
Rape Case Solved By Anonymous in Less Than 2 Hours Despite "No Evidence" - colinismyname
http://www.policymic.com/articles/34491/rehtaeh-parsons-rape-case-solved-by-anonymous-in-less-than-2-hours-despite-no-evidence
======
cperciva
This case is getting a large amount of attention on blogs, but as usual blogs
are not the most reliable source of information.

It may be true that it took some individuals calling themselves "Anonymous"
two hours to discover the identities of the youth who had sex with Rehtaeh
Parsons. While Canadian law prohibits the publication of identities of youth
accused of crimes (on the basis that youthful indiscretions, even of a serious
criminal nature, should not follow perpetrators for their entire lives), it's
not all that difficult to find someone who knows someone who knows who was
involved.

The police also knew exactly who was involved, and have known for over a year.

The "lack of evidence" referred to by police was not a lack of evidence of who
was involved, but rather a lack of sufficient evidence that the sexual
encounter was criminal. Even if they believed that Rehtaeh Parsons had been
raped, the bar for laying criminal charges is "significant likelihood of
conviction", and the bar for conviction is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
-- and where the alleged victim does not make a complaint until after facing
bullying for what her peers were presuming was consensual, it can easily raise
doubts as to her veracity.

(The lesser issue, of producing and distributing child pornography, was the
opposite: Clearly an offence had occurred, and they knew whose phone was used;
but they had no way to prove which of three suspects was responsible.)

As far as I can tell, the police and prosecutors were entirely correct in
their investigation and analysis of the situation. The only officials who did
not do their jobs were the school administrators who failed to prevent or stop
the bullying which Rehtaeh Parsons was subjected to, and the mental health
workers who failed to take Rehtaeh Parsons's suicide threats seriously enough.

~~~
analog
_"Even if they believed that Rehtaeh Parsons had been raped"_

She was under the age of consent, legally there is zero doubt it was rape.
Edit: Apparently under Canadian law it may not have been statutory rape.

Edit: Also, apparently she was vomiting whilst being assaulted[1]. I'd like to
meet the lawyer who could convince a jury that consent was given.

[1] _"One of the boys snapped a picture on his mobile phone of Rehtaeh
vomiting while allegedly being assaulted."_
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-search-
for-...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-search-for-answers-
amid-the-grief-for-rehtaeh-parsons/article11175714/)

~~~
Pwnguinz
No she wasn't. Do you even understand Canadian law? The age of consent is 14,
if the other partner is within 5 years of age. Her classmates at the party
would have been, presumably, within 5 years of age.

Source: <http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html> "The Criminal
Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.

For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner
as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no
relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of
the young person."

Edit to address your Edit: Because after having a lot of drinks at a party
('drunk'), and then having what could be considered strenuous physical
activity (i.e. sex) would not induce vomiting if it wasn't rape, right? Look,
I'm not at all condoning what the 4 male youth have done, but let's still use
_logic_ in our discussions.

Further Edit: Also I just want to add, unlike other Commonwealth Nations (e.g.
Britain), the Canadian legal system does NOT allow extra charges to be tacked
on while the legal proceedings are in motion. So before the RCMP and Crown
Prosecutors initiate prosecutorial charges, they need to be relatively certain
that they have enough evidence to win as they stand currently. They can't just
say "Hey, I charge you with X with evidence Y, Z. Let's go to court." Then 5
days later say "and also A with evidence B, C."

~~~
analog
Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be
convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?

~~~
Pwnguinz
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what
context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense
attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the
accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and
how the issue is presented to the judge and jury.

But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel
saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during
consensual intercourse, she threw up."

Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if
it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have
the negative connotation that you're envisioning.

~~~
analog
Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very
strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex
with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.

~~~
cperciva
In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable
to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was
not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.

~~~
analog
She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of
intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it
beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence.

[1] _“because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the
victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t
evidence of rape is beyond us.”_
[http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons_we_couldnt_turn_away_a_request_for_justice/)

~~~
cperciva
Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was
intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove _beyond a reasonable doubt_ that
she was intoxicated _to the point of being unable to consent_ is a different
question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know
what witness statements may have indicated.

