wellyman Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Forgive me, did you say each case/allegation should stand up on its own merits? That is what happens. No it isn't. All the evidence and accusations are being heard in one court in front of one jury. So each unsubstantiated case reinforces the other. What did you think of the case of Darryl Hunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 There's a belief that if rape victims weren't guaranteed anonymity that it would act as a disincentive to reporting. It would be nice to live in a world where rape victims weren't stigmatised and therefore require anonymity in the first place. Many of the accusations in these cases are not for rape but far less serious offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 But by making it easy for women to make up rape allegations, it actually diminishes the chance of genuine rape victims receiving justice. The hhigh percentage of false accusations means many genuine victims aren't believed. It may be easy for a woman to make up rape allegations, but it's not easy for them to make up an allegation which is believable by the police (who investigate allegations fairly and thoroughly), CPS and ultimately a jury of people made up of people like you and me...after all given your position are you going to be easily swayed by an allegation that can't be backed with evidence? I was reading recently about a 24 year old woman who claimed she'd been raped by her ex boyfriend in an alley. The police studied CCTV footage and collected witness statements and the woman was seen leaving a pub with two blokes who claimed they'd had a threesome with her, neither was her boyfriend who was out with friends 30 miles away. Needless to say she was found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Malicious allegations tend to lack the detail that real ones have, and police officers who work in public protection know well how to interview the parties involved and identify inconsistencies..they don't just run to court with an allegation just because a woman made it. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 15:51 ---------- Many of the accusations in these cases are not for rape but far less serious offences. I'm sure the same principle applies. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 15:55 ---------- No it isn't. All the evidence and accusations are being heard in one court in front of one jury. So each unsubstantiated case reinforces the other. I think that's for the jury to decide, based on the evidence that's presented to them. Are you suggesting that defendants accused of a series of similar offences should be tried separately for each one? What benefits do you think that would have for the administration of justice? Should Peter Sutcliffe have enjoyed/endured 13 trials for each of his victims? What about Brady and Hindley? What did you think of the case of Darryl Hunt? I've never heard of him. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 15:57 ---------- I think he means each charge should be a completely separate trial. Thanks rickiethecat, I've got there now People are inclined to think that if a celebrity is charged with 14 attacks then he must be guilty at least one of them, which prejudices the trial against the accused.I don't believe that's true, but even if it is what will the jury feel after trial number 10's been reported? ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 15:58 ---------- Source ? Parliament's a good start "public knowledge of the indignity which [the complainant] has suffered in being raped may be extremely distressing and even positively harmful, and the risk of such public knowledge can operate as a severe deterrent to bringing proceedings…The balance of argument seems to us to be in favour of anonymity for the complainant other than in quite exceptional circumstances. While fully appreciating that rape complaints may be unfounded, indeed that the complainant may be malicious or a false witness, we think that the greater public interest lies in not having publicity for the complainant. Nor is it generally the case that the humiliation is anything like as severe in other criminal trials: a reprehensible feature of trials of rape…is that the complainant's prior sexual history…may be brought out in the trial in a way which is rarely so in other criminal http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04746.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 In these cases it appears that there is no forensic or corroborating evidence to support the allegations. Whilst the allegations may be true I wonder how many cases would have reached court without corroboration or forensic evidence and after such a passage of time if celebrities were not involved. If there were offences committed against girls who the alleged offender knew were under the age of consent there is no excuse in these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glennis Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I see this was kept quiet : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html No, it wasn't I remember the case going to court, although I am not sure he was actually convicted. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 16:03 ---------- I'll lose all faith in humanity if Rolf is guilty. Whilst Jimmy Saville and some of the others didn't surprise me in the slightest, I would never have imagined Rolf getting involved in such things.....I mean....It's Rolf!! Regards Doom Yeah, with the extra leg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 In these cases it appears that there is no forensic or corroborating evidence to support the allegations. Whilst the allegations may be true I wonder how many cases would have reached court without corroboration or forensic evidence and after such a passage of time if celebrities were not involved. If there were offences committed against girls who the alleged offender knew were under the age of consent there is no excuse in these cases. I've not been in the courtroom so can't really say much about the quality of the evidence, but generally in cases of historic abuse the police are looking at common and unique patterns of behaviour (which obviously haven't been reported). I'd guess that because of the points you mention it must be harder to secure a conviction on historical cases without the luxury of DNA and CCTV because a jury are unlikely to convict solely on the basis of one person's word against another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I've not been in the courtroom so can't really say much about the quality of the evidence, but generally in cases of historic abuse the police are looking at common and unique patterns of behaviour (which obviously haven't been reported). I'd guess that because of the points you mention it must be harder to secure a conviction on historical cases without the luxury of DNA and CCTV because a jury are unlikely to convict solely on the basis of one person's word against another. Exactly and whilst the claims may be true I wonder in similar circumstances where celebrities are not involved would the CPS prosecute. These cases appear to be setting new precedents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 It is quite worrying because when someone points the finger at a celeb there is immediately another few who make similar claims. It's a bit like the copper who claims to have witnessed the Plebgate incident even though he was nowhere near. How would you defend against a malicious allegation 30 or 40 years on especially if a few others jumped on the bandwagon and made similar accusations? You only need a couple of halibuts on the jury and you are guilty before the case is even heard. But isn't this the problem. Folks hear someone make accusations about a celebrity and like on here start reporting it as fact. It only takes a few of those folk to start making similar claims and it becomes fact. How does anyone get a fair trial 30 years after the event? You can find folks to say you were down at the pub having a drink with them because there isn't even a date on which some of these incidents are alleged to have happened. I agree and don't see how it is possible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They shouldn't be charged unless their was a complaint with in a set time and DNA evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Exactly and whilst the claims may be true I wonder in similar circumstances where celebrities are not involved would the CPS prosecute. These cases appear to be setting new precedents. That's a good point, but nonetheless the police aren't going to prosecute high profile cases unless there's a good chance of conviction, after all high profile cases get reported nationally and coppers associated with those which result in acquittals don't tend to progress up the career ladder..the egg is too sticky on their faces! ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 16:21 ---------- I agree and don't see how it is possible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They shouldn't be charged unless their was a complaint with in a set time and DNA evidence. Don't you think that's setting a standard that's too high? What would you think if one of your middle aged relatives revealed they'd been assaulted as a young teenager by a manipulative adult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That's a good point, but nonetheless the police aren't going to prosecute high profile cases unless there's a good chance of conviction, after all high profile cases get reported nationally and coppers associated with those which result in acquittals don't tend to progress up the career ladder..the egg is too sticky on their faces! Do you have evidence to back that up or you just stating something that you made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.