Not Guilty

It is all there for you to know, by the absolute silence, and nil information of where and when
But the words of Bitter, and Step should aid you

Jack McH

 

The mum has seemed quite, well, manipulative? I dunno...

 

The CPS dropped it once, would be interesting to hear what compelling new evidence made them resume the prosecution, especially as it didn't seem to be presented to the court.

Agreed, education would be a better way, but would that stop this sort of case happening again?

 

I'm not well up on this, so if I'm waffling please say so.

Was the case first brought up before the JS revelations, or after?

 

After.

 

I believe its Operation Yewtree. From what I can gather from the media, operation Yewtree involves compiling a list of every male celebrity over the age of about 40, whipping the public up into a frenzy, and then just ticking off names on the list as and when they get mentioned by any female. No need to check evidence or anything before naming and shaming. The evidence can be compiled later from 'witnesses' once the mob have had chance to pick up their pitch forks and light their torches.

 

Well said clue!!!! I absolutely agree with every word of this!!!!!!

Val

 

some people just like gossip, and if you tell them the true, they wouldn't beleive you any way

Your correspondent "some where under the hedge"- speaking from experience!

 

So, are you saying that, for you @fat controller, because the jury found the defendant "not guilty" it stands to reason the accused must therefore be "guilty" (of .... something?)

Hmm, maybe, but not necessarily: maybe he is merely a good “actor”?
(Maybe he’s played a scene like that in his actor career already?)
Then, of course, there is the matter of "presenting" oneself: e.g. a mature, alcoholic, man of the world, aged 48 vs a young girl of 15yo? Irrespective of "acting" experience

Ah, so, you have decided that because a jury returned a "not guilty" verdict that equates to him being totally "innocent" then? Ergo, the girl must be a nasty piece of works who now deserves being thrown to the "face value" mobs to be (metaphorically) hung, drawn and quartered?

Research has shown that the modern jury system is flawed. So, you may have a point there

Quite!
Yet, that does not necessarily equate to "innocent" though: it could mean (in that context) "not proven".

We can speculate over what we have been permitted to hear, what we assume from what we haven't heard, what we base those assumptions on and how manipulated, or otherwise, we may have been, or feel we may have been, via the media, our personal stereotypes, our personal sympathises.

Some may find this article of interest:
Fewer than one rape victim in 30 can expect to see her or his attacker brought to justice shocking new statistics reveal.

Only two people know the absolute truth: him and her! One of them is most definitely a victim here and I'm not privy to the full facts to know which is which; none of us are.

The only thing I am sure of is, either way, both of them have been put through the mill and both of them will have to live with the consequences of this court case for the whole of their lives.

It's tragic no matter which side you fall down on.

 

It is that I agree, no ones a winner.

Said on the radio today that they release the names of the accused so that others that might have been on the receiving end of the same person can come forward jump on the bandwagon

 

I thought about what I said before I posted, and considered that it may not be as clear cut as I implied, but I still stand by what I said. Its unfortunate, but the truth is public opinion is very biased when it comes to accusations of any form of abuse of a woman or child by a man. Invariably it is just assumed that the man is guilty of everything he's accused of and probably more besides, and it is also assumed that the woman/girl is innocent of everything and doesn't even know how to tell fibs. As long as that attitude is left unchecked, there will always be gross injustice, as believe it or not, blokes are not always guilty as charged, and women do sometimes lie. Whether that is the case this time or not is not for me to say. I was not there. However at some point society needs to be taught that there are consequences if you wreck someone's life based on a lie. There are two reasons why this is important. Firstly, so that innocent people don't have their lives ruined on the whim of some girl/woman, and secondly so that the credibility of genuine cases is not undermined. As far as I can follow, this is the first 'not guilty' verdict of operation yewtree. A precedent has been set. The accuser is now public accused of lying and the courts agreed that that's what most likely happened. The certainty of guilt has now been compromised. That means that if in the next case, even if the accused is actually guilty, the public, who the jurors are selected from, are going to have it in mind that the accuser might be lying.

 

Does that mean you advocate removal of the Jury in trials?

What would you offer as an alternative?

Personally I would rather be tried by 12 of my peers, rather than 3 Judges.

 

Not really, but I do have mixed feelings about the idea. On one hand, I'd be reluctant to trust anyone who might be personally known to the coppers and solicitors. On the other hand, what makes 12 random people qualified to pass judgement in a complex case?