I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police
and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm
inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.

------
rollo_tommasi
That anyone would celebrate what is essentially a case of vigilante mob
justice is extremely disturbing.

What rules of evidence do Anonymous have to follow? Who holds them
accountable?

Law enforcement's hands are often tied for extremely good reasons.
Occasionally that means cases can't be investigated as thoroughly as they
ought to be, but the alternative is worse.

~~~
whackedspinach
What rules do they have to follow? It sounds like they were contacted by the
witnesses.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
How does a witness contact anonymous? And how do "anonymous" even verify that
these witnesses are legitimate?

Just reads like a bunch of people wanting to do "something" about this and a
bunch of other people trolling them (i.e. giving them false leads etc).

------
macchina
Anonymous didn't solve anything by identifying the alleged rapists. Nothing I
have read suggests that Canadian law enforcement didn't know who the suspects
were. They simply did not file charges. We don't know why exactly they didn't
file charges, but for some reason they determined there was no case.

~~~
Kequc
It seems to me what anonymous was saying is that isn't good enough. Also that
the identities of the assailants would become available eventually with or
without any help.

------
aroberge
This is an awful story. One thing that seems glaringly obvious: the police
does NOT need additional snooping powers on the Internet - they simply have to
learn to use what's already available. Yet, politicians will likely soon claim
that they need more such power that anonymous supposedly have.

~~~
Pwnguinz
Emperor Harper doesn't need a _reason_ to increase Federal censorship and
policing powers. He does it fine all by his lonesome already.

If anyone is curious, read Michael Geist's (<http://www.michaelgeist.ca/>)
blog for more details and intelligent commentary on the political details
regarding current Canadian digital rights/copyright/surveillance schmucks that
Emperor Harper and his Goon Cabinet are hatching up.

~~~
obstacle1
Emperor Harper? Goon Cabinet? Is Reddit leaking or something? What a bunch of
crap. You know Michael Geist had a ton of very positive things to say about
C-11 [1], right? You didn't want to link directly to that commentary, though.
I wonder why?

[1] - <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6695/99999/>

~~~
Pwnguinz
Perhaps you need a refresher. When Bill C-11 was introduced, it was a CARBON
COPY of Bill C-32, of which Mr. Geist did not give a very flattering review at
all: <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6031/125/>

How about this piece: "In other words, virtually every education group and
provincial education minister in Canada - along with major businesses and
retailers - have joined with librarians, archivists, and documentary film
makers to oppose the government's position on digital locks."

So, in other words, even their corporate business overlords thought their
puppet underlying Harper & Goon Co. were over acting.

It was after a lot of petitioning and citizen activism that the amendments to
the bills were made enough so that it was passed. I even petitioned my MP, so
I'd consider myself part of the solution. To be fair, Emperor Harper at least
had the decency to not shove it down everyone's throat, though he very easily
could have done so with a majority party.

And Reddit? Seriously? I don't even go on that filth of a site, so please, why
don't _you_ go back to "The Frontpage of the Internet" (or whatever the heck
they brand themselves these days)?

~~~
obstacle1
It is unclear to me why you think a criticism of a bill at introduction should
outweigh praise of the same bill at adoption. Do you understand how
legislation is made? Have you heard of political process? Here is a refresher:
someone proposes a bill, people debate it, changes are made and incorporated
into the bill. This cycle repeats a few times (usually 3). Then a final vote
is held. If the yeas overwhelm the nays, the bill passes. Otherwise, the bill
fails.

After going through this process, C-11 (which was absolutely NOT a carbon copy
of anything in its final form) passed. Michael Geist then wrote the piece I
linked explaining why there were a lot of great provisions in bill C-11.

You sound like a teenager who has just learned to rebel against his parents'
political views. The nickname "Harper & Goon Co." is not part of a reasonable
discussion of Canadian politics. Your points don't make any sense.

