boyfriday Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So you're suggesting that William Roache is guilty of all these attacks but was found not guilty because the prosecution couldn't convince the jury? As the poster said, a 'not guilty' verdict and being innocent are not the same thing, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean a witness wasn't telling the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As the poster said, a 'not guilty' verdict and being innocent are not the same thing, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean a witness wasn't telling the truth. This is the bit I don't get. Either the attacks happened or they didn't. The prosecution and the defence can't both be right, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm wondering that too. As he was found not guilty, does that imply the allegations made against him were false? If so, isn't there a crime against that kind of thing? ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 16:11 ---------- As the poster said, a 'not guilty' verdict and being innocent are not the same thing, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean a witness wasn't telling the truth. I guess it (not guilty verdict) just means, that they went through the legal process, and the result of that process was a not-guilty verdict. Which doesn't say anything about if he's factually guilty or innocent. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ45 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So you're suggesting that William Roache is guilty of all these attacks but was found not guilty because the prosecution couldn't convince the jury? Absolutely not. I'm not making any statement about this case specifically, just about the point of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This the bit I don't get. Either the attacks happened or they didn't. The prosecution and the defence can't both be right, surely? Actually they can because of the level of proof required to secure a criminal conviction-'beyond reasonable doubt', which sets the bar quite high. In the OJ Simpson criminal trial he was acquitted by a jury but convicted in a civil suit where the level of proof required was less demanding, in England referred to as 'the balance of probabilities' in civil cases. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 16:17 ---------- I'm wondering that too. As he was found not guilty, does that imply the allegations made against him were false? If so, isn't there a crime against that kind of thing? ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 16:11 ---------- I guess it (not guilty verdict) just means, that they went through the legal process, and the result of that process was a not-guilty verdict. Which doesn't say anything about if he's factually guilty or innocent. Is that correct? I guess he was always 'innocent' Waldo, because that's the presumption made about a defendant until they're found guilty, whether witnesses have lied when a defendant is found guilty would also have to be tested but it doesn't naturally follow that they have lied because the accused has been found not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Only heard of English Law, Northern Ireland Law and Scottish Law meself That's as maybe. Laws in the UK are made by the UK parliament. Most laws are common to the whole of the UK. Draft laws start in either the House of Lords or House of Commons. They go through set stages of approval in both Houses before they can be signed off by Royal Assent from the Queen and become an Act of Parliament. There are a few areas where Scotland's Parliament has been granted powers to alter or reinterpret certain laws but those laws still have to passed off by the UK Parliament which still has the power to over rule the Scottish Parliament or even dissolve it. v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This is the bit I don't get. Either the attacks happened or they didn't. The prosecution and the defence can't both be right, surely? in legal trials it isn't a question of whether the attacks happened or not - it is a question of whether the prosecution can provide sufficient evidence (proof) to convince a jury that they did if the prosecution can't provide sufficient evidence then a jury will find the defendant not guilty it doesn't mean the defendant is innocent - sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't in an english court you do not have to prove you are innocent - the prosecution has to prove you are guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That's as maybe. Laws in the UK are made by the UK parliament. Most laws are common to the whole of the UK. Draft laws start in either the House of Lords or House of Commons. They go through set stages of approval in both Houses before they can be signed off by Royal Assent from the Queen and become an Act of Parliament. There are a few areas where Scotland's Parliament has been granted powers to alter or reinterpret certain laws but those laws still have to passed off by the UK Parliament which still has the power to over rule the Scottish Parliament or even dissolve it. That is as maybe, but being a lawyer you won't find many of your colleagues referring to 'British law'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Now we know the accusers made these stories up, why can't they be charged with perjury? Surely lying in a court of law is a criminal offence? If that was the case, why doesn't every failed criminal prosecution not end with a charge of perjury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As the poster said, a 'not guilty' verdict and being innocent are not the same thing, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean a witness wasn't telling the truth. Would you let him live his life as it was or have him as a social pariah? Does mud stick or should the not guilty verdict stop the whispers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.