***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 Feb 14 at 21:20
|
Jury back in less than day
Told you so - stupidly carried out prosecution
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034
|
>> Jury back in less than day
>>
>> Told you so - stupidly carried out prosecution
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034
That's quite a quick time to make a decision.
Either unnecessarily rushed & half a job..or..evidence was crap and easy decision to make.
|
The fact that he's found NG doesn't mean the decision to prosecute was wrong. There was enough evidence to go before a jury which then took a view on credibility.
Given the gravity of the offences a decision NOT to prosecute would be very hard to justify.
Let's see what happens to DLT.
|
>> The fact that he's found NG doesn't mean the decision to prosecute was wrong. There
>> was enough evidence to go before a jury
Clearly there wasn't. Even the judge chucked one of the charges out of court for that very reason.
What this does is make it MUCH harder for women to bring charges. None of them will say a thing for fear of not being believed.
|
Someone didn't prep the accuser very well
"In court, the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time."
Even though not guilty, what a traumatic experience it must have been for him & family etc. I realise not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but 12 good men and true have decided that it didn't happen, which is how the system works. It seems a bit rich that the supposed victims don't now get done for perjury, wasting police time or whatever. If I was him I'd feel somewhat bitter about it all.
DLT will, IMO end the same way.
|
>> Even though not guilty, what a traumatic experience it must have been for him &
>> family etc. I realise not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but 12
>> good men and true have decided that it didn't happen, which is how the system
>> works. It seems a bit rich that the supposed victims don't now get done for
>> perjury, wasting police time or whatever. If I was him I'd feel somewhat bitter about
>> it all.
The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that the accusers case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of forensics and in a word/word scenario that was always possible.
A very very different thing from them being perjurers or wasters of police time.
|
>> The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that the accusers case
>> was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
You have no idea WHAT the jury decided. Nor will you. You only know Not Guilty.
Now if I had been on that jury (and I have been on a rape jury) I would have decided it didn't happen. I would have decided it was an appalling lack of evidence. Not even a case of beyond reasonable doubt.
Now you have no idea that there were not 12 me's on that jury.
|
>> You have no idea WHAT the jury decided. Nor will you. You only know Not
>> Guilty.
The standard of proof in a criminal trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The only conclusion you, Smokie or I can draw is that such proof was not made out. That's no evidence at all to support perjury and like cases against the complainants.
>> Now if I had been on that jury (and I have been on a rape
>> jury) I would have decided it didn't happen. I would have decided it was an
>> appalling lack of evidence. Not even a case of beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>> Now you have no idea that there were not 12 me's on that jury.
Another case, another evidence set. No relevance to Roache.
|
>> >> Now if I had been on that jury (and I have been on a
>> rape
>> >> jury) I would have decided it didn't happen. I would have decided it was
>> an
>> >> appalling lack of evidence. Not even a case of beyond reasonable doubt.
>> >>
>> >> Now you have no idea that there were not 12 me's on that jury.
>>
>>
>> Another case, another evidence set. No relevance to Roache.
No I was talking about if I had been on that roach case.
|
The only evidence you've seen is that the papers/broadcasters chose to cover.
To be honest though the CPS are in an impossible position. Several women came forward with accounts. They were presumably x/checked for collusion and anything else that might point to obvious lies. Their stories appeared credible and stood up in Police interview.
If they'd decided not to prosecute in a case like this with a high profile defendant and in an atmosphere where it appears there are other facets to the Savile iceberg there'd have been outrage. Letting the jury decide was the only option open.
|
You're 100% correct Brompton. Exactly the same goes for DLT where I said in my first post on his case it would be down to judge and jury to decide.
At this rate it'll soon be time to put Saville's headstone back up.
|
>> If they'd decided not to prosecute in a case like this with a high profile
>> defendant and in an atmosphere where it appears there are other facets to the Savile
>> iceberg there'd have been outrage. Letting the jury decide was the only option open.
>>
It's the other side of the "public interest" argument.
Sometimes they have to prosecute an insubstantial case, sometimes not prosecute a good one.
|
>> The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that the accusers case
>> was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In absence of forensics and in a word/word scenario
>> that was always possible.
