PANGBOURNE MAN WHO DENIES CHILD RAPE HAS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS, JURY TOLD
Jurors have learned that a man who denies abducting and raping a 12-year-old has previous convictions for child sex offences.Jamie Burke had initially pleaded not guilty to committing offences in respect of two girls, one aged 12 and the other 15.
But last Monday, January 19, before the trial could get under way at Reading Crown Court, 33-year-old Burke, who was living at Bourne Road, Pangbourne, changed his pleas in respect of the elder child.
The jury has now been told that he admits those offences – but denies snatching the younger from the streets and repeatedly abusing her.
Lisa Goddard, opening the case for the prosecution last week, said Burke had grabbed the child as she walked home from school, locked her in his car and drove her to West Berkshire woodland.
There, she added, he stripped her naked and took indecent images before molesting her then abandoning her in the woods.
Burke allegedly threatened to sell the images and went on to repeat the abuse up to 30 times, raping the child and threatening to kill one of her family if she told anyone.
In a written statement to police following his arrest, Burke denied having even met the child, much less raped her.
Lyall Thompson, defending, revealed that his client would not be taking the stand to give evidence under oath, on which he could have been cross examined, in his own defence.
Ms Goddard told jurors that they might infer from that that he had no good answer to the charges.
But Mr Thompson told jurors: “There is nothing for Mr Burke to prove; he has the absolute right to remain silent.
It’s not an easy thing, to give evidence in court in front of strangers.” Referring to the jury being told of Burke’s related, prior convictions, he added: “You may ask yourselves: ‘Is it fair that we’ve been told about these other incidents?’” “The prosecution say it shows Mr Burke has a tendency to commit offences of the type alleged.
But is that fair, when you look at it?” He pointed to differences in Burke’s admitted child sex offending and that claimed by the 12-year-old.
Mr Thompson said that, in the elder child’s case, she wasn’t snatched from the street into a car but, rather, the abuse had happened “at home; on a bed; in front of the television”.
He warned jurors there was a “real danger you could be blinded by the fact you’ve been told this”.
Mr Thompson said discrepancies in the girl’s evidence rendered it totally unreliable; that she had apparently invented previous instances of sexual abuse and had repeatedly changed her story.
He highlighted the fact that the child had told one carer that Burke had taken her to a hotel and had full intercourse with her – then changed her story.
There had also been talk of a boyfriend in his 30s with whom she had apparently had consensual sex as a 12-year-old – but she had never implicated Burke as the predator involved, said Mr Thompson.
He added: “There’s absolutely no other evidence to back up what she says.
She changes her account; she denies things that are true and says things that aren’t true.” Mr Thompson reminded jurors that his client had nothing to prove and that, to convict, they must be sure of his guilt.
He concluded: “There’s so much guilt in this case, we’re not talking about reasonable doubt – there’s so much doubt that your only verdicts can be ‘not guilty’.” Jurors are today (Wednesday) considering those verdicts.
