janie48 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm repeating what I said on this thread earlier. In future time there will be some questions raised about the Operation Yewtree investigation process regarding celebrity allegations, that go back 40/50 years in many cases. That doesn't mean I'm minimising the long term damage of rape effects on genuine victims, but I do worry that these court cases are going to deter recent and future victims from reporting rape crimes, which is the opposite of what was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 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 Yes. Civil court case: "on balance of probabilities". Criminal court case: "beyond reasonable doubt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 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? I wasn't really offering an opinion on this case tfh, but he's been found not guilty and should be allowed to continue his life as though he'd never been charged in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava 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? Three possibilities. The accusers were lying. They were mistaken. They were telling the truth. After all this time its impossible to know for sure, he was found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, and he was always innocent until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict isn't proof that the accusers were lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B 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 ---------- 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? Talk about 'mud sticks...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 And Jim Davidson before that. I see Davidson has now been paid £150,000 for appearing on Big Brother. So perhaps some folk who have had their carears ruined by folks who can hide behind a cloak of anonymity may get something out of it. He was going on Big Brother anyway. He was meant to go on it last year but then got locked up instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Three possibilities. The accusers were lying. They were mistaken. They were telling the truth. After all this time its impossible to know for sure, he was found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, and he was always innocent until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict isn't proof that the accusers were lying. But it is an essential part of the journey if they were. It seems that the jury wasn't convinced that a dozen women didn't all come forward and make a false accusation against someone in the public eye, and as none of the accounts stood up on its own the entire case rested on that belief. It is difficult to imagine any of the other high profile cases coming to any different verdict unless the accused pleads guilty, because it seems that the only thing that brought these cases to court was the amount of people prepared to make allegations about events 30 or 40 years ago that were impossible to prove either way, in the hope that a jury would be swayed by force of numbers. That isn't justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 But it is an essential part of the journey if they were. It seems that the jury wasn't convinced that a dozen women didn't all come forward and make a false accusation against someone in the public eye, and as none of the accounts stood up on its own the entire case rested on that belief. It is difficult to imagine any of the other high profile cases coming to any different verdict unless the accused pleads guilty, because it seems that the only thing that brought these cases to court was the amount of people prepared to make allegations about events 30 or 40 years ago that were impossible to prove either way, in the hope that a jury would be swayed by force of numbers. That isn't justice. I would imagine millions of people have opinions on whether he is guilty or not, and whether the accusers were lying, telling the truth or simply mistaken. Any 12 of those people could have been on the jury, and a different 12 might have come to a different conclusion. The only 12 opinions that matter are the opinions of the jury, and their opinion is that he wasn't guilty, I share their opinion but it isn't proof that the accusers are lying or that he didn't do what they claim. My personal view is that after all this time it shouldn't have gone to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Three possibilities. The accusers were lying. They were mistaken. They were telling the truth. After all this time its impossible to know for sure, he was found not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, and he was always innocent until proven guilty. A not guilty verdict isn't proof that the accusers were lying. Never let it be said that I don't give credit where it's due - that was a very good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It could only ever be a case of who you believe. After all this time, there is no question of forensic evidence, no proliferation of cctv cameras. Plus, how can anyone be expected to remember where they were on this or that day? It's either who has the best legal team, or who comes across as most credible. Is that a good basis for trying a criminal case? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.