Police searching for good Samaritan who stopped man raping woman in Brighton street

Park Crescent Road, Brighton

Park Crescent Road, Brighton

First published in News
Last updated
by , Chief reporter

POLICE are looking for a good Samaritan who stopped a woman being raped in the street.

The 43-year-old was attacked in the street in Park Crescent Road, Brighton at 6am on Monday.

A passerby saw what happened and intervened. The police were called and a man was arrested.

Detective Constable Aran Boyt said: "We are appealing for any witnesses who noticed anything in the area at the time. In particular we would like to trace a potentially important witness who approached the victim and the man at the time.

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

The witness is described as a slim white man aged in his 60s and was wearing a blue and white horizontally striped T shirt and light coloured trousers. He was about 5' 7" with either grey cropped hair or bald.

If you are the witness or if you have any information about the incident contact police on 101 or email 101@sussex.pnn.police.uk quoting serial 195 of August 4.

Euan Roberts, 32, of no fixed address, has been charged with raping a woman in Park Crescent Road, Brighton, on August 4.

He was due to appear at Brighton Magistrates' Court today.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:04pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Peppers I says...

Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter. Peppers I
  • Score: 28

3:05pm Tue 5 Aug 14

whatsisname says...

Nice one Cyril, if anyone knows who the witness may be, get in contact!
Nice one Cyril, if anyone knows who the witness may be, get in contact! whatsisname
  • Score: 16

3:06pm Tue 5 Aug 14

whatsisname says...

I was thinking that too Peppers?!
I was thinking that too Peppers?! whatsisname
  • Score: 2

3:10pm Tue 5 Aug 14

spa301 says...

If this is the work of the chief reporter then what hope is there for the Argus. Sketchy and incoherent at best.
If this is the work of the chief reporter then what hope is there for the Argus. Sketchy and incoherent at best. spa301
  • Score: -11

3:14pm Tue 5 Aug 14

s&k says...

Yes, very brave cos you never know if someone's going to pull a knife - or worse. Good on ya, fella.
Yes, very brave cos you never know if someone's going to pull a knife - or worse. Good on ya, fella. s&k
  • Score: 30

3:35pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.

Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
[quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words! Nikski
  • Score: -4

3:49pm Tue 5 Aug 14

NickBrt says...

Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape? NickBrt
  • Score: 27

3:50pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Spx says...

In court today, snap his neck tomorrow!
In court today, snap his neck tomorrow! Spx
  • Score: 4

3:51pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Asleep in Dorset says...

Nikski wrote:
Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.


Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
think you'll find you are the numptie, Nikski, Peppers was correct in his comment ?
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words![/p][/quote]think you'll find you are the numptie, Nikski, Peppers was correct in his comment ? Asleep in Dorset
  • Score: 23

4:16pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Peppers I says...

Asleep in Dorset wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.



Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
think you'll find you are the numptie, Nikski, Peppers was correct in his comment ?
Are you some kind of cretin Nikski telling me I haven't read the story correct. Go have another read of the article and my post.

This is a sensitive sory which IMO requires some accurate journalism. Is it not about time we had some. I await your apology you fool.
[quote][p][bold]Asleep in Dorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words![/p][/quote]think you'll find you are the numptie, Nikski, Peppers was correct in his comment ?[/p][/quote]Are you some kind of cretin Nikski telling me I haven't read the story correct. Go have another read of the article and my post. This is a sensitive sory which IMO requires some accurate journalism. Is it not about time we had some. I await your apology you fool. Peppers I
  • Score: 9

4:19pm Tue 5 Aug 14

badger55114 says...

How about this thought. The poor woman was being raped, the witness stepped in and the alleged rapist stopped raping her and ran off. Ergo, the witness *stopped* the rape, he did not *prevent* it.

Reading properly does actually help.

Hope the woman recovers from her ordeal.
How about this thought. The poor woman was being raped, the witness stepped in and the alleged rapist stopped raping her and ran off. Ergo, the witness *stopped* the rape, he did not *prevent* it. Reading properly does actually help. Hope the woman recovers from her ordeal. badger55114
  • Score: 28

4:23pm Tue 5 Aug 14

spa301 says...