Likely - more than possible.
|
>>Told you so - stupidly carried out prosecution
There was so much that didn't stack up in the witnesses' stories that it was the only sensible result.
|
|
So he is officially not a cockroach!
|
|
Actually I think he is still happy to have that tag which started in his early days when it seems he does not deny he may have slept with up to 1000 women of appropriate age in a consensual way.
|
When I saw the news reports of the judge's summing up I thought he made it very clear what the jury's decision should be.
They did too!
|
A stupid prosecution based on one word against another for alleged events that happened half a century ago. There was never any chance of a conviction and in my opinion the case was only brought because the police and the CPS want to be seen to be "Doing the right thing".
No jury would have convicted and bringing dead loss cases like this to court is just a waste of time and money. There should be a Statute of Limitations on cases where there is no physical evidence or no witnesses to corroborate the alleged victims complaint.
|
I am very pleased I always thought the evidence of weak. However he is 81 and no matter how good health he is now, it must still have a major impact on his health. I just hope this doesn't finish him off.
I know a couple of people that work with him and they both believed all along he was innocent. The big difference with Saville was nobody was in the least bit surprised.
|
"The big difference with Saville was nobody was in the least bit surprised."
Why were you not surprised? I was. All too easy to be wise after the event, but he held prime time viewing slots for many years and while I didn't really like his form of entertainment or his style, millions must have done, and no-one (much) said anything at the time, when the alleged events happened and he was alive to defend himself. And, despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence, nothing has been proved beyond doubt, and maybe never will be.
|
"Why were you not surprised?"
I wasn't surprised, I could never stand the bloke; neither were his relatives surprised - they knew it was coming all along. Why else would they have been so keen to smash up his costly memorial stone as soon as the news was breaking, and have it carted away?
|
>> I wasn't surprised,
Neither was I. Indeed the shocking allegations seemed entirely 'appropriate'.
Don't worry, I've already done the Savile rant a few times so I won't do it again. I don't want to be any more boring than necessary.
|
>> All too easy to be wise after the event
To be fair, AC did at least one of his 'rants' on here before the story broke.
|
Quite an interesting thread actually, not long before the wotsit hit the wotsit:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=11434&v=f
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 6 Feb 14 at 16:34
|
>> A stupid prosecution based on one word against another for alleged events that happened half
>> a century ago. There was never any chance of a conviction and in my opinion
>> the case was only brought because the police and the CPS want to be seen
>> to be "Doing the right thing".
>>
>> No jury would have convicted and bringing dead loss cases like this to court is
>> just a waste of time and money. There should be a Statute of Limitations on
>> cases where there is no physical evidence or no witnesses to corroborate the alleged victims
>> complaint.
A very sweeping approach IMHO.
Pretty much same scenario as Roache with Stuart Hall except that he decided to plead guilty. Do you honestly believe his crimes should have gone unpunished under a Statute of Limitations? Or that he'd have dropped his denials and pleaded guilty if he'd not thought word/word evidence about events decades ago would ring true in front off a jury.
Should Graham Ovenden, the paedophile artist, have gone unprosecuted? The degree to which they'd been exploited only came home to his victims when they were adult women.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 6 Feb 14 at 15:44
|
>> A stupid prosecution based on one word against another for alleged events that happened half
>> a century ago. There was never any chance of a conviction and in my opinion
>> the case was only brought because the police and the CPS want to be seen
>> to be "Doing the right thing".
>>
>> No jury would have convicted and bringing dead loss cases like this to court is
>> just a waste of time and money.
No I'm not sure that's accurate either.
Rape etc has always been difficult to prosecute as it is almost always word against word. Even where there is evidence of congress, consent has to be eliminated beyond reasonable doubt.
