He was made to see a psychiatrist because he was "in denial" about raping someone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567...-police-blunder.html

First they deliberately jail innocent people, Then refuse their parole and give them unnecessary treatment if they dont go along with the lie.
It is no wonder so many innocent people plead guilty, is it?

Will she go to prison or an asylum ?

andrew wrote:
Will she go to prison or an asylum ?

Probably neither. Remember that woman who did it (I think?) seven times?

Nothing will happen to her like many others they get away with it along with the police who should BELIEVE no one and find the truth.
Many will refer to her for years to come as "the victim" the madness will continue.

He should name her now although the courts will still be protecting her.

And as I've often said I don't blame her (neither does he); I blame the police and the CPS; less obvious but far more evil is encouraging such deceit and failing to stop it.

Actually JK, I think we can point the finger at the accuser in this case. When asked by the police to provide Facebook messages between her and her victim, she supplied a falsified message log, deliberately (and quite cleverly, I'll give her that) edited to make the guy look guilty. There's probably enough there for a perverting the course of justice prosecution.

Also,

...a witness statement from the officer leading the investigation, saying the messages were obtained by asking the accuser to log in to Facebook and print them off. ‘I made sure that no messages were missed.’

Oh really PC Plod? I'd like to hear all about how he made sure no messages were missed. Best case scenario is either that he's plain lazy or he's utterly incompetent at investigations. Should be dismissed in either case. If he's knowingly made that statement falsely, that's a more serious -and criminal - kettle of fish.

WTF how was a message log supplied by her even allowed in court? In a 'normal' legal system my understanding is that first evidence must be shown to the judge and there may be some argument between the defence and prosecution over whether the evidence can be shown to the jury, in which case the judge would decide. So evidence like this, where it can easily be made up, would be banned from being shown to the jury.

Of course I'm not a lawyer so who knows, but if what I suggested ever did exist I assume some feminist rape law abolished it all in favor of finding innocent men guilty of rape.

Also it's all very well blaming the police and the CPS - and they are utter scum - but our supposedly totally objective court system should then be able to show that either the evidence is doubtful (thus NOT GUILTY) or the evidence is blatantly fake (thus NOT GUILTY) but our courts don't. Both because they fail to scrutinise evidence shown by the victim properly and because even if it's just her word for it they take that as evidence! A suspected liars word is not evidence! FFS