British Man Cleared Of Rape After Sister In Law Finds Original Facebook Messages Were Edited By Alleged Victim

200px-Facebook.svgDanny Kay, 26, will greet the New Year as a free man after being convicted of a rape that was based on altered evidence submitted by the alleged victim.  His freedom is due not to police work but the work of his sister in law Sarah Maddison.  Maddison decided to take a minute and look at the Facebook messages sent between Kay and the unnamed woman who accused him of rape.  What she found was that the police used messages that were misleadingly edited by the woman and that the real messages directly contradicted her claims.  The police revealed an utter incompetence in the investigation and the prosecutors have expressed no intent in looking at possible charges against the woman who is accused of changing the meaning of the messages from exculpatory to incriminating.  This follows an equally shocking reversal where the police were found to have withheld 40,000 messages from the defense in another rape case.

Archived versions of the original messages found by Maddison showed not only a consensual relationship but a desire to continue the relationship.

The messages showed that the evidence had been altered in clearly misleading ways.  For example, The jury were shown a message where Kay appears to apologize for the rape.  The response “sorry” in the message however was actually in response to the woman asking him why he was ignoring her. The question was deleted.  Also deleted was her response: “Dnt [sic] be.”  Likewise, one early message involved Kay asking the woman for her age.  She responded “nearly 17” and showed police that he responded “same here.”  That was untrue.  He actually response with question if she was single and she replies “yep.”  That is what he responded to in saying “same here.”

She also deleted messages where he wrote her to say that he lost her number (after the alleged rape).  She then send him her number with four kisses and also sends a message  ‘im still here for ya!’ When the couple later split up, she sent a message “I thought u woulda at least tried to get me back.”

The court reviewed the evidence and quashed the conviction.  Kay however had already spent two years in jail.

There is no indication that the woman will face any charges for submitting what appears to be altered evidence and a false claim of rape.  She remains unidentified as a sexual assault victim.

30 thoughts on “British Man Cleared Of Rape After Sister In Law Finds Original Facebook Messages Were Edited By Alleged Victim

  1. Why did the court accept these messages as evidence in the first place? It should have required that such evidence come from the original source, rather than at second-hand and attested to only by the accuser. This was the textual equivalent of hearsay testimony.

  2. What a vicious crime. 2 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit. I fear that criminal law has been politicized in the West.

    Why for Pete’s sake is the woman unidentified as a sexual assault victim? She’s a perpetrator, not a victim, of a savage assault. She should be tried. I believe that the only just sentence for such deliberate fraud would be an equal sentence to what her victim stood to suffer. That’s the only way to make it fair. Of course, such proposed new laws should require that intent be proven, rather than simply an allegation that could not be proved.

    I am so sorry for what this young man and his family endured. My God, did she send a man to prison for rejecting her? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

    They should immediately release her information as a matter of public record, as the man’s was released. Prosecute her, and inform the public of her crimes so that they may have some awareness she may not be trusted.

    This vile act is a slap in the face for every real victim of sexual assault.

    • This is the “patriarchy” in which we live, where women have the power to ruin a man’s life if they arbitrarily want to, with the assistance of the state.

  3. The same JT, who finds it so shocking and abhorrent, that a faux victim would lie about a sexual encounter, in an attempt to destroy a man’s life, is the exact same JT who repeatedly claimed to have found “credible” the tales–from decades and decades ago–of a few women, regarding their, supposed, sexual encounters with Moore, despite the lack of any evidence to support said tales or stories. See, JT, people lie. See, JT, people don’t always tell the truth. See, JT, people have all sorts of motives–some, known, some, not known–for fabricating tales against others. That’s why we live in a society of laws. Rules. Where evidence is crucial. Where we don’t jump to conclusions before a man’s life is destroyed tales, from decades ago and days before an election, of rape. I’m quite confident that you, too, before the falsified evidence was discovered, in this situation, would have found this woman, in the story, to have been credible, as well, because, after all, who needs evidence? Proof? The only thing that saved this poor schmuck is the miracle that the falsified evidence was located.