A consequence of this is that many rapes must have gone unpunished even where there was a prosecution. Now, we appear to be seeing a shift - in attitude, not law - that because proof is hard to come by, complainants should be believed, leading to(wards) a presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
For the same reason, a lot of people will still want to believe he's guilty.
|
Going by this report in the Guardian, a paper generally sympathetic to abuse victims, you can see why the jury were so quick to find for Roach -
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/06/william-roache-acquittal-inconsistent-testimonies
|
>> Going by this report in the Guardian, a paper generally sympathetic to abuse victims, you
>> can see why the jury were so quick to find for Roach -
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/06/william-roache-acquittal-inconsistent-testimonies
Jury was out for five and a half hours. While that does not suggest much dissent in discussions it's a long way from open/shut territory where they'd have been back in 40 minutes.
The sort of inconsistencies mentioned in the article are always going to be there when people have to recall events so far back. While you might have the colour of furniture imprinted on your mind it might equally be a detail that passed you by.
|
|
If I had been on a jury with evidence from that long ago being presented in such a way that it was 'consistent' I would have been more likely to believe that coaching or similar had taken place.
|
>> Jury was out for five and a half hours. While that does not suggest much
>> dissent in discussions it's a long way from open/shut territory where they'd have been back in 40 minutes.
>>
>>
>>
There was more than one charge. A jury would have gone through each of them thoroughly. I would suggest 5 1/2 hours is nothing in this case.
|
>> There was more than one charge. A jury would have gone through each of them
>> thoroughly. I would suggest 5 1/2 hours is nothing in this case.
But if it was as obvious a non starter as you suggest then they wouldn't have spent best part of an hour on each case.
|
>> >> There was more than one charge. A jury would have gone through each of
>> them
>> >> thoroughly. I would suggest 5 1/2 hours is nothing in this case.
>>
>> But if it was as obvious a non starter as you suggest then they wouldn't
>> have spent best part of an hour on each case.
They didn't. You waste an hour up front with general chit chat, and while the power battle for foreman takes place. There is also the thought, and it gets spoken about in the Jury room, that you can't go back in a couple of hours lest people think you haven't considered the case seriously enough.
About 3 hours max at the very most was spent in total considering the evidence.
And that says it all.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 6 Feb 14 at 18:02
|
Don't forget also, members of the jury have a vested interest in dragging the trial out; they're off work but still being paid, the hours are 10-4. What's not to like about being in the jury room.
And the court clerks will spend the first hour explaining the rules on how to order coffee, and that you're not allowed to smoke, but you can go into one of the loos attached to the jury room to smoke.
*Then* you get the struggle for foreman.
Then when that's over you might go round the table, and everybody says 'guilty' and the foreman thinks 'oh cripes, I've got myself my five minutes of power and glory, and it's already all over, so I'm going to get the debate going.
Then the coffee order comes in, and twenty minutes is wasted whilst the clerk hands it round. Then there's another fag break, so everybody has to stop talking whilst the addicts go and skive.
With a whole list of charges for the foreman to have his moment of glory discussing each one, you could be there for days on something that's an obvious guilty/not.
|
>>Don't forget also, members of the jury have a vested interest in dragging the trial out
Not my experience. I found it the most boring two weeks of my life.
|
|
Agree. With that amount of inconsistency, inaccuracy, etc. it begs the question as to whether the charges should have ever been brought?
|
I think the CPS felt they had to in light of the Saville investigation. Previous to this then it probably would not have gone on to prosecute. Similar with Michael Le Vell.
When there weren't inconsistencies, like I assume the Stuart Hall case, then change of conviction a lot higher.
I would not be surprised about Roach having done some of what he's accused of back then. He even admits to sleeping with over 1,000 women and back them some of those women would have been quite young.
After all this time, this was surely the right verdict with the evidence not being available to back anything up.
I feel sorry for the women who went through all this only for this to be the verdict. I am of course assuming they were largely telling the truth.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 6 Feb 14 at 17:25
|
My thoughts on this are much the same as your rtj.
On thing puzzles me though and I'm sure someone on here will be able to enlighten me.
How do you blokes manage to keep count of how many women you've slept with when it reaches those proportions?
Bedpost and notches?
Diary?
Score chart?
I'd love to know.
Pat
|
>> I'd love to know.
