Witnesses required for serious attempted assault in Peckham Rye Park October 9th

[Steve32]

Hi,

This thread is closed for comments, although I'll be on here waiting for PM.

On October 9th at approximately 1pm, I was chased aggressively and threatened repeatedly by a man near 'The Round' caf? in Peckham Rye park, near the kids play area and onto the rugby fields.

The man was in his 40's - quite tall, short hair, dark, rough clothes (hoddie, baggy trousers, trainers). He was quite distinctive with an aggressive demeanour, shouting loudly and holding an orange/red object.

He chased me across the park, starting from near the caf? where lots of people would have been eating or looking after their kids. He chased me through the rugby field to the far posts at which I called the police whilst still be chased. He was very aggressive and shouted multiple threats which witnesses may have heard.

After a bit of break, he chased me again - this time towards the caf? g/clockhouse area of Peckham rye road. I was almost cornered but managed to get away.

The police came, but I found out later that they didn't interview the multiple witnesses in the caf? area (a complaint to the IPCC has been made on this point). Two witnesses have come forward since then through my own effort but i'm looking for more, as there would have been a very large number due to the number of people eating/drinking in the caf? around this time or walking through the park who would have seen this taking place.

if you have anything to report,I'm happy to PM you with details of the police officer investigating this - I've decided putting their contact details directly on here would not be advisable.

Thanks

[ollieloudon]

Wasn't this all a lie and actually you screamed at a woman with a dog and then got angry when her husband tried to confront you . Why have you made the same thread again.

Also 'rough clothes' get over yourself

[Penguin68]

People interpret events differently. If the OP wants witnesses (who will have their own view of what happened) that's fine, surely. Most of us are in no position to judge what is 'truth' in this matter. We may have our own views of which set of reports we most believe, but in the end, it isn't up to us. What we believe is 'the truth' may not be recognised by (some) others as being so, but that doesn't then make either viewpoint necessarily right. Juries look for a balance of probabilities. They are not asked to judge on any absolute definition of truth - but simply - 'beyond reasonable doubt' - which doesn't in itself exclude all doubt.

[ollieloudon]

Exactly, so why has he made a new thread without the other persons version of events included like the previous one

[Penguin68]

without the other persons version of events included like the previous one Since when did the prosecution (or defense) have to present the other side's case?

[ianr]

The previous thread is at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1975301,1975301#msg-1975301. Who requested its closure?

I've no clear idea of the truth, but from what I've read I'm surpsised,, notwithstanding the upset that I accept was caused on both sides, that it's said to be a still active police case. Have any witnesses actually been asked to make formal written witness statements?

[Steve32]

Hi Ianr,

I requested last thread was closed as it started to get abusive. I've received some genuinely horrific emails and PM's.

I've emailed administrator twice saying I want to just have one message and not allow responses. no response yet but sure it will be closed very soon.

It was helpful before in getting a good witness, so I decided to take the risk and post it again.

If admin reads this, this thread is for an appeal for witnesses. Witnesses can PM me and i'll give police details. Please close the thread asap.

[Siduhe]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've no clear idea of the truth, but from what

> I've read I'm surpsised,, notwithstanding the

> upset that I accept was caused on both sides, that

> it's said to be a still active police case. Have

> any witnesses actually been asked to make formal

> written witness statements?

The gentleman has indicated on Twitter that he?s ?resorting to private prosecution?.

It may be that is what the new request for witnesses relates to.

Personally, I?d rather that admin didn?t lock this thread - any abuse of the OP should absolutely be removed, but I found it very useful to understand the two sides of the story - and there clearly are two.

[rendelharris]

Please be warned that the OP is, firstly, not telling half of the story, and that, secondly, he appears to have very peculiar ideas of the legal process; I left a comment on his Twitter feed to the effect that aggressive behaviour towards single women in parks was not, perhaps, a good idea, he sent me a PM saying I would be prosecuted - when I replied somewhat robustly telling him to go right ahead he then sent me a PM saying I would be reported to the police. Neither of these threats have, of course, been carried out.

[ollieloudon]

I am also awaiting prosecution from the man in question...he must have alot of spare time

[cella]

Can you post and not have replies allowed? Controversial if so.

[first mate]

In the earlier thread it is alleged that a policeman reviewed some footage of the incident in situ and concluded no laws had been broken and the local gentleman allegedly chasing Steve32 did not pose a threat.

The bit I cannot understand is what compelled Steve32 to allegedly try to film the female spaniel owner in the first place? What exactly was he trying to capture or prove? On the face of it it seems odd and offensive behaviour.

[FreyaMikaelson]

Lefties love to twist the truth.

Steve32, you're clearly a nutbag. I don't think the police would be all that impressed with the amount of online harrassment towards raffertyhelen, so you might want to give it a rest.

[alice]

You are fake and quite unpleasant.

[JohnL]

FreyaMikaelson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lefties love to twist the truth.

>

> Steve32, you're clearly a nutbag. I don't think

> the police would be all that impressed with the

> amount of online harrassment towards

> raffertyhelen, so you might want to give it a

> rest.

Surely there's no politics involved in this

[ollieloudon]

FreyaMikaelson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lefties love to twist the truth.

>

> Steve32, you're clearly a nutbag. I don't think

> the police would be all that impressed with the

> amount of online harrassment towards

> raffertyhelen, so you might want to give it a

> rest.

Interesting, from his Twitter you can surmise he is a brexit voting Tory - just like you <3

[Blah Blah]

So let me get this right. Steve32 follows and harasses a woman (to which she has a witness) after her dog barks at him (probably sensing his odd behaviour to be honest - dogs do that). She, feeling frightened (understandable) calls her partner to come and deal with him. The Police say there is no case for this woman or her husband to answer, and Steve32 instead, results to obsessive online harassment. Or did I miss something there?

[JoeLeg]

No, that?s pretty much it.

This guy is very strange. The other party involved posted up their version of events and he?s refused to address the rebuttal. Sounds very much like he doesn?t like the fact that the police didn?t agree with him on the day.

Comes across online as the kind of person who doesn?t like being told ?no?.

Private prosecution? Really?

[ianr]

Where is this online harassment to be seen?

[JoeLeg]

Have you read raffertyhelens version of events?

Taken in tandem with the rest of his actions I?m afraid I find her to be far more credible.

[mariagatty]

The OP has uploaded what he thinks of unemployed people online to youtube...disgraceful!!!