Accused celebrities in the news today.

[Anna B]

So, DLT has been found innocent, yet has had his reputation trampled into the mud by the newspapers, which will stick, and had to sell his house to pay for the court case.

Does this sound fair to you?

[boyfriday]

Recent acquittals have suggested that the ability to provide an alibi might have saved the need for folks to sell their homes in order to defend against 30 year old accusations.

 

It would be very difficult to provide alibis in serial allegations of rape whether they happened yesterday or 30 years ago, but in any event a conviction relies on the prosecution convincing a jury that a rape took place (where sexual activity hasn't been established), not the accused to prove it didn't.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

So, DLT has been found innocent, yet has had his reputation trampled into the mud by the newspapers, which will stick, and had to sell his house to pay for the court case.

Does this sound fair to you?

 

That's the way it's always been, and applies to the risks associated with being the defendant. Personally, I think anonymity for both defendant and accuser should prevail in trials of this nature.

[Uptowngirl]

It would be very difficult to provide alibis in serial allegations of rape whether they happened yesterday or 30 years ago, but in any event a conviction relies on the prosecution convincing a jury that a rape took place (where sexual activity hasn't been established), not the accused to prove it didn't.

 

You don't have serial allegations unless they happened years ago. If incidents are reported at the time there isn't a serial and when the police arrive to question the person accused that person has the option of consulting his diary and announcing that last night he was at the pub with 30 of his mates playing dominoes.

[geared]

You also have the ability to collect something called evidence.

 

30 years later it's likely the location the alleged incident took place in doesn't exist anymore.

[Emily Moore]

How about Jimmy Savile, do you think he should have been left alone had he not had a prior engagement with his maker?

 

There is a major difference with the Savile case. He has never been taken to trial and his assumed guilt is on the basis of seemingly overwhelming hearsay evidence. That evidence presented by people who knew their evidence would never be tested in a court of law. That isn't the case in these latest celebrity trials. They seem to have been brought to court on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations much of it 30 or 40 years old.

If you were to receive a parking ticket or a speeding accusation from 1970 would you be able to demonstrate that you weren't actually in Whitby at the time? If on the other hand you got a similar ticket saying you were parked there last week you would have the ability to deny the charges if at the time you were having Sunday lunch at the Rose & Crown.

The only one of these "celebrity" trials that I would entertain is that of Rolf Harris. Not on the basis of any alleged assaults to which there is no actual evidence other than word of mouth, but in his case there seems to be physical evidence of images on a computer.

[Bob England]

In view of the acquittals of Messrs Travis and Roache should the CPS take a further look at the accusations against the other men on bail before we waste any more money?

 

Should their be a re evaluation of the evidence against Saville?

 

It seems incredible to me that this feeding frenzy against Saville only came out after his death, how credible are these witnesses?

 

Remember the witch trials, dozens swore and testified that they had seen devils, imps, they accused perfectly innocent people of the most atrocious crimes all of which, in the light of history, are nonsense. The accusers got caught up in a sort of hysteria, is that what has happened recently?

 

Justice should be dispensed cold, the hysteria must be quelled, where is the evidence? Clearly in the cases of Messrs Roache and Travis both juries felt there was not nearly enough.

[Emily Moore]

You also have the ability to collect something called evidence.

 

30 years later it's likely the location the alleged incident took place in doesn't exist anymore.

 

Spot on. Not even that stain on the little blue dress.

[boyfriday]

You don't have serial allegations unless they happened years ago. If incidents are reported at the time there isn't a serial and when the police arrive to question the person accused that person has the option of consulting his diary and announcing that last night he was at the pub with 30 of his mates playing dominoes.

 

I understand your point, but the prosecution are still expected to produce evidence which convinces a jury that the defendant's guilty, if they can't then the trial results in an acquittal.

 

The point I was addressing was a question raised asking why accusers didn't report their allegations at the time-presumably the CPS (and witnesses) went through the experience because they had an expectation that the defendant would be found guilty on the basis of accumulated testimony, not just to ruffle the defendant's feathers.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 14:00 ----------

 

Spot on. Not even that stain on the little blue dress.

 

What course of action would you have recommended in respect of Jimmy Savile?

 

EDIT: Apologies, I didn't see your previous post.

[Emily Moore]

I understand your point, but the prosecution are still expected to produce evidence which convinces a jury that the defendant's guilty, if they can't then the trial results in an acquittal.

 

The point I was addressing was a question raised asking why accusers didn't report their allegations at the time-presumably the CPS (and witnesses) went through the experience because they had an expectation that the defendant would be found guilty on the basis of accumulated testimony, not just to ruffle the defendant's feathers.

 

Now that is a scary thought.

[boyfriday]

There is a major difference with the Savile case. He has never been taken to trial and his assumed guilt is on the basis of seemingly overwhelming hearsay evidence. That evidence presented by people who knew their evidence would never be tested in a court of law. That isn't the case in these latest celebrity trials. They seem to have been brought to court on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations much of it 30 or 40 years old.

If you were to receive a parking ticket or a speeding accusation from 1970 would you be able to demonstrate that you weren't actually in Whitby at the time? If on the other hand you got a similar ticket saying you were parked there last week you would have the ability to deny the charges if at the time you were having Sunday lunch at the Rose & Crown.

The only one of these "celebrity" trials that I would entertain is that of Rolf Harris. Not on the basis of any alleged assaults to which there is no actual evidence other than word of mouth, but in his case there seems to be physical evidence of images on a computer.

 

OK, I'll ask the question again..so given the reports which came to light, what would you like to see happen to Savile had he been alive to face his accusers?

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 14:03 ----------

 

Now that is a scary thought.

 

It doesn't necessarily require a smoking gun to find someone guilty of a crime, it just makes it easier for a jury to arrive at that conclusion.