Anna B Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 What a waste of time and money. You're going to get more sense out of a trifle than you would out of a man who has been diagnosed with dementia since 2009 (a time when Jimmy savile was still getting buildings named after him). His reputation can still be rightly trashed and any pensions etc removed. We know he won't go to jail. But this is bordering on farcical. When are dragging the police through the courts who ignored/buried all this over the decades? I have to agree with altus. It might act as a deterrent to others. Why they need a QC though for a 2 minute appearance is beyond me, unless they intend to pull a bit of legal chicanery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I have to agree with altus. It might act as a deterrent to others. Altus appears to think a trial of facts can find someone guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Altus appears to think a trial of facts can find someone guilty. Think layman's idea of what guilty means not the legal meaning. If it makes you feel better, replace 'guilty' with whatever term a trial of facts will use to describe a finding that children where abused and Jenner was involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Think layman's idea of what guilty means not the legal meaning. If it makes you feel better, replace 'guilty' with whatever term a trial of facts will use to describe a finding that children where abused and Jenner was involved. I think a laymans view of guilty is very similar to the legal view when it comes to a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I have to agree with altus. It might act as a deterrent to others. Why they need a QC though for a 2 minute appearance is beyond me, unless they intend to pull a bit of legal chicanery. I just hope he don't get legal aid for his defence costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 did being diagnosed with dementia stop him tuning up to collect his daily allowance and voting? did it stop him transferring his assets from his name to his family? Did he transfer it or did his family transfer it if they had power of attorney? Being diagnosed with dementia (for a while) and turning up to the House of Lords and being allowed to vote I think shows how shocking the regulation of the House of Lords is. How many more confused people are voting for things they can't comprehend? We don't want a criminal justice system like that do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Alzheimers is a horrible condition. At the start decline is gradual - my father was capable of driving, making rational decisions around money etc up until two years before his death - the decline in the final two years was rapid - the last 6 months even more so. I'm sorry to hear of that, Longcol. Unfortunately, given that Jenner was still fulfilling his duties up until as late as last year, my cynicism of the political class inclines me to believe that Jenner or his advisers are pushing the illness angle to get him off the hook, or to stall a trial / inquest until after he dies, as Marx said in an earlier post: I expect it is being stage managed like the Child Abuse Enquiry, now on its third Chair, giving people like Jenner enough time to die and not to be held to account for their horrible crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 The doctors who have examined him - on behalf of the prosecution are of the view he is unfit to stand trial / not fit to plead. Thats why the DPP took the decision she did - so his participation will be nil in any trial, he will not be subject to cross examination. I will be very interested to see what questioning by way of cross examination (putting anything more than its not true he didn't do it) will be done and / or allowed by the trial judge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 The doctors who have examined him - on behalf of the prosecution are of the view he is unfit to stand trial / not fit to plead. Thats why the DPP took the decision she did - so his participation will be nil in any trial, he will not be subject to cross examination. I will be very interested to see what questioning by way of cross examination (putting anything more than its not true he didn't do it) will be done and / or allowed by the trial judge Will the victims be able to have their say in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 The "complainants" will give evidence at any trial of the facts before a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now