Rape Case Solved By Anonymous in Less Than 2 Hours Despite "No Evidence"

http://www.policymic.com/articles/34491/rehtaeh-parsons-rape-case-solved-by-anonymous-in-less-than-2-hours-despite-no-evidence

by colinismyname • 13 years ago

87 61 13 years ago

policymic.com

niggler• 13 years ago

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

Xcelerate• 13 years ago

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

lukifer• 13 years ago

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

gfunk911• 13 years ago

I really want some more details here

alex_anglin• 13 years ago

The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/) among other national Canadian papers are covering this story extensively. Be forewarned the details are to me very disturbing - both of the incident and subsequent treatment of the victim, but also of the official response which the article covers.

anonymouz• 13 years ago

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?

cperciva5• 13 years ago

The police had the photos and knew who the accused rapists were.

mnicole2• 13 years ago

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.

khalstvedt• 13 years ago

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.

rollo_tommasi• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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

Pwnguinz7• 13 years ago

If I were to hazard a guess, it probably had to do with the fact that the 'suspects' in this case were all minors, and perhaps the RCMP has access to fewer avenues of investigation without any hard evidence, and the judge/magistrate would most likely not as easily grant any sort of search warrant as easily due to the suspects being minors.

I'm from Canada, and the police are generally very much cuffed at the hands when it comes to dealing with minors. Just look at the Vancouver 2011 riot. It took the RCMP over a year even with all the picture/video evidences before they could legally bring any sort of charges against a lot of the younger perpetrators.

UnoriginalGuy• 13 years ago

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).

Anderkent2• 13 years ago

It's not 'mob justice' to collect evidence. The article does not speak about Anonymous punishing the actors, only on the amount of witness testimony and other evidence that they found.

numbsafari• 13 years ago

According to Canadian laws, and the laws of many other societies, even accusing a juvenile of a criminal offense is essentially considered punishment since it will color their future regardless of whether or not they are acquitted. That is one of many reasons why we have separate legal frameworks for juvenile offenders.

So, assuming the police have one set of suspects, and they are all juveniles under the law and a lack of sufficient evidence, this is nothing more than a mob's attempt to railroad the accused.

As another commenter posted above: see how you feel about "Anonymous justice" when you are in their cross-hairs.

DanBC• 13 years ago

Where's the mob justice part?

mhurron• 13 years ago

Law enforcement is given strong shackles because of the power they (the government) has. These same controls are not applied to the general populous.

The police can not break into your house if they believe you have evidence of a crime. If he does, evidence found can not be used against you. Your neighbor on the other hand, can. He can also take that evidence to the police and they can use it in that case. Now, he may also be charged with a crime, but that evidence can be used against you.

ahomescu1• 13 years ago

However, your neighbor breaking in is trespassing. You can press charges against him or even (in many countries) defend your property by force. You can't really do that against cops.

illuminate3• 13 years ago

"If he does, evidence found can not be used against you. Your neighbor on the other hand, can. He can also take that evidence to the police and they can use it in that case. Now, he may also be charged with a crime, but that evidence can be used against you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_o...

Hrm, interesting.

aroberge• 13 years ago

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.

Pwnguinz7• 13 years ago

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.

obstacle12• 13 years ago

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/

pekk2• 13 years ago

Asking the police to deliver Anonymous-style justice seems ill-advised. We have due process for a reason.

pdeuchler• 13 years ago

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-...

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

cperciva5• 13 years ago

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.

MrJagil• 13 years ago

Do you have any sources for this:

"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. "

You do seem trustworthy, I would just like to verify and read more.

Pwnguinz7• 13 years ago

Yes, straight from the RCMP's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3XG-4ftF8#t=2m

"There were insufficient evidence to proceed to charges."

That Youtube link is a video of a RCMP officer being interviewed on air.

analog7• 13 years ago

"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-...

Pwnguinz7• 13 years ago

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."

throwawayG92• 13 years ago

In USA everything can be rape, even consensual sex between two 17 y/o teenagers. So please don't talk like this was or had to be universal or something. Nobody is a child until 18, and then magically become an adult when law makers say so. I'm proud to say that 15-17 years old girls can be hot, and I can feel attracted to them.

general_failure• 13 years ago

Question 1: If drunk boys have sex with drunk girl, is it rape? Who raped who? Some news sites claim that the boys say that the girl _wanted_ to have sex.

Question 2: how can minors get access to liquor?

cperciva5• 13 years ago

Answer 1: If they are sufficiently intoxicated as to be unable to consent, then yes, it is rape. In such a case all the individuals involved could theoretically be charged and convicted -- it is possible to have "mutual rape".

Answer 2: In decreasing order of probability: Fake ID, older friends/relatives, theft.

Pwnguinz7• 13 years ago

Original Anonymous Statement on Pastebin: http://pastebin.com/Q8VWUy7a

pekk2• 13 years ago

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

macchina• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

ihsw• 13 years ago

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.

jokoon• 13 years ago

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.

Rape Case Solved By Anonymous in Less Than 2 Hours Despite "No Evidence"

Related Stories