Boyfriend of Amy Whitehouse Cleared of Rape – Calls for Anonymity for Defendants in Rape cases

A film director has been cleared of raping a sleeping woman at his central London flat.

Reg Traviss, 35, who was the boyfriend of singer Amy Winehouse when she died, denied raping the woman twice early on New Year’s Eve 2011.

She told Southwark Crown Court she was too drunk to stand and would not have had sex with him.

But Mr Traviss said she had seduced him after a night’s drinking and the sex at his Marylebone flat was consensual….

Leaving court, Mr Traviss hit out at the authorities for not stopping “the train” of a very weak prosecution.

Calling for anonymity for defendants in rape cases, he said: “In a nutshell she [the complainant] is either mentally ill or she is evil and had an agenda.

“Whether or not that worked out or would be fulfilled, she was also on that train and had to see it through to the end.”

The trial heard the complainant often talked about being “skint”.

Mr Traviss said he believed if he had been convicted the complainant may have tried to sue him.

“It could have been purely monetary,” he said.

“She might have perceived it as a one-night stand and felt ashamed and tried to justify it by saying I have taken advantage of her.

“None of us know why she did it.”

6 thoughts on “Boyfriend of Amy Whitehouse Cleared of Rape – Calls for Anonymity for Defendants in Rape cases”

  1. Anonymity for defendants in rape cases is a horrible idea and would serve feminism. Just think of all the extra publicity about feminist rape prosecutions and rape law generated thanks to the defendant’s celebrity status in this case. We really don’t want to sweep under the rug the fact that the feminist state will accommodate any drunk woman regretting sex and do its best to have the man convicted of rape. And of course, secrecy is contrary to fundamental principles of justice and enables abuses by the state. The British rape shield law preventing the naming of sex accusers is a travesty and should be fought as well. Not even Norwegian law goes that far. How can you men live like that over there?

    MRAs supporting anonymity are almost as counterproductive as the ones supporting the female sex offender charade and the rest of the feminist abuse industry. It is really pathetic when the best some MRAs can come up with against feminist corruption of rape law is “anonymity for the accused.” I guess Mr Traviss isn’t an MRA, but he should at least have learned enough by this case to attack feminist jurisprudence itself rather than call for anonymity.

  2. @Eivind

    I guess Mr Traviss isn’t an MRA, but he should at least have learned enough by this case to attack feminist jurisprudence itself rather than call for anonymity.

    To be totally honest, I never looked at it that way before, but I certainly see your point and now agree. Especially a high-profile figure like Traviss. If he started making the kinds of noises you suggest, he’d certainly at least have had the wicked man-haters a little worried, not to mention the way that at least a handful of indoctrinated sheeple, might stop and listen to what he would have (could have) said.

    People like him are probably far more useful in advancing the cause for men’s rights, than the most popular ‘MRAs could ever be…

  3. @Eivind I agree with Alan that it’s an interesting point you make, and like him I had never really thought of that aspect before.

    Maybe we could support anonymity during the trial until the verdict is reached? I think the reason why most mras object to lack of anonymity is the hell that the accused has to go through for up to a year or more as an alleged rapist. Once they have been cleared, an accused man would not require anonymity, or at least not to the same extent, and could well want to make known what he has been unjustly put through. Also, the concerns you raised about anonymity could be dealt largely irrelevant if false accusers were punished as severely as the man would have been if found guilty. Unfortunately, although false accusers are being punished more often and more heavily than before in the UK, the bar is set very high. The girl has to basically confess that she made a false accusation. For example, in this case, although Mr Traviss has been cleared, there is no suggestion that the girl will be punished, or even that the judge claimed that she was a false accuser.

    The British rape shield law preventing the naming of sex accusers is a travesty and should be fought as well. Not even Norwegian law goes that far. How can you men live like that over there?

    I agree absolutely, and yes, it is very hard to live over here.

