Is it time for anonymity for the accused?

[JanetJ123]

So if just one glory hunter had come forward you as a juror wouldn't have needed much convincing to convict?

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 17:25 ----------

 

 

So the girl made up the allegations? Why do you think she picked Michael Le Vell and not you?

 

There are three possibilities why she picked him.

 

1. He did it.

2. Kerching

3. She's mentally ill

[Halibut]

Well I must not be a sensitive as you. Tell me as a matter of interest if someone (I don't know if you're a man or a woman) nipped your backside in a nightclub, would you be traumatised? I wouldn't I may be annoyed, even make a complaint, but I wouldn't be traumatised.

 

I don't see that sort of incident as sexual assault.

I don't think I'd be dreadfully traumatised, but them I'm a self confident adult with plenty of life experience.

 

It's not about what you or I feel traumatised by though is it?

 

It's about what the victims feel.

 

In the Stuart Hall case, I recall hearing the testimony of a woman who was a teenager at the time who had been grabbed by Hall, snogged against her will and had her breasts pawed.

I can imagine that being thoroughly unpleasant and distressing. If you disagree and your position is that such cases shouldn't be brought before the court I think you'd be very wrong.

[Chris_Sleeps]

So the girl made up the allegations? Why do you think she picked Michael Le Vell and not you?

I don't know if the girl made false allegations. Do you know? A failed conviction doesn't mean she made it up. A conviction doesn't make a falsehood into a truth. All others can do is weigh, and judge.

 

The second question is either silly, or hinting at a bigger point. I'll flatter you with the second and rush you to get there.

[Halibut]

So if just one glory hunter had come forward you as a juror wouldn't have needed much convincing to convict?

 

That's a foolish assumption to make; I'd make a decision based upon the evidence and my beliefs about the honesty of the accuser and the accused.

[JanetJ123]

I don't think I'd be dreadfully traumatised, but them I'm a self confident adult with plenty of life experience.

 

It's not about what you or I feel traumatised by though is it?

 

It's about what the victims feel.

 

In the Stuart Hall case, I recall hearing the testimony of a woman who was a teenager at the time who had been grabbed by Hall, snogged against her will and had her breasts pawed.

I can imagine that being thoroughly unpleasant and distressing. If you disagree and your position is that such cases shouldn't be brought before the court

 

Its a good point about it depending on the self confidence of the victim.

 

I agree with the example of kissing the girl, that was evil and taking advantage of someone young and vulnerable, that one should have been brought before the court.

[tonkatoy]

That's a foolish assumption to make; I'd make a decision based upon the evidence and my beliefs about the honesty of the accuser and the accused.

 

It is hardly a foolish assumption. You said that your feeling was that he was guilty. That's a foolish assumption that you feel you know more than the jury. But that being the case it wouldn't have taken much more flimsy evidence to have him convicted. So if one person of the type who claim a celebrity fathered their child were attracted to the case the jury may have assumed guilt because of one false accusation backing up another.

[Halibut]

It is hardly a foolish assumption. You said that your feeling was that he was guilty. That's a foolish assumption that you feel you know more than the jury. But that being the case it wouldn't have taken much more flimsy evidence to have him convicted. So if one person of the type who claim a celebrity fathered their child were attracted to the case the jury may have assumed guilt because of one false accusation backing up another.

 

I said that my gut feeling was that he was guilty - i.e. I'm explicitly stating that it's not neccesarily a feeling based on the evidence. I then went on to say 'I wasn't on the jury'.

 

I absolutely was not suggesting that I knew more than the jury.

[Chris_Sleeps]

So if one person of the type who claim a celebrity fathered their child were attracted to the case the jury may have assumed guilt

I have enough faith in a jury to spot fantasists and blatant liars. You're making a really shallow point.

[tonkatoy]

I don't know if the girl made false allegations. Do you know? A failed conviction doesn't mean she made it up. A conviction doesn't make a falsehood into a truth. All others can do is weigh, and judge.

 

The second question is either silly, or hinting at a bigger point. I'll flatter you with the second and rush you to get there.

 

Not at all. The reason why he was picked is that he is a celebrity. I can't imagine anyone coming forward and making claims of that nature about the guy who empties the bins. (and failed to mention it for a couple of decades). But if one can do that so can someone attracted by the case publicity.

 

I find it odd in these cases that no one ever reports these rapes, assaults etc but then they all emerge together.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 17:44 ----------

 

I have enough faith in a jury to spot fantasists and blatant liars. You're making a really shallow point.

 

Not if there are a collection of fantasists. You tell a lie often enough folks start to believe it. If enough folks tell the same lie they tend to get believed. That's how religion prospers.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Not if there are a collection of fantasists. You tell a lie often enough folks start to believe it. If enough folks tell the same lie they tend to get believed.

I have enough faith in our justice system to spot groups of fantasists too.