University Student Cleared Of Rape After Police Admit To Withholding 40,000 Messages From His Accuser

Metropolitan_Police_FlagFor two years, Liam Allan, 22, lived in fear after he was accused of 12 rapes and assaults by a woman.  He was facing 20 in jail and put his life on hold as he insisted that he was innocent. What he did not know until recently was the police in England had possession of 40,000 messages from his accuser, including messages asking him for “casual sex.”  Three days after the disclosure, all charges were dropped. Allan is now suing the Metropolitan Police.

Such a lawsuit is obviously warranted.  However, the question is whether any of the officers with knowledge of this evidence will be held accountable. As for the accuser, it is not clear if the messages contradict her statements to the police.  They were clearly damaging enough to result in the dismissal of all charges. However, the woman (whose identity is still being withheld) has not been charged with any crime of a false report.

The evidence was found on a computer disk and is believed to have been reviewed by officers, but not shown to either defense counsel or prosecutors.  Obviously, any messages between the accuser and the accused are highly material to any investigation or prosecution.

The Metropolitan police has promised an investigation but this student has spent two hellish years in legal limbo.  He is more likely to gain more information from his lawsuit than the police on such a controversy.

24 thoughts on “University Student Cleared Of Rape After Police Admit To Withholding 40,000 Messages From His Accuser”

  1. “I believe that the “believe all women” vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified. They are above reproach.

    I believe that it’s condescending to think that women and their claims can’t stand up to interrogation and can’t handle skepticism. I believe that facts serve feminists far better than faith. That due process is better than mob rule.

    Maybe it will happen tomorrow or maybe next week or maybe next month. But the Duke lacrosse moment, the Rolling Stone moment, will come. A woman’s accusation will turn out to be grossly exaggerated or flatly untrue.”

    1. “Women are no longer human and flawed. They are Truth personified.”

      Sounds like an oddly Victorian point of view.

  2. Was he in jail for those two hellish years?
    Is this England where this happened?

    1. According to the original story, they were text messages, not e-mails, and they were from the accuser to her friends, not to Liam. Apparently she told her friends that she “pestered” Liam for “casual sex”. And seriously, *40,000* text messages?!

  3. Always lock your doors. If/when police appear at your door unexpected, never unlock the door. Direct the police to meet you at a window, which you shall open for brief conversation.

    The second you unlock the door, the police shall later tell a judge “the subject allowed us access,” meaning to the whole house. Whether or not you verbally gave the police access, you did so physically.
    A judge shall later agree with the police that you gave them access.

    Ordering the police to do anything, including leave your home is a fool’s game once you opened the door. To attempt to physically block police from walking past you for full access is to welcome “suicide by cop.” One particular YT video shows the police walking right past a woman whose crime was to be the mother of a fugitive, while she verbally ordered them to leave, which they ignored during their illegal (but never charged) trespass.

    Really, the best policy appears to be to avoid police conversation like the plague, claim your 5th Amendment right, dial your attorney, and let your attorney do all the talking. Police, often being lazy and stupid civil “servants,” normally just move on to a more naive and cooperative subject.

    I have heard, and have no reason to disbelieve, that when refusing to speak to police, one must (not optional) verbally claim their “5th Amendment” privilege, and to omit such verbiage later allows the court to use your silence against you, claiming your silence indicates knowledge of guilt rather than the required claim of legal privilege.

    1. Joseph:

      Your advice is good, but recognize that there could be a cost.

      Most local cops are benevolent – they are not out to “nail” a normal citizen (read white, middle aged, middle class). Most contacts can be defused by some normal courtesy and a few minutes (I have avoided 7 traffic tickets because I was legally armed (informed them up front; that indicated that I had passed the CO background check), polite and my violations were not egregious).

      But. There are the outliers; aggressive/AH cops and many federal agents. Those encounters require the careful handling that you suggest.

      The problem is recognizing the difference.

      My suggests are:

      (1) Never let a cop into your house; and
      (2) Trust your gut – if the meeting is going south, clam up and assert your rights.

      1. Steve Fleischer – I have a safety screendoor. It works like a scrim during the day, I can see them, but since I am not lit, they cannot see me and I can see them. They can hear my voice, but all it is a shadowy figure talking to them. I am the voice of God. Makes it very easy to get rid of door-to-door salespeople.

        Having watched so many British police procedurals, I think I like their use of the “No comment” that the defendants use during interrogations.

  4. There is the ‘run-away train’ in America and people believe everything they read in the media and the TV teasers which are prominent today. When I say ‘money talks’ and ‘poverty perp walks’ the majority of society didn’t recognize it until all the night profile situations came to light. All it takes is an accusation as there is NO repercussions if untrue, due process is DOA because as District Judge Radoff said in 2014 – 97% of federal cases and 94% of state cases end in plea deals. Please don’t think or say a person would not plead out if they didn’t do it. Look up Brian Banks who was fast tracked to go pro football. Also at issue is mandatory minimums and mass incarceration. The federal government sets the MM which have NOT been updated for some time and there are no plans to do so anytime in the future.

    Various organizations have come out against this instead of allowing judicial discretion. ABA, ASC – who complains policymakers tend to ignore their studies and pursue ideas based more on whims than science. Expensive over-incarceration does NOT promote any restoration but it is explained if you ‘follow the money!’

  5. 40,000 text msgs and it was rape? Who the hell are they kidding? I watch a lot of Britsh police procedurals and they do have a theme of hiding info or framing bad guys. But this is over the top even for them, usually, they are covering up for other cops or pedophile rings.

  6. Obviously UK police, but there are enough cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct in the U.S. that I feel a degree of skepticism is warranted when I see prosecutors pile on charges and the person has lived an otherwise normal life.

    Further, when I see a person prosecuted for lying to a federal agent when there is otherwise no underlying crime (eg Martha Stewart), I question whether our prosecutors seek justice or wins.

    One consequence is that I am very reluctant to speak with police or federal agents – fortunately few of us ever have to speak with them, but American citizens are learning caution.

    1. Wins. 100% That is what is broken within our system. How are prosecutors/ cops judged? Percentage of convictions and percentage of cases closed. If they want to keep their job or to advance, they have to have high percentages of closures/ convictions. Those numbers are leading to more and more innocent people being raliroaded.
      If it was really about justice, why are so many that have been wrongfully imprisoned end up pleading guilty or no contest to a lesser charge just to get out of prison? The cops/ prosecutors will do ANYTHING to not only convict someone, but to protect that conviction at all costs.

    2. Should lying to federal agents be legalized? Citizens have the right to refuse to speak to law enforcement officers. Let them exercise it. Lying to law enforcement is obstruction of justice and should be treated as such. Martha Stewart is a sympathetic figure because she lied to protect her friend. She could have just refused to speak to the FBI.

    3. I question whether our prosecutors seek justice or wins.

      I’ve seen enough stories of people who have clear evidence they were wrongfully convicted and the prosecutor’s office refuses to give them a new trial or exonerate them, to know they are more concerned with wins than justice.

Comments are closed.