    People are having their doors smashed down in the middle of the night by the police for making ‘offensive’ jokes on Twitter, never mind naming rape ‘victims’. This is just about one of the very worst countries in the world to run a blog such as this. If you had lived here, and said the same things, you would likely have begun serving an indefinite sentence several years ago. You might not even have gained any media attention such is the level of acceptance of state control that the British public have swallowed and come to expect as normal during the last decade. In fact, if the government gets its way, your trial would likely be held behind closed doors :

    Now that’s real anonymity!

  4. This is fundamentally a freedom of speech issue, in addition to the MRA issues. Trials should be public, meaning anyone can go there and of course report what they see. Forcing the media or anyone else to not disclose the name of anyone in the courtroom is a hallmark of a totalitarian state and totally unacceptable.

    Now, what the media actually writes is another matter. For example in Norway and USA, the media usually conspire in not naming accusers. But this is by (feminist) conspiracy rather than law, and bloggers need not respect this of course. If MRAs should support anything to do with anonymity, it should be at the level of encouraging the media to not name the accused prematurely, rather than support totalitarian laws. But really, while I understand the individual discomfort it can cause to have your name out there, I would prefer maximum publicity for the machinations of the feminist state at all levels. It encourages socially responsible behavior in men who are falsely accused or accused based on ridiculous feminist laws: They have little to lose by becoming MRAs. Hiding behind anonymity is cowardly and selfish and should not be enabled, at least not by totalitarian laws which are also unconscionable for other, much deeper reasons.

    I have personally felt on my body how the feminist state seeks secrecy to hide their wicked ways, when I was dragged cops in handcuffs through back doors and corridors into the court house in an attempt by the cops to evade the press photographers. And once in court, the prosecutor requested closed doors because the state had something to hide. My lawyer and I were able to defeat the secrecy, and we were also able to talk to the journalists and get plenty of pictures taken, but I got a feel for the type of regime you support when you support secrecy, and trust me, it is not nice. Of course, I was arraigned as an activist and obviously PR was my whole point, and I realize other accused men will often be less inclined to activism and just want the whole thing to go away with minimal attention, but that is precisely why secrecy serves feminism so well.

    Imagine if rape trials proceeded in the dark until and unless there is a guilty verdict. From the media one would get the impression that false accusations did not exist and that the state always had a hell of a case whenever a woman cries rape. All the abuses happening prior to conviction including remand imprisonment would go largely unnoticed, allowing the feminist state to perpetuate its hateful ways.

  5. I’d also never seen it like Eivind puts it but yes, the more publicity such cases get, the more people will realise what kind of Society we live in. All the more since the target of false rape/harassement accusations will often be well-know figures (because they’re the ones with the money). Alas, a well-know figure turning against the feminist establishment is rare. I’m thinking right now of of John Cleese’s latest divorce:

    The furthest he was prepared to go is to say ‘My anger is not so much about sharing the property but having to go on working hard to provide alimony for someone who’s already going to have at least $10million (£6.12million) worth of property, and who’s getting £1million this year. At some point you say, “Well, what did I do wrong?” The system is insane”

    The system is insane John? Why not name feminisme by name? Why not mention men’s rights for a change?

  6. Eivind:
    You mentioned something that I’d completely forgotten about: US law DOES NOT mandate that the name of the accuser be kept confidential. The media simply does it voluntarily.

    A huge problem over here though is that the media has no scruples about trying and convicting the accused publically. In a jury trial, this can prejudice a jury to a large extent. In some cases, the media even encourages the public to put pressure on judges to get the verdicts the femihags want. In one famous case, Murdoch henchman Bill O’Reilly objected to a judge ordering a convicted paedophile to treatment rather than prison. He posted the judge’s pictures, address, contact information and the judge eventually resigned because of the harassment he received.

    In a way, I agree that more exposure would be good, but the media is also very prone to spinning that exposure into a witch-hunt.

Comments are closed.