Nikski wrote:
Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.


Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
'pedantry about words'!!!
This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask?
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words![/p][/quote]'pedantry about words'!!! This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask? spa301
  • Score: -16

4:24pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
No the point is the guy stopped the rape and in order to stop something it must have started. If it had started then it would have been rape; attempted rape only if it hadn't started. Correct?
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]No the point is the guy stopped the rape and in order to stop something it must have started. If it had started then it would have been rape; attempted rape only if it hadn't started. Correct? Nikski
  • Score: -7

4:30pm Tue 5 Aug 14

whatsisname says...

My god, some of you must lead very boring lives...
My god, some of you must lead very boring lives... whatsisname
  • Score: 30

4:31pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Mrbrightside1 says...

Nikski wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
No the point is the guy stopped the rape and in order to stop something it must have started. If it had started then it would have been rape; attempted rape only if it hadn't started. Correct?
I get your rationale here, if the assailant had already started the rape and was then stopped of course he would be charged with rape rather than attempted rape.

In the scheme of things a young lady has had her world turned upside down, and here we are debating reporting and criticising one another.

Lets all grow up and show some respect shall we?
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]No the point is the guy stopped the rape and in order to stop something it must have started. If it had started then it would have been rape; attempted rape only if it hadn't started. Correct?[/p][/quote]I get your rationale here, if the assailant had already started the rape and was then stopped of course he would be charged with rape rather than attempted rape. In the scheme of things a young lady has had her world turned upside down, and here we are debating reporting and criticising one another. Lets all grow up and show some respect shall we? Mrbrightside1
  • Score: 27

4:34pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

badger55114 wrote:
How about this thought. The poor woman was being raped, the witness stepped in and the alleged rapist stopped raping her and ran off. Ergo, the witness *stopped* the rape, he did not *prevent* it.

Reading properly does actually help.

Hope the woman recovers from her ordeal.
Exactly, so it was rape and not attempted. All this semantics does rather detract from the real point of the article; that someone intervened to help a woman who was the victim of a horrible crime!
[quote][p][bold]badger55114[/bold] wrote: How about this thought. The poor woman was being raped, the witness stepped in and the alleged rapist stopped raping her and ran off. Ergo, the witness *stopped* the rape, he did not *prevent* it. Reading properly does actually help. Hope the woman recovers from her ordeal.[/p][/quote]Exactly, so it was rape and not attempted. All this semantics does rather detract from the real point of the article; that someone intervened to help a woman who was the victim of a horrible crime! Nikski
  • Score: 7

4:46pm Tue 5 Aug 14

rolivan says...

I didn't think The Argus allow comments with ongoing investigations and court cases.
I didn't think The Argus allow comments with ongoing investigations and court cases. rolivan
  • Score: -1

5:01pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Roundbill says...

spa301 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.



Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
'pedantry about words'!!!
This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask?
...should *be clearly written.
You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words![/p][/quote]'pedantry about words'!!! This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask?[/p][/quote]...should *be clearly written. You're welcome. Roundbill
  • Score: 1

5:13pm Tue 5 Aug 14

spa301 says...

Roundbill wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Nikski wrote:
Peppers I wrote:
Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.
You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties.




Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words!
'pedantry about words'!!!
This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask?
...should *be clearly written.
You're welcome.
Yes Mr Smug I did notice my omission. But and it's a big but I'm not a journalist.
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peppers I[/bold] wrote: Well done to this man but once again you have to question the journalistic skills of the Chief Reporter Emily Walker. Her headline clearly states he stopped the man from raping the woman but then you read the man has been charged with rape. How can that be , he either did or he didn't. I for one hope it's the latter.[/p][/quote]You have to question your reading skills more like! The article clearly says the witness, ie the man who intervened, was in his 60's, and the man charged with the rape is 32! What part don't you understand? Some people are so quick to jump in and criticise without bothering to read properly first......numpties. Hats off to the gent who went to the woman's aid, a true hero who put himself at risk for someone in trouble, THAT is the important part of this story not pedantry about words![/p][/quote]'pedantry about words'!!! This is an article by a journalist that should clearly written. There is little doubt about the hero of the incident. What many commentators on here try to point out to the 'journalists' is how poor some of their articles are, in the forlorn hope that they will try proof reading etc so we, the readers can get a more professional report. Is that too much to ask?[/p][/quote]...should *be clearly written. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Yes Mr Smug I did notice my omission. But and it's a big but I'm not a journalist. spa301
  • Score: -14

5:55pm Tue 5 Aug 14

vogon1 says...

