davieG Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Source A TEACHING assistant wept yesterday as she was cleared of having sex with a teenage boy 40 years her junior. Married mum Linda Ginnetta, 54, said her life was a "nightmare" after the boy claimed they had sex up to six times a week from when he was 14. He said they had a two-year affair when Mrs Ginetta worked at Hamilton Community College, Leicester. Mrs Ginnetta, from Leicester, denied eight counts of sexual abuse at the city's crown court. She said: "I treated him like a son, but now I want nothing more to do with him or his family." Good news for her, Cliff & LCFC - apparently it was unanamous 12-0. They should now published the lads name and let him suffer the embarrasment and ridicule.
Dr The Singh Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Lesson to be learned: Never bring your work home!!!!
Janx Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Lesson to be learned: Never bring your work home!!!! yeah my last word on this subject... She must have got FAR too involved and knew the dangers!
Thracian Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Source A TEACHING assistant wept yesterday as she was cleared of having sex with a teenage boy 40 years her junior. Married mum Linda Ginnetta, 54, said her life was a "nightmare" after the boy claimed they had sex up to six times a week from when he was 14. He said they had a two-year affair when Mrs Ginetta worked at Hamilton Community College, Leicester. Mrs Ginnetta, from Leicester, denied eight counts of sexual abuse at the city's crown court. She said: "I treated him like a son, but now I want nothing more to do with him or his family." Good news for her, Cliff & LCFC - apparently it was unanamous 12-0. They should now published the lads name and let him suffer the embarrasment and ridicule. It certainly demonstrates the wisdom of keeping the evidence in camera until a verdict is reached in any criminal case where only one party is having their identity revealed. How the powers that be can suggest that justice is served otherwise is beyond me. It makes a mockery of the very idea that the scales of justice are balanced. You cannot undo the effect of such publicity. I would be very interested to hear the outcome of a civil case for compensation. If the not proven verdict were a correct one it would be hard to put a value on the wrong that's been done. The law in such matters is utterly diabolical in my view and is one reason why I would never contemplate teaching in today's PC world. There doesn't seem much that's correct about the politics of all this. What a pity those who had a hand in bringing the case to court aren't publicly answerable as well. If the jury ended 12-0 how did presumably experienced people come to a conclusion that the charges could be proved?
Guest Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 I would be very interested to hear the outcome of a civil case for compensation. If the not proven verdict were a correct one it would be hard to put a value on the wrong that's been done. Seeing as in the UK you are innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how any damages for being found not guilty can be sought. If I really wanted to get back at someone in that instance, the only redress could be for defamation, but as I haven't got that far, I'm not sure how likely that would be. After all, if it was an easily available remedy, the courts would be full of claimants.
Libertine Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Get in. Now I don't have to find another way to travel to away games.
Milky Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 This is crazy as a coconut i don't understand why a lad would just wake up one day and decide to make all these allegations. I'd love to know his motives.
Thracian Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 Seeing as in the UK you are innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how any damages for being found not guilty can be sought. If I really wanted to get back at someone in that instance, the only redress could be for defamation, but as I haven't got that far, I'm not sure how likely that would be. After all, if it was an easily available remedy, the courts would be full of claimants. Because in most "fair" trials both plaintiff and defendant are in the public eye and having their evidence held up to scrutiny. I don't doubt that you are right in terms of the law as it stands but still fail to understand how it represents fairness. Under the current system any teacher or youth worker in the land is vulnerable to mischievous claims if the plaintiff can remain incognito. Perhaps the teachers should demand some action. Especially with the sort of people in authority who could be party to deciding that a case which was lost 12-0 could be proven in court.
Ultra Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 This case should never have been brought in the first place. I've known Linda for over 20 years. She may be many things, but NEVER a nonce. I can only conclude that someone in the local constabulary must have a grudge against her and/or her family. Had the verdict been a guilty one then not only would she have spent Christmas as a guest of the Queen but the Supporters Club would have been wrecked. It simply wouldn't have been able to survive the disgrace heaped upon its ruling family. But our local tabloid hasn't exactly covered itself in glory during this case. It TWICE posted lurid front-page headlines featuring particularly salacious details of the allegations against Linda. These were seized upon and reprinted by the Sun (and probably others) to her detriment and that of her family and our club. After the La Manga episode, surely the Mercury should have known a lot better?
