Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

anonguest

Max Clifford Jailed

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27259318

I know these Saville related celebrity personailty prosecutions have been covered here before but......

Am I the only one who is left genuinely concerned by the apparent lack of hard evidence against many of these accused?

In the case of Saville it is now pretty clear that such evidence exists and, if he went to trial today, he would be convicted, etc.

But, unless I missed it in the press/on TV, I don't recall hearing just what evidence has been used to convict. All I hear is allegations from victims from donkeys years ago.

Someone please tell me that it takes a lot more than just "He fondled my willy" being shouted out ,30+ years after the supposed event, to get someone locked up?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of Saville it is now pretty clear that such evidence exists and, if he went to trial today, he would be convicted, etc.

Even that isn't really clear. It seems that the original accusations have been thoroughly debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone please tell me that it takes more than just "He fondled my willy" being shouted out ,30+ years after the supposed event, to get someone locked up?!

That's the thing that really concerns me about the whole thing. I have no doubt there are plenty who have abused their position but unless there is some actual physical evidence then it's a serious worry.

I think in most of these cases it's been a case of confirming the accusers and accused were where the alleged incident took place and at the right times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in most of these cases it's been a case of confirming the accusers and accused were where the alleged incident took place and at the right times.

So basically not much evidence at all then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing that really concerns me about the whole thing. I have no doubt there are plenty who have abused their position but unless there is some actual physical evidence then it's a serious worry.

I think in most of these cases it's been a case of confirming the accusers and accused were where the alleged incident took place and at the right times.

That seems to be about the gist of it as far as I have seen too!

I keep telling myself that there must be some real 'hard' evidence (even corroborating witnesses) but that for one reason or another, whether due to legal restrictions or reluctance of media to publicise lurid details or such like, that those details haven't been broadcast? Maybe they have and you and I missed them?

IF, and say IF, it really does amount to nothing more than the prosecution proving that 'victim' and 'accused' were 'together' at some past point in time and that the victim alleges that such and such took place.......then it seems incredible that is all it takes to get someone incarcerated.

Years from now I could wreak terrible revenge on a former despised boss by making some completely made up allegation of impropriety having taken place......you get the idea I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that in the next 24 hours a lot of detail will come out.

I bl**dy well hope so! Because if it just ends up being just a load of added detail and embellishment of a claimed 'personal account' of something that happened decades ago, and nothing more, then I for one will feel very uncomfortable at the ramifications for any and all of us - at just how easy it is to get someone convicted.

At least, as far as I have noticed, with rape trials for example if there isnt hard forensic evidence there is usually additional supporting witness statements to back up the claims of the victim (e.g. "yes your honour I saw the accused slip something into her drink" or "it was evident he was plying her with too much booze" or such like). That sort of evidence seems wholly lacking here.

As said, I too don't doubt that at least some of these media personalities quite possibly may have tried their luck on vulnerable persons back in the hey day of their careers, but so far it just seems to be all heresay and nothing more.

Put it another way.....would you (could you?!) convict someone of murder based solely on such type of allegations (e.g. "I saw him bury a body in a field back in 1963....") ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be hearsay if it comes from the accuser's direct experience.

It was he said/she said, and the people who listened to what the accused had to say decided he was a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be hearsay if it comes from the accuser's direct experience.

It was he said/she said, and the people who listened to what the accused had to say decided he was a liar.

Sorry. Absolutely correct. Poor choice of language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you lot got something to hide?

Do you want to tell us something about your past behaviour?

Very droll. Of course not. But I am sure you get the gist of my 'concern' at this particular conviction.

I gather, IIRC, that radio DJ guy (Travis ?) was accused of pretty much the same sort of thing? But was acquitted completely? But, again IIRC, the nature of the allegations were essentially the same? So I assume there surely must be some harder evidence involved here in the Clifford case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went to court.

The prosecution and defence make their cases

The jury decides he's was guilty.

That means he's guilty.