------
pekk
Let's see how satisfied you are with Anonymous' 2-hour justice process when
you are the accused.

------
niggler
The most tragic part of the story is that it took a suicide for anyone to
care.

~~~
Xcelerate
Unfortunately, that is very commonly the case (Aaron Swartz).

~~~
lukifer
I remember the original thread that Aaron posted to HN asking for help when
his legal problems began. The replies were mostly unsympathetic.

------
pdeuchler
This article gives the wrong idea and doesn't have many specifics... following
a couple links I found this page:

[http://www.inquisitr.com/613702/rehtaeh-parsons-case-
solved-...](http://www.inquisitr.com/613702/rehtaeh-parsons-case-solved-by-
anonymous-in-two-hours/)

Which includes the Anonymous video. Should clear up a lot of questions.

Edit: Submitted that link as a separate article:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5544835>

------
khalstvedt
If Anons truly received a flood of testimony after posting on some forums, law
enforcement must have pretty much actively avoided hearing testimony.

The photo/video-sharing aspect of this case is particularly interesting; not
analyzing available data from the internet (or simply not even knowing
photos/video pertaining to the case are being widely distributed) is likely
going to be a focal point, but heightened law enforcement use of evidence from
the digital domain is probably touchy for many of the same Anons that
contributed to this.

------
Pwnguinz
Original Anonymous Statement on Pastebin: <http://pastebin.com/Q8VWUy7a>

------
jokoon
Well I don't like all this for several reasons.

Whoever are working hard to bring justice, it seems like it's for glory of
anonymous, because now she's dead, it's like "oh this was real then, it has
gain attention, etc".

I like how anon can do good things, but I don't really like the fact that
courts are fucked enough so than internet is the last common sense around
here. It's like emotion driving the case. It's not really sane.

I would not like to let justice be handled by an internet group is all, to see
become the mob or whatever thing.

When society is stupid to let those bastards go, society does an error, and
it's responsible for it in a way. You can't always kick evil in the nuts and
act like a superhero.

Even if those guys go to jail, it's still sad she's dead, but at least that
will teach other people to have more courage to make justice happen more
quickly.

------
gfunk911
I really want some more details here

~~~
anonymouz
Yep. For example, why did those people who know the rapists or had the photos
apparently not give them to the police before? Or did the case that Anonymous
built actually work out in the end?

~~~
mnicole
An article I read said that the police knew whose phone the photo was taken
off of, but that they didn't want to arrest anyone because they didn't know
whose finger pressed the button to actually take it. Just mind-boggling that
despite an alleged rape with photo evidence, they wouldn't arrest anyone for
distribution of child pornography because they couldn't prove _who_ took the
picture. If no one wanted to fess up to it, either let the phone owner take
the fall or make them all responsible.

~~~
illuminate
"Just mind-boggling that despite an alleged rape with photo evidence, they
wouldn't arrest anyone for distribution of child pornography because they
couldn't prove who took the picture. If no one wanted to fess up to it, either
let the phone owner take the fall or make them all responsible."

Primary school is not law.

~~~
mnicole
Right, because all of them were innocent to begin with.

~~~
illuminate
I fully agree with the horror of their actions and complicity.

It's just a bit more complicated and serious than "Who threw the spitball?
You're all guilty until one of you fesses up!"

------
ihsw
The case may be getting lots of attention however it indicates that one thing
is clear: people are losing faith in government-funded social support
structures.

Law enforcement agencies are being lambasted time and again (whether it's
valid criticism or not is irrelevant), and they continue to ignore claims of
how ineffectual they are. Someone needs to stand up and say "We are here for
you and we support you" otherwise it stands to reason that there are dangerous
undertones forming.

Cost-cutting policies are continuing to erode our faith in institutions that
exist to help and assist us in times of need, and it's becoming painfully
clear people are thinking they have nowhere else to turn. Social services
actively look for ways to avoid helping people, and they actively discourage
people from turning to them.

The libertarian in me finds is absolutely wonderful that people are realizing
they need to become self-sufficient but it's frightening as well.

