Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

Turned Out Nice Again

Give "award-Winning Actresses" A Wide Berth While Commuting

Recommended Posts

Tried for a sex crime... because I brushed past a film star in rush-hour: Artist, 51, accused of bizarre 'hit and run' assault on award-winning actress despite no evidence or witnesses - so why DID it come to trial?
- Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, on his way home from work in rush-hour
- CCTV showed him walking through London commuters and past a film star
- It cannot be said with certainty the pair made even fleeting physical contact
- But woman, in her 60s, claimed that he sexually assaulted her penetratively
- There were no witnesses and no forensic evidence but case came to court
- It took the jury 90 minutes to reject the woman's story and clear Mr Pearson

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435317/Tried-sex-crime-brushed-past-film-star-rush-hour.html

Strange case this, to say the least!

You might think somebody's head should roll at the CPS for this, but no; they are seemingly unaccountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They traced him through his oyster card, and he ignored the advice of the duty solicitor and answered all of the police questions.

That's two things to think about if you'd like to avoid something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They traced him through his oyster card, and he ignored the advice of the duty solicitor and answered all of the police questions.

That's two things to think about if you'd like to avoid something like this.

The best advice anyone can have when dealing with the police is say nothing at all without a lawyer present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a YouTube video out there about talking to the police. I seem to recall it is 'never talk to the police'. American but the logic is universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky he had the footage to save him.

Every time you get one of these clearly stupid cases a head should roll at the CPS and the false accuser automatically prosecuted for malicious lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best advice anyone can have when dealing with the police is say nothing at all without a lawyer present.

A senior policeman told me if he was a suspect he would never say anything to the police regardless of whether or not a lawyer was present. They can't build a case on silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A senior policeman told me if he was a suspect he would never say anything to the police regardless of whether or not a lawyer was present. They can't build a case on silence.

Well no they can't, but they can build a case on all sorts of other evidence. When it comes to statements then they are treated as evidence in the same way anything else is and if you remain completely silent then that may well go against you (not saying it should). I'd certainly not say anything without a lawyer and I'd never give 'my version of the events'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky he had the footage to save him.

Every time you get one of these clearly stupid cases a head should roll at the CPS and the false accuser automatically prosecuted for malicious lies.

Absolutely, especially given the jury was nine women and 3 men. I honestly think that a jury in any sort of sexual case should be a 6/6 split, neither side IMO are totally rational when it comes to things like that.

It took them 90 minutes to reach a verdict, as always we were not there at the trial but the key facts seem to be that the accusation was he penetrated her for 2/3 seconds, there was no physical evidence and a video showing he had his hands on his bag and a news paper at all times. I'd bet that there was at least 1 or 2 of those jury members that need a bit of convincing that nothing too place, I know from my own experience and talking to others on sexual trials that people seem to be incapable of doing the job as a juror, which is to come to a decision as charged and not some other side issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A senior policeman told me if he was a suspect he would never say anything to the police regardless of whether or not a lawyer was present. They can't build a case on silence.

Not once have not prosecuted someone after a no comment interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, especially given the jury was nine women and 3 men. I honestly think that a jury in any sort of sexual case should be a 6/6 split, neither side IMO are totally rational when it comes to things like that.

It took them 90 minutes to reach a verdict, as always we were not there at the trial but the key facts seem to be that the accusation was he penetrated her for 2/3 seconds, there was no physical evidence and a video showing he had his hands on his bag and a news paper at all times. I'd bet that there was at least 1 or 2 of those jury members that need a bit of convincing that nothing too place, I know from my own experience and talking to others on sexual trials that people seem to be incapable of doing the job as a juror, which is to come to a decision as charged and not some other side issue.

Most of that 90 minutes was probably taken up with paperwork and going through the formalities, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of an under caution interview is to gather *evidence* to use against you not to hear your side of the story. If they wanted your side of the story, there'd be no need for the caution.

The fact that you "no commented" can be brought up in court but it won't mean much in the absence of other evidence. And a decent lawyer, I would hope, would be able to deflect an negative vibes with a "my client had never been interviewed in a police station before and was naturally scared and worried" type statement.