In my job, apart from writing software, which really is only a small part of my job, I am an analyst. That means its my job find out all the detail. Only difference is, I get to ask the questions. A juror doesn't. They get to listen. Sometimes in my job I will mis-hear something, so I will question about it, and through years of experience in the job I think I've mastered the art of phrasing my questions differently, adapting to the communication style of the person I'm talking to, summing up and recapping to make sure I've understood and to give them a chance to stop me and tell me again in a different way, identifying contradictions, inconsistencies and incompleteness etc. First of all a juror doesn't have the luxury of being able to stop people to ask a gazillion questions to consolidate their understanding, and secondly, even if they did, the analytical mental processes don't come naturally to everybody and even those for whom it does come naturally, the skill of perfecting it doesn't come without years of practice. So in effect, the typical jury is made up of people who simply don't have the understanding to reach a reliable conclusion.

So in summary, I don't know. I do know that I'd have no faith at all in my peers if I stood accused of rape or sexual abuse of any kind, because as I said earlier, there is also an assumption of guilt in such cases, and it must take a lot to convince people otherwise.

I once had the dubious honour of being a witness for the prosecution at the magistrates court. Its my only courtroom experience, and I must say I was impressed by the magistrates. Their level headedness and their very well constructed questions filled me with confidence that they would ultimately come to the right conclusion. They did. Quite possibly because they've actually had some training in the art of gathering and understanding the facts.

 

I have no doubt that you chose your words carefully, as you always do

That is an incredibly sweeping statement, clue! Almost bordering on sexist stereotypes of a Dickensian nature.

I have no doubt there exist a number of souls who resemble that statement (and can be found baying for blood and, alleged, moral justice within audiences of a certain calibre of "chat show", aired for daytime TV viewing. However, times are moving, education is improving and diversity progresses along with attitudes and thinking.

I am a member of the public and I have an opinion ergo a member of that "public opinion" and that is certainly not something I would consider a "truth", a potential, of course - as would be the reverse - but not an absolute: nor do a good number of my associates (past and present/male and female).

We still don't know without a doubt that the accused wasn't "guilty" in this case, clue All we know is, based on the facts presented, the jury concluded that the only verdict they could bring was one of "not guilty". That is the whole point!

The "certainty of guilt" in a rape case (or any other case) doesn't actually exist in a court of law, clue. The fundamental issue with a "standard" rape case will always be: one person's word, vs another. If the accusation made is not immediate, it goes without saying that "evidence" will be lost/unobtainable. If the abuse/rape occurred at an early age and continued over a period of time, it is only natural that events become confused/disjointed and, therefore, difficult to substantiate in a court of law which will, in turn, lead to a question of doubt.

I think what this case highlights, more than anything is: the ambiguity of a successful outcome of such cases. And that is historic!

It most certainly isn't clear cut in my mind who is the victim and who is the abuser in this particular case! Nor will I cast aspersions on either party when I am not fully conversant with the facts - regardless of what you consider to be "public opinion"

Both parties in this case have to live with the media attention it has brought: your perception of "public opinion"; the daytime TV viewers; those who are not able to think outside the box; those who have endured similar circumstances yet never brought it to light and are now stuck in a time warp of self loathing against our so called justice system!

So, answer me this question: for all those young girls who have been groped, abused and left a legacy of low-self esteem (at best!) by men of a mature age, who know how systems work and can put on a credible defence, how should they progress in their world? Should they abandon all hope of ever being given British justice by bringing their case to court? Even if it is a year later; 2 years late; 5 yrs? 10? Maybe even 20 yrs later? Should they just shut up and put up simply because of the lack of evidence will now brand them "liars"? Trying it on as a "meal ticket"? Or, maybe, be accused of being "bitter"? If that were your sister/mother/aunt/wife/child, what advice would you give them?

And what of those young boys who were sexually abused by people in (perceived!) 'power'? What of their traumatic abuses? Even grown men are hugely reluctant to admit being raped - despite having substantial evidence to secure a conviction! How much more difficult is that for someone who was abused in their childhood? Should they also just shut up, and put up, simply because "public opinion" won't be in their favour? Or, if they do speak up, public opinion may go against them purely due to .... lack of evidence!?

It's a really difficult issue - no matter which way you look at it!

 

If they put me on a jury I'm sure I would find the whole process boring, I'd probably spend the whole day clock watching.

Do we really want people like me making judgements about others guilt.

I cant even stay awake during "Midsommer murders".