He's locked up.

Quite right too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went to court.

The prosecution and defence make their cases

The jury decides he's was guilty.

That means he's guilty.

He's locked up.

Quite right too.

I wasn't questioning whether or not he 'did it'. I was questioning just what was the 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence presented. One persons word against anothers does not, on the face of it, seem very compelling - no matter how emotionally presented.

I vaguely recall a little while back, while the Clifford trial was in progress, that the media were reporting something about 'evidence' relating to the size of his willy being presented in court (apparently resulting in laughter ?). Was that an example the evidence used? e.g "His schlong was only 3 inches long your honour,,,,,,", followed by prosecution evidence that Cliffords doo dah had indeed been measured at 3 inches - and thus by logical extension the victim must be telling the truth, for how else could she know that unless he has his wicked way with her.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't questioning whether or not he 'did it'. I was questioning just what was the 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence presented. One persons word against anothers does not, on the face of it, seem very compelling - no matter how emotionally presented.

Why not?

Are you suggesting the witnesses lied under oath?

We have a jury system - evidence is tested in court, in the case of the wealthy using VERY expensive and experienced defence lawyers, and then a jury decides whether that evidence is credible.

There's a weird pattern of posters defending old white boomer sexual crimes on here for some reason.

All I hear is allegations from victims from donkeys years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618575/Max-Clifford-arrives-court-sentenced-sex-attacks-admitting-fears-worst-sent-prison.html

Passing sentence at Southwark Crown Court today, Judge Anthony Leonard told him: 'These offences may have taken place a long time ago, when inappropriate and trivial sexual behaviour was more likely to be tolerated, but your offending was not trivial, but of a very serious nature.'

The judge said that due to the age of the offences that occurred between 1977 and 1984, Clifford was charged under an act from 1956, which set the maximum term at two years.

Under later legislation passed in 2003, the maximum term would have been 10 years, and for the worst instances would have been charged as rape or assault by penetration, which attract a maximum life term, the court heard.

..

Clifford's solicitor has this afternoon said he is 'seriously' considering an appeal against sentence, and considering an appeal against conviction.

..

Clifford was criticised by the judge for his conduct during the trial, during which he 'mimicked' Sky News reporter Tom Parmenter outside court on camera.

He said: 'I find that behaviour to be quite extraordinary and a further indication that you show no remorse.

'This additional element of trauma caused by your contemptuous attitude is something I will take into account in sentence.

I find the wording of his solicitor odd, surely if he was going to appeal against the conviction they would be stating their client maintains they are innoncent of all charges?

Cliffords skills as a PR manipulator doesn't appear well suited to a court case, I wonder if he showed more humility about it all he wouldn't have been found guilty. He always comes across as someone with something to hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?

Are you suggesting the witnesses lied under oath?

We have a jury system - evidence is tested in court, in the case of the wealthy using VERY expensive and experienced defence lawyers, and then a jury decides whether that evidence is credible.

There's a weird pattern of posters defending old white boomer sexual crimes on here for some reason.

Did I mention the colour of his skin??!!! Did I even imply/insinuate that it is a factor? I assume in your world nobody lies under oath? or has ulterior/wicked motives for lying in court?

I raised a pretty academic point of discussion in general - namely the apparent lack of publicised EVIDENCE against these people.

Usually, with court cases that capture public/media attention, it is common for the media to report daily on court proceedings and the EVIDENCE presented on a given day (e.g "so and so saw the accused signing his managers chequebook...." or "the expert said that the gun had the accuseds fingerprints on it...", etc).

That sort of 'detail' has been surprisingly lacking in these cases. All that has been reported as far as I have noticed is allegations. Maybe it has but I have missed it.

And the time factor is NOT trivial. The passage of time can have great relevance on the accuracy of evidence (or allegations) presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?

Are you suggesting the witnesses lied under oath?

We have a jury system - evidence is tested in court, in the case of the wealthy using VERY expensive and experienced defence lawyers, and then a jury decides whether that evidence is credible.

There's a weird pattern of posters defending old white boomer sexual crimes on here for some reason.

Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko, Guildford 4 etc.... there have been many convictions of people being found guilty by a jury, the court system isn't 100% perfect. Once convicted it can take years to clear your name if you are innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1447078.stm

The charges stemmed from a newspaper investigation into the 1987 libel trial which Lord Archer won. Crucial evidence revealed that he had lied under oath. Duncan Kennedy looks back at the story behind the case.

People do lie under oath.

It will be interesting to see now what stories come out about Clifford in the coming weeks, the press will probably now have open season on him, which also raises the possibility of more charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went to court.

The prosecution and defence make their cases

The jury decides he's was guilty.

That means he's guilty.

He's locked up.

Quite right too.

You live in a very simplistic world.

Same could be said of the Salem Witch Trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise that this probably just confirms the OP's fears, but i thought max Clifford's behaviour was very odd from the beginning. He went on the media just a few das after the Savile allegations broke, and said that lots of his clients were getting in touch with him, because the were worried about things from the past coming out. He was also totally craven (as he has been ever since), totally unlike his usual self. It was almost as if he knew he was going to end up getting caught up in it himself. If he continued to act like that in court, I think he would probably have "looked" guilty.

I realise none of that affects the facts which needed to be proved, and I expect I would act pretty craven myself if I was ever accused of rape,

So back on topic. I guess it is very hard to prove rape, and effectively a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt" is being accepted, otherwise they would get practically zero convictions. it's obviously a very sentsitive subject, so i guess they can't really just say it up front, as it undermines the whole basis of the legal system.

Personally I actually think we should accept a lower standard of proof in all criminal cases, because it is basically really hard to prove anythign against anyone, but then I am probably a lunatic fringe right winger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't questioning whether or not he 'did it'. I was questioning just what was the 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence presented. One persons word against anothers does not, on the face of it, seem very compelling - no matter how emotionally presented.

I vaguely recall a little while back, while the Clifford trial was in progress, that the media were reporting something about 'evidence' relating to the size of his willy being presented in court (apparently resulting in laughter ?). Was that an example the evidence used? e.g "His schlong was only 3 inches long your honour,,,,,,", followed by prosecution evidence that Cliffords doo dah had indeed been measured at 3 inches - and thus by logical extension the victim must be telling the truth, for how else could she know that unless he has his wicked way with her.......

Was this one persons evidence or was it more ?

Should the quality or appropriateness of evidence be judged on whether or not the general public find the evidence and the context amusing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I actually think we should accept a lower standard of proof in all criminal cases,

Good. We'll make sure that you or members of your family are the first ones to test this new 'lower standard'. That's ok, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to wreak a terrible revenge on a despised ex-boss you may need to find a selection of other ex-employees who will make similar allegations, that might work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who is left genuinely concerned by the apparent lack of hard evidence against many of these accused?

No, I find these cases a bit troubling myself.

Firstly there is a strong financial incentive to make these sort of claims against rich and famous people, there appears to be a strong likelyhood that many (if not all) of the Saville cases are fabrications motivated by greed.

Secondly is the passage of time, partly because if the offence happened at the time why wasn't it reported and partly because human memories are falliable. It is possible that acts that the victims willingly participated in have been reinterpreted by their memories over time, i.e. they were willing to participate when they thought it might help their careers but they didn't get the fame they wanted and 30 years later they can't believe they did such a thing and their memories change so that they now remember being coerced.

I haven't looked at the Clifford case in detail so I've no idea if the above might apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Clifford is an unpleasant narcissistic bully who made his millions from others' downfalls. He has abused the influence that those millions have bought him by sexually abusing women and - in some cases - children.

Despite the ducking and diving of his expensive legal team, a jury has found him guilty. And now he's where he should be - behind bars.

End of story.

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:   209 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.