Thracian Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 This is crazy as a coconut i don't understand why a lad would just wake up one day and decide to make all these allegations. I'd love to know his motives. Neither do I understand it. But you have to remember the court didn't say any more than there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what was alleged happened. And my contention is that if there was so little "proof" of the plaintiff's allegations, as indicated by the unanimous verdict, why did those who decided to prosecute the case decide such proof did exist.? Especially knowing that only one person would be in the public eye and identifiable whatever happened. Was the decision made on the basis that some "no smoke without fire" implication would remain? All very well, perhaps, if the defendant deserved it but utterly indefensible if they did not. The verdict of course doesn't really help. It merely says what the court was not convinced what was alleged happened. It does not say in any way what did happen, if anything. We certainly don't know whether or not the plaintiff made his claims up. All we know is that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt of what was alleged. The case raises many questions in my mind.
john_lcfc Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 how come his daivid seaman was found on her sofa??
Manwell Pablo Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 FFS it's quite plain for all to see why the case went to court, the evidence was strong enough to take the case to court . She wrote him a letter, which you have to admit is a very odd thing to do, and more importantly his semen was found on her sofa. Fair enough the jury found her not guilty and that may or may not be the right verdict, seeing as I don't know all the facts I wont pass judgement, but you can see why it went this far.
The People's Hero Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 FFS it's quite plain for all to see why the case went to court, the evidence was strong enough to take to court. She wrote him a letter, which you have to admit is a very odd thing to do, and more importantly his semen was found on her sofa. Fair enough the jury found her not guilty and that may or may not be the right verdict, seeing as I don't know all the facts I wont pass judgement, but you can see why it went this far. Spot on. You can't expect an allegation as serious as this NOT to be investigated/taken through the relevant avenues. I sympathise with the family, but still, it's right it was investigated as it has been. Sometimes I feel like certain organisations like the NHS, the overall justice system, councils can do no right by people.
davieG Posted 15 December 2006 Author Posted 15 December 2006 how come his daivid seaman was found on her sofa?? Well if he was there a lot he could have been 'playing' with himself or anyone else in the house for that matter, hardly proof of guilt. Perhaps he had fantasies about her, which could also explain his motive behind the whole episode. Who knows?
Janx Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 one can only assume HE thought favourably about knocking one out on the couch... as she CLEARLY had no intention of choking him off... honest guv and it was ALL in his warped mind ... cough cough!
sackmycook Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 how come his daivid seaman was found on her sofa?? suppose things like that happen spontaneously when your 14 Well if he was there a lot he could have been 'playing' with himself or anyone else in the house for that matter, hardly proof of guilt. Perhaps he had fantasies about her, which could also explain his motive behind the whole episode.Who knows? when i was that age i was into pammy and kylie, did you see a pic of this woman?
Rincewind Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 I don't read the tabloids and I don't take the Mercury so I knew little of this case before this thread. Accusations work both ways. An allegation was made and the police had to act upon it. Sometimes a statement could be enough for it to go to court. Taking this in another direction if a young boy made similar accusations and the police decided the evidence was not strong then a potential sex offender would walk free. The perfect solution would be no publicity but in a free society the press cannot be stopped from reporting on cases. They know how far they can go and will often be on the borderline. The jurors had doubts about certain aspects of the case so a not guilty vertict was the only one they could bring forward As for the boy he may have been in the position of telling one little lie that grew and eventually could nock back down without being embarrassed given that he would have received support from parents friends and social workers. A lot of attention he may have sought from the start.
Zingari Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 it was a diabolical plot to scupper the takeover
Trumpet Posted 15 December 2006 Posted 15 December 2006 suppose things like that happen spontaneously when your 14 when i was that age i was into pammy and kylie, did you see a pic of this woman? She may have changed over the 4/5 years
cisono Posted 16 December 2006 Posted 16 December 2006 She may have changed over the 4/5 years Was talking to this girl earlier while reading the paper. When we got to the page with Ginnetta (and her family) on it, she pointed to the daughter saying she didn't look too bad (I reckon she thought it was Ginnetta herself)
cisono Posted 16 December 2006 Posted 16 December 2006 Linda Ginnetta is a VERY fortunate woman. No question about that...
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 16 December 2006 Posted 16 December 2006 Seeing as in the UK you are innocent until proven guilty, I don't see how any damages for being found not guilty can be sought. If I really wanted to get back at someone in that instance, the only redress could be for defamation, but as I haven't got that far, I'm not sure how likely that would be. After all, if it was an easily available remedy, the courts would be full of claimants. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.