I hope the victim is ok
I hope the victim is ok vogon1
  • Score: 8

6:26pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK. stevo!!
  • Score: -45

6:44pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
Well what does stevo know about 'reality'? Hmm let's see...
There are rarely 'open-and-shut' cases mastermind, and rape in particular is a crime that needs to be thoroughly investigated to ensure that the victim receives justice. You may be be aware (but I doubt it, awareness not being one of your strong points) that there has been a lot of publicity regarding police and courts handling of rape cases, with low prosecution rates and victims having to go through hideous ordeals to try and get justice. I do believe the situation is improving and the police are certainly improving their methods and treating victims sensitively. However, people like you, with stupid comments about no-one preventing it from happening and non-Samaritans, do not help anyone in any way. Has it occurred to you that the man who intervened may have prevented the attack from being much worse, or even from becoming something worse? Or that this guy risked his own safety to help the victim? He's a fine citizen and Good Samaritan in my book and in many others' judging by the comments on here. You have gone beyond being a joke stevo you are an utter fool and an embarrassment to the human race.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]Well what does stevo know about 'reality'? Hmm let's see... There are rarely 'open-and-shut' cases mastermind, and rape in particular is a crime that needs to be thoroughly investigated to ensure that the victim receives justice. You may be be aware (but I doubt it, awareness not being one of your strong points) that there has been a lot of publicity regarding police and courts handling of rape cases, with low prosecution rates and victims having to go through hideous ordeals to try and get justice. I do believe the situation is improving and the police are certainly improving their methods and treating victims sensitively. However, people like you, with stupid comments about no-one preventing it from happening and non-Samaritans, do not help anyone in any way. Has it occurred to you that the man who intervened may have prevented the attack from being much worse, or even from becoming something worse? Or that this guy risked his own safety to help the victim? He's a fine citizen and Good Samaritan in my book and in many others' judging by the comments on here. You have gone beyond being a joke stevo you are an utter fool and an embarrassment to the human race. Nikski
  • Score: 36

6:54pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
Well what does stevo know about 'reality'? Hmm let's see...
There are rarely 'open-and-shut' cases mastermind, and rape in particular is a crime that needs to be thoroughly investigated to ensure that the victim receives justice. You may be be aware (but I doubt it, awareness not being one of your strong points) that there has been a lot of publicity regarding police and courts handling of rape cases, with low prosecution rates and victims having to go through hideous ordeals to try and get justice. I do believe the situation is improving and the police are certainly improving their methods and treating victims sensitively. However, people like you, with stupid comments about no-one preventing it from happening and non-Samaritans, do not help anyone in any way. Has it occurred to you that the man who intervened may have prevented the attack from being much worse, or even from becoming something worse? Or that this guy risked his own safety to help the victim? He's a fine citizen and Good Samaritan in my book and in many others' judging by the comments on here. You have gone beyond being a joke stevo you are an utter fool and an embarrassment to the human race.
Let's deal with the facts, shall we?

A rape in progress was reported to police, and a man has subsequently been charged with that rape. The police caught him at the scene, and therefore no-one prevented it.

The police have the phone record of the person who reported it. Presumably that person also witnessed it (otherwise how could they have reported it?). If they need to speak to that person, they can.

My opinion on the facts are irrelevant and do not alter those facts - a rape occurred and someone has been charged with the offence in question. The police had enough evidence (probably forensic or even a confession or even catching him in the act).

