Historical cases evidence
Discussion
I want to make clear from the start, this is not about me. It seems that someone I work with occasionally has recently been sent down for a bit of noncing. I don't know him that well so have absolutely no idea or indeed care whether he is guilty or not but a couple of the lads who have known him for years say there is no way he is guilty and has been fitted up by a very disturbed family member. (he went not guilty apparently)
Obviously we aren't privy to all the details that the jury gets to hear so it could be anything really but given loads of people seem to get off lots of different court cases for nothing more than a technicality, how do people like this ever get found guilty, surely it cant be just because someone says they were once bummed 20 years ago. If that was the case I could out of the blue say a past teacher did something to me years ago, or maybe if I had a disliking for a workmate say last time I was drunk on a works outing they "touched me down there".
Surely it cant be that easy, or is it odds on there is a lot more to it we just don't know about and he is probably 99% a paedo?
Obviously we aren't privy to all the details that the jury gets to hear so it could be anything really but given loads of people seem to get off lots of different court cases for nothing more than a technicality, how do people like this ever get found guilty, surely it cant be just because someone says they were once bummed 20 years ago. If that was the case I could out of the blue say a past teacher did something to me years ago, or maybe if I had a disliking for a workmate say last time I was drunk on a works outing they "touched me down there".
Surely it cant be that easy, or is it odds on there is a lot more to it we just don't know about and he is probably 99% a paedo?
I get the jury decides on the evidence but where do they get the evidence from, you see guilty verdicts fairly often for this sort of stuff, usually teachers recently, mainly female at the moment as well. surely you would need multiple victims to all say similar things about the perp to get a conviction. If the jury can decide based on the testimony of one person surely they have to take equal consideration to the bloke when he says he didn't do it.
To be clear, I'm not defending him, I don't know enough to go one way or another on it, he seemed ok to me but they always do don't they, I just don't see where they get the "beyond reasonable doubt bit from".
To be clear, I'm not defending him, I don't know enough to go one way or another on it, he seemed ok to me but they always do don't they, I just don't see where they get the "beyond reasonable doubt bit from".
Ubiquitous2024 said:
Your questioning the logic and efficiency of the whole system, not this case. All jurys work the same regardless of offence.
Well the logic of the system seems to be "beyond reasonable doubt" but many a case has fell apart for some technical reason or another in the past when its plainly obvious the accused was guilty as sin but due to some technicality or a slightly dodgy piece of evidence they have been acquitted. I remember a mate getting done for DD in the past, he got a top brief onto it and the brief found out that the blood sample had been left alone when it shouldn't have and the police couldn't prove it hadn't been tampered with at some stage. He got off even though he was driving when pissed as a newt. Yet for these type of offences someone's guilt seems to hinge on what a person said happened to them 20 or 30 years ago without any other evidence.Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?
Frane Selak said:
...but a couple of the lads who have known him for years say there is no way he is guilty and has been fitted up by a very disturbed family member. (he went not guilty apparently)
...
Surely it cant be that easy, or is it odds on there is a lot more to it we just don't know about and he is probably 99% a paedo?
Presumably the two lads have only heard his side of the story rather than everything the jury did......
Surely it cant be that easy, or is it odds on there is a lot more to it we just don't know about and he is probably 99% a paedo?
Bill said:
Presumably the two lads have only heard his side of the story rather than everything the jury did...
I would have thought so, but they also know the "victim" quite well and they have all said he has always been a bit of a trouble causer and oddball. But then again you would be a bit "odd" if you've had something you didn't particularly want most of your life. I don't know the victim at all and don't really know the other bloke that well although I've spoken to him a few times.Frane Selak said:
Well the logic of the system seems to be "beyond reasonable doubt" but many a case has fell apart for some technical reason or another in the past when its plainly obvious the accused was guilty as sin but due to some technicality or a slightly dodgy piece of evidence they have been acquitted. I remember a mate getting done for DD in the past, he got a top brief onto it and the brief found out that the blood sample had been left alone when it shouldn't have and the police couldn't prove it hadn't been tampered with at some stage. He got off even though he was driving when pissed as a newt. Yet for these type of offences someone's guilt seems to hinge on what a person said happened to them 20 or 30 years ago without any other evidence.
Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?
Quite. The legal system is set up very much in favour of the defendant. It's far more common for someone who did the crime to be found not guilty than the other way around. Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?
Frane Selak said:
"…….
Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?
These days people think evidence is only physical stuff such as photos, videos, fingerprints, dna……. Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?
What a witness says during the trial is also evidence and that is why they can be questioned on that evidence during the trial. The result comes down to the weight of evidence and who the jury believes. How do they think the system worked 150 years ago?
OIC said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
Why don't you request the court transcripts and then you can decide for yourself if you think he is guilty or innocent.
See here. I think it’s the case that a very very small percentage rape cases ever get to the prosecution stage due to lots of reasons..primarily proof of historical evidence and the bravery of the victim(s) in putting themselves through it all.
I would imagine sexual deviancy with a child, family member or whoever is unfortunate enough to be the victim is equally as hard to get to the prosecution stage let alone to get a jury conviction.
As the old saying goes and I’m a great believer in this ‘ there’s no smoke without fire’ !
I would imagine sexual deviancy with a child, family member or whoever is unfortunate enough to be the victim is equally as hard to get to the prosecution stage let alone to get a jury conviction.
As the old saying goes and I’m a great believer in this ‘ there’s no smoke without fire’ !
Frane Selak said:
I thought transcripts cost thousands, you occasionally see requests for donations to get a court transcript on things like parking or speeding forums when they think they are onto something. I don't really care what his outcome was, I was more curious as to how they get a guilty verdict with what seems like only one persons testimony.
How do you know it was one person's testimony?Almsost sounds as if you have made your mind up or you are trying to make a point.
Nicetobenice said:
How do you know it was one person's testimony?
Almsost sounds as if you have made your mind up or you are trying to make a point.
I don't, only what people have told me, I'm in no way making any sort of excuse for him. This is just a general question on how they get people like him sent down in the first place when people who commit lets say a million pound robbery or something with stacks of evidence against them walk free on a technicality.Almsost sounds as if you have made your mind up or you are trying to make a point.
Frane Selak said:
I don't, only what people have told me, I'm in no way making any sort of excuse for him. This is just a general question on how they get people like him sent down in the first place when people who commit lets say a million pound robbery or something with stacks of evidence against them walk free on a technicality.
I think each case stands or falls on the merits of its evidence, every case being different. I don't think you can make any general statements about how people get found guilty apart from saying the prosecution presented enough evidence to convince the jury.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff