sackmycook Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 SEX-SESSION CLAIMS ALL LIES - TEACHING ASSISTANT More Headlines | Back to home page BY SUZY GIBSON COURT STAFF 10:15 - 13 December 2006 A teaching assistant told a jury she never had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old pupil, claiming she treated him "like a son." The 54-year-old married mum said the boy's claims - that she seduced him and they regularly engaged in sex sessions at her house - were lies. Giving evidence in her defence, Linda Susan Ginnetta told Leicester Crown Court she had never cheated on her husband, Cliff, who is chairman of Leicester City FC supporters club. Ginnetta, an assistant at Hamilton Community College, in Leicester, said the boy, who was a pupil at the school had visited her family home, sometimes with other young people, and she could think of no reason why he would make up false claims about her. She admitted writing him a letter, which was produced in court, when he stopped visiting her and her teenage daughter. In it she wrote: "I guess it's finally sunk in that you're not going to be around any more. "There's no point in me texting because I only wait for a reply that won't come. "I've finally realised that you don't want any more to do with me. It hurts very, very much, but I have to face up to it somehow. "I never believed it would come to this. "We always promised that whatever happened we would always keep in touch but you obviously never meant it. "I'm sorry for anything I have done or said that's been wrong. "I'm sorry if I ever made you look or feel a fool. "I'm sorry for any hurt I've caused and for caring about you too much, for doing your head in about so much. "All the promises we've made about always being mates and me being like a mum to you and always being there for you if you needed someone, I meant every word, but because you've decided not to keep in touch, obviously you didn't mean any of it. "You're very special. I will miss you so very much. "I'm devastated about it all and I'm not coping very well with it. I feel a fool in a way. I mean, it's been like having a son and a best mate. "It is tearing me apart. I'm sorry you didn't feel the same. I guess you could be laughing." Ginnetta told the jury: "I wrote that letter because I felt I was losing a son." Ginnetta, of Sorrell Road, Hamilton, Leicester, agreed that she had also bought the boy a coat because he had been freezing at a football match, and other presents, including football tickets. She claimed that the boy had contributed towards the cost of some things. She said: "He treated me like a mum and I treated him like a son." When asked how the boy's semen, which was DNA-tested, ended up on her settee, she said: "It's nothing to do with me. I've no idea how or why it got there. "It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with me." When interviewed by the police, she told officers the boy was talking "absolute rubbish" and he was "living in fantasy land." She has always maintained nothing of a sexual nature ever occurred. Ginnetta, who married her husband in 1973, described her marriage as "very good". The boy, who is now in his late teens, told the jury that she had introduced him to different sex acts and they engaged in regular sexual activity in the lounge and in her marital bed. She denies eight specimen charges of sexually abusing him when he was between 14 and 16 years old. They include indecently assaulting a child, involving sex acts and intercourse and abuse of trust, by having sexual activity with a child aged 15. The trial continues.
Libertine Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Already been posted mate but it got closed.
sackmycook Posted 13 December 2006 Author Posted 13 December 2006 why would it get closed this is what the merc reported.
Babylon Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Not too sure but Fezz closed it. BOOOOOOOOOO anyone heard of freedom of speech.
sackmycook Posted 13 December 2006 Author Posted 13 December 2006 BOOOOOOOOOO anyone heard of freedom of speech. thats what the Dane's said, and look what happened
Bert Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Fezz closed it because of how distressing it is for Ginettas family. (i think)
Janx Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 thats what the Dane's said, and look what happened dya reckon he had his sack cooked or his cook sacked
sackmycook Posted 13 December 2006 Author Posted 13 December 2006 dya reckon he had his sack cooked or his cook sacked i just said it how it was, no personal views, but what you are saying will get it closed, and i think as a mother she probably just cooked for him, no sacking involved.
Babylon Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Personally I don't think people should talk about it, i'm sure friends and family of his would read these boards and it wouldn't be nice for them. That said... if some people choose to talk about it I don't think it should be closed. Others should just point out that what they're doing isn't really on!!
stez Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Personally I don't think people should talk about it, i'm sure friends and family of his would read these boards and it wouldn't be nice for them. That said... if some people choose to talk about it I don't think it should be closed. Others should just point out that what they're doing isn't really on!! talking about it is fine, but while she's not been found guilty of anything, talking as if she has is not fine. hence some of the posts being removed.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 It was serving no purpose. Making inane jokes about something unproven that relates to someone who may read this board is just pointless. Some people use the freedom of speech argument far too easily. Freedom of speech is all well and good but there are still boundaries and there are still reasons for moderation. If you've got something related to the kind of case this is in general then fair enough. Personal insults and jokes are unnecessary and will be deleted.
Babylon Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 It was serving no purpose. Making inane jokes about something unproven that relates to someone who may read this board is just pointless. Some people use the freedom of speech argument far too easily. Freedom of speech is all well and good but there are still boundaries and there are still reasons for moderation. If you've got something related to the kind of case this is in general then fair enough. Personal insults and jokes are unnecessary and will be deleted. As I was the only one who mentioned freedom of speech it's obviously pointed at me. Firstly I didn't see the original post, if indeed it did go against forum rules then it had every right to be deleted. I will take your word that it did. I do not use the freedom of speech card "far too easily". For a start it was meant in a light hearted way more than anything else as the moderators (usually) do a pretty good job. I also posted my real feelings later on, where in a round about way I say freedom of speech is all well and good but it comes with the responsability to use it wisely.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 As I was the only one who mentioned freedom of speech it's obviously pointed at me. Firstly I didn't see the original post, if indeed it did go against forum rules then it had every right to be deleted. I will take your word that it did. I do not use the freedom of speech card "far too easily". For a start it was meant in a light hearted way more than anything else as the moderators (usually) do a pretty good job. I also posted my real feelings later on, where in a round about way I say freedom of speech is all well and good but it comes with the responsability to use it wisely. It wasn't really aimed at you, just re-iterating the last point.
Babylon Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 It wasn't really aimed at you, just re-iterating the last point.
Thracian Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 It was serving no purpose. Making inane jokes about something unproven that relates to someone who may read this board is just pointless. Some people use the freedom of speech argument far too easily. Freedom of speech is all well and good but there are still boundaries and there are still reasons for moderation. If you've got something related to the kind of case this is in general then fair enough. Personal insults and jokes are unnecessary and will be deleted. That's very noble. I even thought you might have been protecting the daughter who has been innocently caught up in the whole embarrassing, some would say sordid story. But the self-righteous Leicester Mercury will be giving this case as much prominence as they can - just as the Nationals are giving the Suffolk Ripper murder cases prominence - because they know they've got a winner in terms of sales and interest. We may all come across as holier than thou but the reality is that, as I described them yesterday, people are verbal voyeurs who will invariably be interested in this look behind the curtains. Indeed many of us could imagine ourselves - or might even have experienced this kind of situation at one time or another. Perhaps not an illegal situation but certainly young guy/older woman or vice-versa There are whole magazines which trade on such fantasies. If people weren't interested the story would get no space. The News of the World's has based its whole existence on smut - there always seems precious little news - and the Sun has been just the same although I couldn't judge either now cos it's years since I read em. I honestly feel there's a case for the evidence of such trials to be embargoed until a verdict is reached - to protect people if they are found innocent and their families. But that is not the case, the evidence is in the public domain and, as such, it might be expected that comment will be made.
stez Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 That's very noble. I even thought you might have been protecting the daughter who has been innocently caught up in the whole embarrassing, some would say sordid story. But the self-righteous Leicester Mercury will be giving this case as much prominence as they can - just as the Nationals are giving the Suffolk Ripper murder cases prominence - because they know they've got a winner in terms of sales and interest. We may all come across as holier than thou but the reality is that, as I described them yesterday, people are verbal voyeurs who will invariably be intersted in this look behind the curtains. Indeed many of us could imagine ourselves - or might even have experienced this kind of sittuation at one time or another. Perhaps not an illegal situation but certainly young guy/older woman or vice-versa There are whole magazines which trade on such fantasies. If people weren't interested the story would get no space. The News of the World's has based its whole existence on smut - there always seems precious little news - and the Sun has been just the same although I couldn't judge either now cos it's years since I read em. I honestly feel there's a case for the evidence of such trials to be embargoed until a verdict is reached - to protect people if they are found innocent and their families. But that is not the case, the evidence is in the public domain and, as such, it might be expected that comment will be made. exactly why posts making her out to be guilty are being removed.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 exactly why posts making her out to be guilty are being removed. Check out the online version of The Sun's report as posted by Louise in the School thread, and specifically the Reader Submissions at the bottom. Christ alive.
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 That's very noble. I even thought you might have been protecting the daughter who has been innocently caught up in the whole embarrassing, some would say sordid story. But the self-righteous Leicester Mercury will be giving this case as much prominence as they can - just as the Nationals are giving the Suffolk Ripper murder cases prominence - because they know they've got a winner in terms of sales and interest. We may all come across as holier than thou but the reality is that, as I described them yesterday, people are verbal voyeurs who will invariably be intersted in this look behind the curtains. Indeed many of us could imagine ourselves - or might even have experienced this kind of sittuation at one time or another. Perhaps not an illegal situation but certainly young guy/older woman or vice-versa There are whole magazines which trade on such fantasies. If people weren't interested the story would get no space. The News of the World's has based its whole existence on smut - there always seems precious little news - and the Sun has been just the same although I couldn't judge either now cos it's years since I read em. I honestly feel there's a case for the evidence of such trials to be embargoed until a verdict is reached - to protect people if they are found innocent and their families. But that is not the case, the evidence is in the public domain and, as such, it might be expected that comment will be made. Oh aye. Care to share Thracian.
Bert Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Oh aye. Care to share Thracian. Yeah, Him and Levi Porter.
Thracian Posted 13 December 2006 Posted 13 December 2006 Oh aye. Care to share Thracian. There you are - I said people were voyeuristic!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.