If you wish to argue with Sussex Police on this matter, you are free to do so........just make sure your DNA wasn't found at the scene ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]Well what does stevo know about 'reality'? Hmm let's see... There are rarely 'open-and-shut' cases mastermind, and rape in particular is a crime that needs to be thoroughly investigated to ensure that the victim receives justice. You may be be aware (but I doubt it, awareness not being one of your strong points) that there has been a lot of publicity regarding police and courts handling of rape cases, with low prosecution rates and victims having to go through hideous ordeals to try and get justice. I do believe the situation is improving and the police are certainly improving their methods and treating victims sensitively. However, people like you, with stupid comments about no-one preventing it from happening and non-Samaritans, do not help anyone in any way. Has it occurred to you that the man who intervened may have prevented the attack from being much worse, or even from becoming something worse? Or that this guy risked his own safety to help the victim? He's a fine citizen and Good Samaritan in my book and in many others' judging by the comments on here. You have gone beyond being a joke stevo you are an utter fool and an embarrassment to the human race.[/p][/quote]Let's deal with the facts, shall we? A rape in progress was reported to police, and a man has subsequently been charged with that rape. The police caught him at the scene, and therefore no-one prevented it. The police have the phone record of the person who reported it. Presumably that person also witnessed it (otherwise how could they have reported it?). If they need to speak to that person, they can. My opinion on the facts are irrelevant and do not alter those facts - a rape occurred and someone has been charged with the offence in question. The police had enough evidence (probably forensic or even a confession or even catching him in the act). If you wish to argue with Sussex Police on this matter, you are free to do so........just make sure your DNA wasn't found at the scene ;-) stevo!!
  • Score: -45

7:19pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Withdean-er says...

However far this (alleged) crime went, well done to the guy who intervened.

If convicted, let's hope the perpetrator is given and serves an extremely long sentence. A vile crime, that would change the victim's life irreparably.
However far this (alleged) crime went, well done to the guy who intervened. If convicted, let's hope the perpetrator is given and serves an extremely long sentence. A vile crime, that would change the victim's life irreparably. Withdean-er
  • Score: -10

7:30pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Withdean-er wrote:
However far this (alleged) crime went, well done to the guy who intervened.

If convicted, let's hope the perpetrator is given and serves an extremely long sentence. A vile crime, that would change the victim's life irreparably.
What intervention was that? Someone is in court for the offence, so it occurred - no-one intervened.

And if the assailant was caught at the scene, why wasn't the non-Samaritan still there, too?
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: However far this (alleged) crime went, well done to the guy who intervened. If convicted, let's hope the perpetrator is given and serves an extremely long sentence. A vile crime, that would change the victim's life irreparably.[/p][/quote]What intervention was that? Someone is in court for the offence, so it occurred - no-one intervened. And if the assailant was caught at the scene, why wasn't the non-Samaritan still there, too? stevo!!
  • Score: -42

7:44pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevensavage says...

stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more. stevensavage
  • Score: 12

8:03pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
[quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point. stevo!!
  • Score: -41

8:33pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

stevo!! wrote:
stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)?
And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.[/p][/quote]Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)? And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say. Nikski
  • Score: 20

8:39pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)?
And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.
That is EXACTLY my point!!!!

Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much.

He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights.

They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.[/p][/quote]Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)? And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.[/p][/quote]That is EXACTLY my point!!!! Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much. He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights. They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward. stevo!!
  • Score: -42

8:43pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Nikski says...

stevo!! wrote:
Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)?
And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.
That is EXACTLY my point!!!!

Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much.

He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights.

They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.
Ah well done Inspector Clouseau. I think you have probably watched too many episodes of Midsomer Murders....'night stevo
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.[/p][/quote]Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)? And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.[/p][/quote]That is EXACTLY my point!!!! Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much. He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights. They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.[/p][/quote]Ah well done Inspector Clouseau. I think you have probably watched too many episodes of Midsomer Murders....'night stevo Nikski
  • Score: 25

8:55pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)?
And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.
That is EXACTLY my point!!!!

Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much.

He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights.

They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.
Ah well done Inspector Clouseau. I think you have probably watched too many episodes of Midsomer Murders....'night stevo
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

You arrived at the same conclusion that I had AFTER had spoonfed you what the police are up to.