      • Malls are privately owned. Anyone unwelcome could have been–and, by the way, frequently are–asked not to be on the premisis. Anyone viewed as a threat could have been banned. Anyone perceived as a predator would have been told that his entry, onto the premisis, would be considered trespassing and actionable. The red flag sh$t is just that–sh$t. You know that. I know that. We all know that. Privately owned properties, like malls, have no problem issuing orders to have violators arrested for trespassing upon their properties. No fear, whatsoever, in demanding that various individuals–for any multitude of reasons–not come onto the properties. Numerous clients have, over the years, in response to charges including shoplifting, for example, been issued warnings to not enter the properties belonging to these malls. Why? Because they are viewed as threats. Liabilities. Problems. It could have easily happened to Moore. The red flag fable is just that– a fable. No need for red flags. The malls ban people who they consider to be undesirables. Casinos do the same thing. If Moore was the predator that all these women claim, the mall could’ve and would’ve banned his ability to troll the property. Pretty simple and straightforward. It didn’t, therefore, the red flag stuff is bs.

          • Yes. I know just how easy it is to have someone banned from private property, like a mall. As I mentioned, various clients were arrested for shoplifting at various stores located in malls. After such incidences, said clients were routinely–routinely–ordered to refrain from entering the property under threat of being arrested for trespassing. There is no red flag bs, which everyone seems to swallow. Doesn’t happen. If a mall doesn’t want a person, the person is informed, in no uncertain terms, to stay away. That is precisely why the faux red flag story, about Moore, is so unbelievable. Try to follow, if you can. I know that it’s a struggle. . .

        • The truth will not deter her. The facts and all rational beliefs be damned. Her disjointed comments, on these threads, are proof.

  4. Rape is a heinous crime that was accepted by societies for ages as natural; to the point where the victim would become the victim once again in court while the less than nothing would be described as just following nature’s call. The ball swings from one extreme to the other as society realizes how wrong it was. Rape then becomes a rallying cry to stop physical sexual abuse where ever it exists. The net pulls in the innocent just as the lack of a net once allowed scum to go free. Society is charged with prosecuting and punishing rapists while not adding to the pain and suffering of the victim. This brings the extreme of rape accusations being used as a weapon for nefarious reasons, just as the idiot that pranked/swatted resulting in the death of an innocent man. The unfortunate result of the need to scrutinize each instance will be the subjecting of the rape victim to further attention. However, the only way to stop false accusations is to punish more severely those using them for personal reasons. The woman falsely accusing the man should do the same time he would have done, not the two years but the entire sentence. This is the first reason for incarceration, to deter by example. The ‘swatter’ should be charged with and punished for manslaughter, minimum of 20 years. The police need also to be educated with suspensions and fines for using such a wide brush.

      • I agree FFS. It is that same line of reasoning that Identify Theft should be prosecuted and sentenced based on what the crime actually does…it effectively attempts to terminate one individual (the victim) and replace them with another by taking their life, liberty and property.

  5. This will happen to more innocent people until all parties responsible for the wrongful conviction are held accountable. This includes the woman claiming the rape, law enforcement, prosecutors, etc.

        • There is no indication that the woman will face any charges for submitting what appears to be altered evidence and a false claim of rape. She remains unidentified as a sexual assault victim”.
          THIS HAS TO CHANGE. Just look at the basic fact that fabricating evidence is a crime. Just look at the “swatting” thing which is treated harshly because it is wrongfully using the police resources based on lies. And also why is the woman kept anonymous?. Not only should her name be known, there should be a false accuser registry so people can look up names and avoid such women. P.S. Why does the last sentence still call her a victim?

        • Lots of false charges are leveled. There’s no closing the door on them. The people lying may or may not know consequences and may or may not be deterred by them.
          In general terms, prosecutors and investigators may fall.
          The critical fail safe is the representation of the person about whom the lie was made.

          If a person can’t afford adequate representation, we’re back in the dark ages of judicial and enforcement corruption.

          • If a person can’t afford adequate representation, we’re back in the dark ages of judicial and enforcement corruption.

            We’re back in the Dark Ages when the citizen is forced to defend himself against judicial and LE corruption. It’s not about affording adequate representation as the state has unlimited resources. It’s about supporting the weaponizing of the state to ignore the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s