>>
>> Pat
You don't keep count, because he didn't sleep with a 1000 women. Its a boast and an outlandish guess.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 00:50
|
>> Bedpost and notches?
>> Diary?
>> Score chart?
I must say my first thought on reading of Roache's alleged score - nice round figure that, a tabloid headline figure pulled out of the air - was
'But eeeeh... who's counting?' Doubtless Roache was promiscuous - lots of people are - but this is all a lot of made-up carp for prurient tabloid readers. Shameful really.
I wonder if he will sue anyone for libel?
|
>>
>>
>> I would not be surprised about Roach having done some of what he's accused of
>> back then. He even admits to sleeping with over 1,000 women and back them some
>> of those women would have been quite young.
>>
>>
He didn't admit to sleeping with 1000 women. In an interview with Piers Morgan he admitted to having been unfaithful to his first wife. Morgan tried to prise a figure as to how many out of him and tongue in cheek suggested one thousand. Roach gave a shrug and an equally TIC "Maybe" as an answer.
Of course that was enough for the tabloids to cast the figure in stone.
|
>> Morgan tried to prise a figure
>> as to how many out of him and tongue in cheek suggested one thousand. Roach
>> gave a shrug and an equally TIC "Maybe" as an answer.
He should have said something like 16.5
|
>> Agree. With that amount of inconsistency, inaccuracy, etc. it begs the question as to whether
>> the charges should have ever been brought?
I suspect that level of apparent inconsistency would be par for the course in a case like this. I've never been in a criminal court but spent a fair while professionally in Civil cases, some of them over family matters like wills where people's recollections of past were in play. Wildly differing accounts of family dynamics etc.
As I said upthread I don't think, once a case was established, but to let the jury decide. Any other decision would have been panned by public, press etc and likely susceptible to Judicial Review.
|
The inconsistencies were possibly not found by the CPS, but by the defence and thus not necessarily apparent at the time of prosecution (means the CPS did a shoddy job though).
For a 'starstruck' person to have been 'warned' by Johhny Briggs about Bill Roache and then in court decide it must have been another actor (as Briggs wasn't in the series at that time) casts more than 'reasonable doubt' upon the strength of evidence that may lead to a man serving several years in jail.
Simply collecting a bunch of similar stories and using that as a 'proof' that something happened gives credence to hillbillies being abducted by aliens - so many claim to have been it must be true!
Each case was examined and dismissed by the jury - perhaps the CPS didn't dig deeply enough.
|
>> Simply collecting a bunch of similar stories and using that as a 'proof' that something
>> happened gives credence to hillbillies being abducted by aliens - so many claim to have
>> been it must be true!
The scary thing is the number of people who believe in ghosts and alien visitors.
I'd be thinking about that if I was dependent on a jury verdict for my liberty.
|
>>
>> For a 'starstruck' person to have been 'warned' by Johhny Briggs about Bill Roache and
>> then in court decide it must have been another actor (as Briggs wasn't in the
>> series at that time) casts more than 'reasonable doubt' upon the strength of evidence that may lead to a man serving several years in jail.
>>
>>
Not to mention "I think he may have abused me in his car but I can't remember it".
|
>> For a 'starstruck' person to have been 'warned' by Johhny Briggs about Bill Roache and
>> then in court decide it must have been another actor (as Briggs wasn't in the
>> series at that time) casts more than 'reasonable doubt' upon the strength of evidence that
>> may lead to a man serving several years in jail.
Not so sure.
Was it Peter, Jeff or Justin who warned me in 1990 that my branch head Frank was a managerial psychopath? I cannot remember but whoever it was they were right!!
|
>> my branch head Frank was a managerial psychopath?
Isn't that a tautology?
|
>> So he is officially not a cockroach!
Correct. Roaches can really survive just about anything.
|
Christine Hamilton milking it for all it's worth!
God I hate that woman,
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:07
|
|
Apparently a 'friend' of William Roach. Good job that was not widely known before the trial!
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 08:54
|
|
After the news bulletins I think he should be sent down for being smug and condescending.
|
>> God I hate that woman,
Any particular reason?