This non-Samaritan was an accomplice who decided not to proceed with the assault for reasons known only to him. The rape occurred, and his mate is in court for it. The police want to trace the accomplice.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.[/p][/quote]Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)? And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.[/p][/quote]That is EXACTLY my point!!!! Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much. He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights. They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.[/p][/quote]Ah well done Inspector Clouseau. I think you have probably watched too many episodes of Midsomer Murders....'night stevo[/p][/quote]Thanks for admitting I'm right. You arrived at the same conclusion that I had AFTER had spoonfed you what the police are up to. This non-Samaritan was an accomplice who decided not to proceed with the assault for reasons known only to him. The rape occurred, and his mate is in court for it. The police want to trace the accomplice. HTH stevo!!
  • Score: -42

9:39pm Tue 5 Aug 14

stevensavage says...

stevo!! wrote:
Nikski wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
stevensavage wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?
Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski.

If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening.

Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him.

Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat.

Let's hope the woman is OK.
the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.
OR we could read what the police are saying:

"The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation."

So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them.

This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing.

The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on.

It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way.

Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.
Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)?
And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.
That is EXACTLY my point!!!!

Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much.

He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights.

They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.
this man isnt a suspect.hes somehow assisted this woman in some way.we can all speculate and have our own ideas with the ifs and buts of this case.but lets hope he comes forward and identifies himself.but some of the stupid pathetic comments on here may make him think twice.and he deserves thanks for helping this woman whom i hope is ok
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevensavage[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Nikski I think you mussed the point. Peppers is saying if the witness STOPPED the rape then rape did not happen so how come the assailant was charged with rape not attempted rape?[/p][/quote]Not for the first time, reality is something alien to Nikski. If the man has been charged with rape, then NO-ONE prevented it happening. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever for this non-Samaritan to come forward. The police were called, they arrested the assailant, and they should have all the evidence they need to proceed against him. Whenever the police ask for 'others' in these open-and-shut cases, I usually smell a rat. Let's hope the woman is OK.[/p][/quote]the police want the good samaratin to come forward as the guy coulld say it was consensual sex at his trial.the good samaratin would be a strong witness as he can back the womans statement up. some clever barrister at his trial could say the woman was drunk and the jury believe him and the accused walks.i hope they win the case and he gets convicted and jailed for 10 years or more.[/p][/quote]OR we could read what the police are saying: "The witness may not have realised what was taking place but may be able to provide crucial evidence in the investigation." So, this non-Samaritan isn't the one who called the police. That was clearly another person, the details of whom the police have because they aren't searching for them. This non-Samaritan also doesn't know (according to the police) just what was going on.....how can that person POSSIBLY provide evidence in suppoprt of a prosecution>? The police have told us that they knew nothing. The police have enough evidence to charge one person for rape WITHOUT this person coming forward. They have a witness who rang the police, so THEY were pretty confident that they knew what was going on. We also know that this non-Samaritan approached the assailant and victim BEFORE the rape occurred, otherwise he would have been in no doubt what was going on. It brings me to my first thought......this non-Samaritan might well have been connected to the alleged rapist in a way that suggest the total opposite to what the police are suggesting - that he was involved in the initial assault on the victim, and legged it when he realised that the police were on their way. Feel free to argue against that theory......marking it down is an admission that you think I have a point.[/p][/quote]Slight flaw in your argument, as there always is: the victim might have been able to give the police a clue as to whether the witness was involved in the initial assault, don't you think (no need to answer that I know you don't)? And marking down isn't really an admission that you have a point stevo, it rather indicates that you don't have a point. Pointless some might say.[/p][/quote]That is EXACTLY my point!!!! Of COURSE she has implicated him in the assault, which is why the police want to find him so much. He isn't a Good Samaritan in any way, shape, or form. Someone else rang the police, and the police know who that person is. The police were on the scene in moments, despite the early hour, and they caught the alleged rapist b ang-to-rights. They now want his accomplice, and they are using this pathetic ploy in a bid to bring him forward.[/p][/quote]this man isnt a suspect.hes somehow assisted this woman in some way.we can all speculate and have our own ideas with the ifs and buts of this case.but lets hope he comes forward and identifies himself.but some of the stupid pathetic comments on here may make him think twice.and he deserves thanks for helping this woman whom i hope is ok stevensavage
  • Score: 13

1:07am Wed 6 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

"this man isnt a suspect.hes somehow assisted this woman in some way.we can all speculate and have our own ideas with the ifs and buts of this case.but lets hope he comes forward and identifies himself."

