "other evidence" - e.g. a witness
stated that the defendant and the accuser were in the same house at the
same time as the witness was - but none of it implied or even suggested
the defendant's guilt.)
>there's always something and that's
>why threads of this nature are to me water of a ducks back. The posters are
>eitehr ill informed, to be frank niave or are trying to make some point
>that would justify thier own previous offending, Nigel being a case in
>point.
Well I'm not a case in point, because I have stated my experience
previously, and ISTR you read it and responded at the time.
®i©ardo
Perhaps the defendant would be assumed to be less truthful simply
because he was a mle accused by a female. The law is simply biased
against men in such circumstances.
--
Moving things in still pictures
Cynic
<ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> The best thing we could do, other than imprisoning the bitch that did
>> this to him for 15 years, and paying him mountains of cash, would be
>> to change the law to ensure that no other innocent can be convicted
>> solely on the word of a child.
>Quite true, after all children aren't real people and it's an offence
>against humanity that they should have rights.
No, it's because they *are* people, that they should not be believed
any less *nor any more* than adults simply because they are children.
Yet we are told by child protection "experts" that a child who makes
an allegation of sexual abuse must always be believed because children
do not lie about such things. Like heck they don't - especially when
they are being pressured into confirming what the "expert" wants to
believe.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
>> In your opinion, but not in mine. A trial is not fair IMO if the
>> prosecution's only evidence is the uncorroborated word of a child.
>The alternative is stark, it means that there could never be any trial
>where the only physical witness is a child. That gives offenders a green
>light in the same way as the proposition that there can only be a murder
>trial if there's a body.
And the other way gives a green light to any child with a grudge
against an adult to make up a plausible story that will completely
ruin the adult's life.
The "other evidence" that you spoke of frequently consists of
circumstantial evidence of perfectly innocent behaviour that is made
to *sound* suspect due to the nature of the allegation. e.g. evidence
that the man always read a bedtime story to the child while alone in
her bedroom etc. And of course the evidence of "experts" who will
testify that children do not lie about such matters, and/or that the
child is exhibiting the "classic symptoms" of sexual abuse.
--
Cynic
emily.r....@gmail.com
Handsome Jack
>she did this out of the cruelty of her heart. She never even carried
>out the prison sentence.
--
Jack
Graham.
The Todal
>> emily.r....@gmail.com posted
>>> I personally know this woman. She did not deserve this light sentence,
>>> she did this out of the cruelty of her heart. She never even carried
>>> out the prison sentence.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.legal/046Z_6eeXn8/xTZa3_wWs-YJ
>
unfounded allegations about being abused by an innocent man. I'm sorry
that Periander, a serving police officer, no longer contributes to uk.legal.
She admitted her lies 20 years later and was given a suspended sentence
- plainly the right result.