The Hamiltons did look vulgar and shameless during their flirtation with reality TV and self-promotion. I can't confirm this personally but I am told they are far more agreeable and amusing than one might expect. For what it's worth.
|
>> >> God I hate that woman,
>>
>> Any particular reason?
>>
>> The Hamiltons did look vulgar and shameless during their flirtation with reality TV and self-promotion.
>>
That's it. You just said it.
|
>> >> God I hate that woman,
>>
>> Any particular reason?
>>
>> The Hamiltons did look vulgar and shameless during their flirtation with reality TV and self-promotion.
>> I can't confirm this personally but I am told they are far more agreeable and
>> amusing than one might expect. For what it's worth.
I HAVE met both Christine & Neil Hamilton and I can confirm that they are extremely pleasant and not at all patronising.
They did have a rough time and I admire Christine particularly, for standing by Neil and by buckling down to earning a living for both of them, by whatever means were possible.
www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html
|
>> I HAVE met both Christine & Neil Hamilton and I can confirm that they are
>> extremely pleasant and not at all patronising.
>> They did have a rough time and I admire Christine particularly, for standing by Neil
>> and by buckling down to earning a living for both of them, by whatever means
>> were possible.
>
That would be after they became Kippers then...........
|
|
Went to their show at the Edinburgh Fringe a few years back, quiet enjoyable. She came across as a bit of a dragon who wears the trousers but I'm sure they were hamming it up. He spoke to us outside for a bit and seemed a nice enough bloke.
|
Closing speeches yesterday and Judge summing up today/Monday.
Verdict by next Tuesday?
|
>> Closing speeches yesterday and Judge summing up today/Monday.
>>
>> Verdict by next Tuesday?
>>
Highly likely, I'd think.
|
Tony Blackburn has just been on ITV admitting to Piers Morgan that he slept with about 250 women.
That's a brave thing to do at the moment...
|
|
thats 250 brave women.....
|
>> Is he?
Nahh he's in gaol for dodging parking ickets.
|
>> Is he?
I did the same double-take. I wish Iffy would come back. There's a pedantry famine here these days. I am too idle to maintain pettifogging lawyerish standards all by myself.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 8 Feb 14 at 19:46
|
Another case concluded yesterday provides more evidence as to why there should never be a limitation on prosecuting historic sex offences.
Ronald Peter Wright was a Master and later Head of Caldicott Preparatory School. He and his colleague Hugh Henry sexually abused boys between 11 and 13 over a period of years. Yesterday he was sentenced to 8 years for a range of offences. Hugh Henry was also due to be sentenced but was killed by a train at Amersham station earlier in the week.
The offences were originally investigated and prosecuted a decade ago but the judge ruled the indictment an abuse of process. Those cases went no further. Another group of men then came forward with similar allegations. This time they went to trial.
The judges sentnecing remarks are here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-roland-wright-sentencing-remarks.pdf
The offences are described in graphic detail.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 13:45
|
>> Another case concluded yesterday provides more evidence as to why there should never be a limitation on prosecuting historic sex offences.
>>
>>
>>
There should be a limitation and ten years would be about right IMO, except when the offences are against children when the ten year period should start after they have reached 18.
It needs to be impressed on victims of these crimes that the MUST report them as soon as possible. Patronisingly letting people come forward after fifty years because they might feel ashamed of being victims actually re-enforces the belief that there is something to be ashamed of. They will have anonymity and pushing the message that they are victims of an assault and have every right to be loud and clear about it straight away should be the message sent out.
|
>> There should be a limitation and ten years would be about right IMO, except when
>> the offences are against children when the ten year period should start after they have
>> reached 18.
>>
>> It needs to be impressed on victims of these crimes that the MUST report them
>> as soon as possible. Patronisingly letting people come forward after fifty years because they might
>> feel ashamed of being victims actually re-enforces the belief that there is something to be
>> ashamed of. They will have anonymity and pushing the message that they are victims of
>> an assault and have every right to be loud and clear about it straight away
>> should be the message sent out.