What help did he give?

None.

He wasn't the person who called the police, and the rape occurred, at least as far as the CPS is concerned. The police have stated that they are aware that he may not known that a rape occurred, so they are basically removing him from the list of cast-iron witnesses that the CPS might be needing....which it doesn't, obviously.

The rapist is due in court. The evidence will be the victim's testimony and the forensic, showing that some form of sexual activity occurred. The non-Samaritan won't be able to give any further evidence in support of the CPS, because it will only be circumstantial, and will easily be demolished by the defence.

No, he's a suspect.
"this man isnt a suspect.hes somehow assisted this woman in some way.we can all speculate and have our own ideas with the ifs and buts of this case.but lets hope he comes forward and identifies himself." What help did he give? None. He wasn't the person who called the police, and the rape occurred, at least as far as the CPS is concerned. The police have stated that they are aware that he may not known that a rape occurred, so they are basically removing him from the list of cast-iron witnesses that the CPS might be needing....which it doesn't, obviously. The rapist is due in court. The evidence will be the victim's testimony and the forensic, showing that some form of sexual activity occurred. The non-Samaritan won't be able to give any further evidence in support of the CPS, because it will only be circumstantial, and will easily be demolished by the defence. No, he's a suspect. stevo!!
  • Score: -57

8:52am Wed 6 Aug 14

hoveguyactually says...

Meanwhile, in another article on the same subject.
"A woman was allegedly raped in the customer toilets in the Palace of Fun arcade, Palace Pier, on Friday evening."
Perhaps they should be re-naming the arcade. How about Palace of Horror?
Meanwhile, in another article on the same subject. "A woman was allegedly raped in the customer toilets in the Palace of Fun arcade, Palace Pier, on Friday evening." Perhaps they should be re-naming the arcade. How about Palace of Horror? hoveguyactually
  • Score: -10

9:24am Wed 6 Aug 14

Beachcomber56 says...

Rather than trying to make sense of this rather garbled story, read the official police appeal for witnesses at http://www.sussex.po
lice.uk/whats-happen
ing/latest/news-stor
ies/2014/08/05/appea
l-for-witnesses-to-r
ape-in-park-crescent
-road,-brighton

Any speculation beyond the information given there is pointless and could be harmful.
Rather than trying to make sense of this rather garbled story, read the official police appeal for witnesses at http://www.sussex.po lice.uk/whats-happen ing/latest/news-stor ies/2014/08/05/appea l-for-witnesses-to-r ape-in-park-crescent -road,-brighton Any speculation beyond the information given there is pointless and could be harmful. Beachcomber56
  • Score: 6

9:57am Wed 6 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Beachcomber56 wrote:
Rather than trying to make sense of this rather garbled story, read the official police appeal for witnesses at http://www.sussex.po

lice.uk/whats-happen

ing/latest/news-stor

ies/2014/08/05/appea

l-for-witnesses-to-r

ape-in-park-crescent

-road,-brighton

Any speculation beyond the information given there is pointless and could be harmful.
In what could pointing out that the non-Samaritan might have been involved 'harmful', and to what/whom?

The police have thankfully caught the only suspect in the attack (according to them) so no-one else is needed unless they are not telling us something.
[quote][p][bold]Beachcomber56[/bold] wrote: Rather than trying to make sense of this rather garbled story, read the official police appeal for witnesses at http://www.sussex.po lice.uk/whats-happen ing/latest/news-stor ies/2014/08/05/appea l-for-witnesses-to-r ape-in-park-crescent -road,-brighton Any speculation beyond the information given there is pointless and could be harmful.[/p][/quote]In what could pointing out that the non-Samaritan might have been involved 'harmful', and to what/whom? The police have thankfully caught the only suspect in the attack (according to them) so no-one else is needed unless they are not telling us something. stevo!!
  • Score: -22

12:11pm Mon 11 Aug 14

stevo!! says...

Still waiting for news of how the case is progressing.
Still waiting for news of how the case is progressing. stevo!!
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree