Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

porca misèria

Jury Defies Witchfinder General

Recommended Posts

Wot, no post from the folks who bring news stories here?

Seems a jury has defied the Witchfinder General and declined to convict a celebrity accused of sex crimes in the distant past.

Will Saville end up as the only celebrity scalp to stand? Must be time to find another recently-dead celeb to accuse: the living ones can be so inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another useful ploy is the false accusation. First, create a situation where you are wrongly accused. Then, at a convenient moment, arrange for the false accusation to be shown to be false beyond all doubt. Those who have made accusations against both the company and its management become discredited. Further accusations will then be treated with great suspicion. Always remember that people’s memories are very frail, remembering only both the high spots and the lows of a person’s career, and then seldom remembering accurately. People believe in the facts that it suits them to believe.

Alistair ********: The New Machiavelli.

It's not just Bill Roache who's innocent; so are all MPs and members of the House of Lords

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alistair ********: The New Machiavelli.

It's not just Bill Roache who's innocent; so are all MPs and members of the House of Lords

the machiavelli statement was/is quite apt.

(as I've said before....the "farting in a crowded lift" tactic...and looking elsewhere..AKA he who smelt it dealt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a very general comment....

I recall my time on a jury, and how farcical it was. I can say confidently and honestly that the jury I was on made two consecutive wrongful verdicts. One was a robbery and one was a rape case. Some of the jury members had extreme anti-police views and as a result let off the accused based purely on this principle. This is despite their rather obvious guilt IMHO. And it really opened my eyes.

I still think about the rape case to this day actually, because I am convinced even 20 years later that the victim was genuine. Both cases had a strong racial element, and though I'm sure the PC brigade would claim otherwise, this element distorted both cases. The first let off a black guy who had blatantly robbed. On the jury was an Irish woman who was incredibly anti-police and very very vocal. She influenced the whole jury had let this guy off.

In the second case, a black girl had accused an Asian guy of rape. Now for one reason or another, the judge just seemed to side with the suited and booted Asian guy. And it went downhill from there. I sensed this black girl was genuine. She was somewhat surly and limited in vocabulary, and the judge took an open dislike to this. But I didn't detect any dishonesty. She was adamant what had happened. However, the judge directed the jury and the jury followed. Asian guy walks and black girl disgraced as a liar for the rest of her life.

Anyway the upshot of all that is ...... we live in a world of chaos. Whether a jury convicts or does not convict has nothing to do with real guilt or innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a very general comment....

I recall my time on a jury, and how farcical it was.

Presumably as you didn't agree the jury didn't give a unanimous verdict ? (although majority decisions are not made public when the verdict is not guilty).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope I am never tried by my peers for something I've been falsely accused of. It is literally a lottery - especially given the public's tendency to try by media coverage (cf Knox, Roache, Allen, Jackson etc...)

It's a wonder there aren't many false convictions. Perhaps there are, but they never get overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope I am never tried by my peers for something I've been falsely accused of. It is literally a lottery - especially given the public's tendency to try by media coverage (cf Knox, Roache, Allen, Jackson etc...)

It's a wonder there aren't many false convictions. Perhaps there are, but they never get overturned.

That is not logical, captain.

Doesn't the outcome of the trials show the jurors overcame any bias (real or presumed) from media coverage?

Tell us who you want be tried by. In the end each of us can die like a dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear no Jury in this country, for I am fairly White and reasonably posh! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear no Jury in this country, for I am fairly White and reasonably posh! :blink:

The Jury - unlike a convicted criminal - doesn't get privileges or time off for good behaviour.

Fear the system, not the jury!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not logical, captain.

Doesn't the outcome of the trials show the jurors overcame any bias (real or presumed) from media coverage?

Tell us who you want be tried by. In the end each of us can die like a dog.

DLT: "I've had two trials, one trial by media, and one by the Crown Court."

Google that phrase and you'll see they have edited the full comment: "I did lose my reputation as well, which I may try to get back later. I want to say I had two trials: one by media and one by crown court and I have to say in all honesty that I preferred trial by crown court."

Mind you, the jury took 20 hours - again, as in the case of the second Coronation Street guy, substantial evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain why it took the jury 5 hours to reach a verdict.

The guy was tried on substantial evidence.

Reasonable doubt.

There's a difference between substantial and beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is that the five hours were spent determining whether or not that line had been crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a very general comment....

In the second case, a black girl had accused an Asian guy of rape. Now for one reason or another, the judge just seemed to side with the suited and booted Asian guy. And it went downhill from there. I sensed this black girl was genuine. She was somewhat surly and limited in vocabulary, and the judge took an open dislike to this. But I didn't detect any dishonesty. She was adamant what had happened. However, the judge directed the jury and the jury followed. Asian guy walks and black girl disgraced as a liar for the rest of her life.

Had a very similar case, The girl had got herself blackmailed into giving sexual favours or something, because she had been found out doing benefit fraud, which is what the prosecution case was based on. Unfortunately she was probably a bit simple and had not been properly coached by her lawyer, so whenever the she was asked about the fraud, she said "oohh nooo y'r honor, I wouuld never do anything like that" and her lawyer had to keep explaining to her that it wasn't her that was being tried, and just to tell the truth.

Anyway, I forget what it's called, but apparently the prosecution case has to be above all reproach and the judge eventually stopped the trial.

I think we all were a bit quietly outraged, because she was such an obviously bad liar, that she was presumably telling the truth about the other stuff, but there was never really any evidence for a conviction anyway, it was one word against the other.

The jury was quite sensible, but the organisation was completely chaotic. We sat around for 3 days doing nothing, then the trial was stopped after half an hour.

[edit]

I suspect the number of cases where a guilty accused gets away with it massively exceeds the number where an inocent gets convicted, simply because having enough evidence to prove something "beyond all reasonable doubt" is virtually impossible in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all were a bit quietly outraged, because she was such an obviously bad liar, that she was presumably telling the truth about the other stuff,

Alternatively, could've been an accomplished thespian.

Hmm, a longer view has just sprung to mind. Didn't Mr Pickwick get imprisoned on his generation's big sexual hangup, a Breach case[1]. His accuser wasn't the most credible witness either, though of course being a happy story it all comes right when she later confesses.

I suspect the number of cases where a guilty accused gets away with it massively exceeds the number where an inocent gets convicted, simply because having enough evidence to prove something "beyond all reasonable doubt" is virtually impossible in these cases.

That applies to all kinds of crime. At the top of the list, anything involving the SFO.

[1] I mean, anti-male hangup. Obviously women risked very serious consequences back then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a very general comment....

I recall my time on a jury, and how farcical it was. I can say confidently and honestly that the jury I was on made two consecutive wrongful verdicts. One was a robbery and one was a rape case. Some of the jury members had extreme anti-police views and as a result let off the accused based purely on this principle. This is despite their rather obvious guilt IMHO. And it really opened my eyes.

I still think about the rape case to this day actually, because I am convinced even 20 years later that the victim was genuine. Both cases had a strong racial element, and though I'm sure the PC brigade would claim otherwise, this element distorted both cases. The first let off a black guy who had blatantly robbed. On the jury was an Irish woman who was incredibly anti-police and very very vocal. She influenced the whole jury had let this guy off.

In the second case, a black girl had accused an Asian guy of rape. Now for one reason or another, the judge just seemed to side with the suited and booted Asian guy. And it went downhill from there. I sensed this black girl was genuine. She was somewhat surly and limited in vocabulary, and the judge took an open dislike to this. But I didn't detect any dishonesty. She was adamant what had happened. However, the judge directed the jury and the jury followed. Asian guy walks and black girl disgraced as a liar for the rest of her life.

Anyway the upshot of all that is ...... we live in a world of chaos. Whether a jury convicts or does not convict has nothing to do with real guilt or innocence.

A couple of years ago i was witness to a guy who tried to nick a laptop from an event, in fact i caught him trying to get away, he was so convincing defending himself in court I had to question myself under oath if he was quilty, he definetely was and was convicted, although i doubted myself for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.