Maybe, just maybe, there's some merit in that looking forward from where we are today. OTOH looking back for people who were victims in another era it does nothing but allow the perps to lie easy in their beds.
Is that what you want?
|
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe, there's some merit in that looking forward from where we are today.
>> OTOH looking back for people who were victims in another era it does nothing but
>> allow the perps to lie easy in their beds.
>>
>> Is that what you want?
>>
To be clear, in a case where forensic or other evidence that wasn't available at the time comes to light I would support a prosecution no matter how far back the offences. But in a case resting on purely an accusation and a denial with no witnesses or other evidence available I would not.
Even in the case of Savile who was almost certainly a long term offender I do not for a minute believe the astronomical numbers being quoted are anywhere near the true figure. Any claims of abuse against the late JS are accepted without question as fact rather than allegations. Were I of a certain type, a bit strapped for cash and eyeing a payout from his estate I might even be tempted to invent a fingering in the back of his Roller myself.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 20:30
|
>> To be clear, in a case where forensic or other evidence that wasn't available at
>> the time comes to light I would support a prosecution no matter how far back
>> the offences. But in a case resting on purely an accusation and a denial with
>> no witnesses or other evidence available I would not.
So unless there's a 40 year old sheet or pair of pants to hand Wright and his colleague could go to their graves as innocent men?
|
>>So unless there's a 40 year old sheet or pair of pants to hand Wright and his colleague could go to their graves as innocent men?
Currently in Scotland there is much alarm about the loss of 'corroboration' being required to obtain a guilty verdict.
Presumably, Bromp, you'd be happy to see people sent to jail for several years on the back of utterly uncorroborated statements of individuals about events from several decades ago?
And the infallibility of juries?
Not Catholic are you (re. infallibility)?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 20:55
|
@Lygonos
Corroboration is a double edged sword. On the one hand requiring it it reduces chances of miscarriages of justice. OTOH, in case of (primarily sexual) offences committed in private space between two people corroboration is, excepting contemporary forensics, not possible.
In those circs, where conflicting evidence is scrutinised and one account accepted by a jury, I'm content (but not happy) that people ar properly sent tojail.
|
>>in case of (primarily sexual) offences committed in private space between two people corroboration is, excepting contemporary forensics, not possible
I'd find it fairly difficult without any form of corroboration to believe someone's account to such a degree that I'd send someone to jail for 5+ years, yes.
I've met some pretty accomplished liars in my time.
|
>> I've met some pretty accomplished liars in my time.
Oh and so have I but it's the jury's function to sort the truthful wheat from the lying chaff.
In reality, if multiple witnesses from same school say Mr Wright abused them and collaboration can be eliminated then at very least Mr Wright has a case to answer.
|
Somewhere up above I said "but 12 good men and true have decided that it didn't happen"
And Bromp responded "The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that the accusers case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt."
Now Bromp says "it's the jury's function to sort the truthful wheat from the lying chaff"
Seems a little inconsistent. Ho hum.
|
>> Somewhere up above I said "but 12 good men and true have decided that it
>> didn't happen"
>>
>> And Bromp responded "The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that
>> the accusers case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt."
>>
>>
>> Now Bromp says "it's the jury's function to sort the truthful wheat from the lying
>> chaff"
>>
>>
>> Seems a little inconsistent. Ho hum.
Civil Servants see both sides of an argument, but will argue for the side which best keeps the status quo.
|
>> Somewhere up above I said "but 12 good men and true have decided that it
>> didn't happen"
>>
>> And Bromp responded "The jury has decided no such thing. Rather, they have decided that
>> the accusers case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt."
>>
>>
>> Now Bromp says "it's the jury's function to sort the truthful wheat from the lying
>> chaff"
>>
>>
>> Seems a little inconsistent. Ho hum.
No inconsistency at all.
To convict in a criminal case the jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. That's (rightly) a pretty high hurdle and a different beast from the balance of probability test applied in the Civil Courts and Tribunals.
It's perfectly possible to regard witness A as an accomplished liar and to disregard his evidence altogether. OTOH witnesses B, C & D appear very probably to be truthful but sufficient gaps or anomalies exist that the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle is not cleared - defendant acquitted.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 14 at 11:32
|
>> To convict in a criminal case the jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
>> That's (rightly) a pretty high hurdle and a different beast from the balance of probability
>> test applied in the Civil Courts and Tribunals.
>>
>> It's perfectly possible to regard witness A as an accomplished liar and to disregard his
>> evidence altogether. OTOH witnesses B, C & D appear very probably to be truthful but
>> sufficient gaps or anomalies exist that the beyond reasonable doubt hurdle is not cleared -
>> defendant acquitted.
>>
Most people think that if you are on a jury and having heard all the evidence that they'll let you hear, you think the defendant did it, you find him Guilty and conversely if you think he didn't do it, you find him Not Guilty.
Once juries start trying to be Miss Marple it usually goes to rat's excrement.
|
>>>Most people think that if you are on a jury and having heard all the evidence that they'll let you hear, you think the defendant did it, you find him Guilty and conversely if you think he didn't do it, you find him Not Guilty.<<<
Is it better to have a panel of expert jurors, to have a jury made up from a pool of 'most people' or let the law enforcers be judge, jury, and executioners?
Perhaps the Scottish 3 level outcome including 'not proven' should be adopted. It would appear to be potentially very suitable in cases where coroboration is difficult to come by.
|
>>
>> Perhaps the Scottish 3 level outcome including 'not proven' should be adopted. It would appear to be potentially very suitable in cases where coroboration is difficult to come by.
>>
>>
>>
You've either been found guilty or you haven't. Why should a man leave the dock with a load of doubt hanging over him if there isn't enough evidence for a conviction?
|
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the Scottish 3 level outcome including 'not proven' should be adopted. It would
>> appear to be potentially very suitable in cases where coroboration is difficult to come by.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> You've either been found guilty or you haven't. Why should a man leave the dock
>> with a load of doubt hanging over him if there isn't enough evidence for a
>> conviction?
The point has been made elsewhere that our "not guilty" is actually "not proven", so he does anyway.
The last option to be introduced in Scotland was "not guilty" so a jury could acquit while the facts were either considered proven, or admitted. It's probably also used by juries to say "we know he didn't do it" not merely that in was unprovable beyond reasonable doubt.
"Not proven" is considered by some to mean "Not Guilty, don't do it again"
How about we have 3 verdicts - Guilty, Not Proven (equivalent to today's Not Guilty) and Not Guilty, following which prosecutions for perjury can follow? The resultant mess would enrich the legal profession for decades to come.
|
>> How about we have 3 verdicts - Guilty, Not Proven (equivalent to today's Not Guilty)
>> and Not Guilty, following which prosecutions for perjury can follow? The resultant mess would enrich
>> the legal profession for decades to come.
The present system probably works OK.
Charging perjury is only appropriate in the most blatant cases. Anything else will have a chilling effect on reporting of crime and on witnesses coming forward and giving full and open testimony.
If he suspects witnesses have deliberately lied, particularly if they've conspired to do so, the Judge can refer the matter to the police for further investigation. Defendants get a lot of latitude for same public policy reasons as above. Sentencing can reflect the effect of a contrived defence (ie as counter mitigation) without the time and expense of a further prosecution for perjury.
|
>> Judge can refer the matter to the police for further investigation.
When does that ever happen?
|
>>
>> >> Judge can refer the matter to the police for further investigation.
>>
>> When does that ever happen?
Rarely - for the public policy reasons I've set out.
|
>> Most people think that if you are on a jury and having heard all the
>> evidence that they'll let you hear, you think the defendant did it, you find him
>> Guilty and conversely if you think he didn't do it, you find him Not Guilty.
I accept that as a view from the Clapham omnibus. The reality however is different. In summing up the judge will explain the standard of proof required. IIRC the guidance is to use some a phrase like 'absolutely convinced' rather than the lawyers language of beyond reasonable doubt.
The response of mine you quote is part of a chain which began when I challenged an assertion that finding Roache NG proved his accusers liars who should be prosecuted for perjury.
|
>>
>> So unless there's a 40 year old sheet or pair of pants to hand Wright
>> and his colleague could go to their graves as innocent men?
>>
There would be no need for those people to go to their graves as innocent men. A ten year time limit is plenty of time to bring a complaint.
|
>> There would be no need for those people to go to their graves as innocent
>> men. A ten year time limit is plenty of time to bring a complaint.
So if your daughter or son were abused at age 7 you'd accept 'case closed' once they were 17?
Or even if it were a school teacher assaulting them at 17 and they couldn't bring themselves to to talk about until nationwide publicity about their assailant 15 years later?
|
>> >
>> So if your daughter or son were abused at age 7 you'd accept 'case closed'
>> once they were 17?
>>
>>
You missed part of my post Brompt. I did say that in the case of minors the ten year period wouldn't start till they were eighteen.
|
>> You missed part of my post Brompt. I did say that in the case of
>> minors the ten year period wouldn't start till they were eighteen.
I might have stretched it but I didn't miss it.
In 2014 we live an an era where discussion of sexual matters is relatively open. I can have a jokey conversation with The Lad about having a ham shank I'd not have considered having with my Father. My daughter and her b/f are not remotely embarrassed when I take them morning tea in her bedroom.
OTOH iff you're 50+ accepting you'd been abused in way the Caldicott School kids were is a massive thing. If you go through years of your life thinking being jerked off by a schoolmaster is (both) normal and shameful then you don't report it.
|
|
Of course there should be no statute of limitations on offences. However you have to accept that evidence key to prosecution does have a sell by date. The longer its left the less value it can have.
|
>> However you have to
>> accept that evidence key to prosecution does have a sell by date. The longer its
>> left the less value it can have.
>>
And for the defence.
The ticket collector on the 7.37 might just remember you from last week and confirm your alibi, but not in 50 years time if you suddenly find you need a defence.
|
>> >> However you have to
>> >> accept that evidence key to prosecution does have a sell by date. The longer
>> its
>> >> left the less value it can have.
>> >>
>>
>> And for the defence.
>> The ticket collector on the 7.37 might just remember you from last week and confirm
>> your alibi, but not in 50 years time if you suddenly find you need a
>> defence.
You are of course both right. Prosecution for a single date specific offence at these sort of distances is unlikely unless supported by forensics of one sort or another.
Roache, DLT, Hall and the convicted schoolmaster Wright all face/faced multiple charges founded on similar offences against unconnected victims. The court will be wary of such cases and legal argument may well be heard long before anything gets to a jury. The judge, in summing up, will also warn the jury of pitfalls etc.
Discussion of these cases on another site threw up a reference to a Scots law case called Moorov - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorov_v_HM_Advocate. While that's Scots law I suspect the courts in England and Wales would apply a similar test.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Feb 14 at 11:45
|
|
According o todays online DM it looks as if Roach is not off the hook yet. The police are "looking into" more allegations.
|
Some people apparently came forward during the trial. Tough luck.
Unless they bring some pretty convincing evidence there is little chance of a prosecution, let alone a conviction.
|
>> Some people apparently came forward during the trial. Tough luck.
>>
>> Unless they bring some pretty convincing evidence there is little chance of a prosecution, let
>> alone a conviction.
In specific instance of Roache I almost hope you're right.
OTOH the appalling peadophile Wright was only convicted on a second bite at the cherry after a failed trial brought forward more allegations.
|
>> was only convicted on a second bite at the cherry
Somewhat unfortunate terminology..I do sympathise though, that's been my let down all my life.
|
Inside pages ( small article) in the Torygraph that Roach is complaining that the judge was biased against him.
Seeing that he got off, it seems a little unwise, unless he is setting the tone for any future appearance and subsequent appeal in the event of a not desired outcome?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 10 Feb 14 at 09:43
|
"Seeing that he got off"
He didn't "get off" - he was found not guilty.
|
To me 'get off' was meaning being 'found not guilty'. However looking up the meaning in the dictionary of slang produces an alternative meaning that may also be approrpriate :)
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=getting%20off
educational site this!
|
Roach Not Guilty - Zero