Anyone here got any experience on how "no comment" actually plays out in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of an under caution interview is to gather *evidence* to use against you not to hear your side of the story. If they wanted your side of the story, there'd be no need for the caution.

The fact that you "no commented" can be brought up in court but it won't mean much in the absence of other evidence. And a decent lawyer, I would hope, would be able to deflect an negative vibes with a "my client had never been interviewed in a police station before and was naturally scared and worried" type statement.

Anyone here got any experience on how "no comment" actually plays out in court?

It's very wise. I have ceased to believe that the police are interested in justice and the truth; though for this I am blaming the Blairite management targets culture imposed upon them rather than saying they're bent. The two people I know who have become police officers later in life were very decent honest people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, I followed this advice and have just ended up in a police station after a well-known actress claimed I gave her a 'wide berth'. The officer kept on asking me what a wide berth is and I stayed silent which only seemed to make things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very wise. I have ceased to believe that the police are interested in justice and the truth; though for this I am blaming the Blairite management targets culture imposed upon them rather than saying they're bent. The two people I know who have become police officers later in life were very decent honest people.

Watching the documentary last year on the new sexual crimes division in Manchester was an eye opener - and not in a good way.

One particular comment by a (shock horror) female PC was rather frightening.

It was clear every bloke brought in was already guilty and it was her job to jail them. The word 'truth' wasn't used once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the police have changed a great deal. Even without bent-ness or Blair (both of which contribute a little dysfunctionality), the organisation will always have been subject to the usual careerism and organisational self-promotion/protection that all organisations exhibit.

What's changed is the power that the police wield and the incessant creep of the law into areas of family and private life. We now find the entire population exposed to a dysfunctional policing system - whereas in the past only the burglars and their associates suffered from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of an under caution interview is to gather *evidence* to use against you not to hear your side of the story. If they wanted your side of the story, there'd be no need for the caution.

The fact that you "no commented" can be brought up in court but it won't mean much in the absence of other evidence. And a decent lawyer, I would hope, would be able to deflect an negative vibes with a "my client had never been interviewed in a police station before and was naturally scared and worried" type statement.

Anyone here got any experience on how "no comment" actually plays out in court?

Police have numbers to achieve.

So have the CPS.

Both are lazy and will do as little for as much as they can get.

They will go after the easy cases i.e. hassling CLiff Richard for an alleged offense nearly 30 odd years ago rather than going after the entire Mipuri population of Rotherham for offenses that occurred in the last few months.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the documentary last year on the new sexual crimes division in Manchester was an eye opener - and not in a good way.

One particular comment by a (shock horror) female PC was rather frightening.

It was clear every bloke brought in was already guilty and it was her job to jail them. The word 'truth' wasn't used once.

If they do that then that's a case successfully resolved and a big tick when it comes to performance assessments.

Whereas if that female PC with another officer patrolled the town centre late at night, visibly walking through the most dangerous areas, then they woudl prevent a whole host of crimes and make everybody feel a lot safer. But get no ticks for it.

And that is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police have numbers to achieve.

So have the CPS.

Both are lazy and will do as little for as much as they can get.

They will go after the easy cases i.e. hassling CLiff Richard for an alleged offense nearly 30 odd years ago rather than going after the entire Mipuri population of Rotherham for offenses that occurred in the last few months.,

Cliff Richard fans aren't going to riot and accuse the police of racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, I followed this advice and have just ended up in a police station after a well-known actress claimed I gave her a 'wide berth'. The officer kept on asking me what a wide berth is and I stayed silent which only seemed to make things worse.

If there's no other evidence, then why not stay silent? If you say, "sure, it was six feet", then you've now given them evidence that you were within six feet of her. If you stay silent, they have no evidence that you were even in the same country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the actual event of this ludicrous happening you would never really expect a case to be brought, you would assume a mistaken identity or something and be inclined to co-operate just to clear up the the misunderstanding and get back to you life ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the actual event of this ludicrous happening you would never really expect a case to be brought, you would assume a mistaken identity or something and be inclined to co-operate just to clear up the the misunderstanding and get back to you life ASAP.

Of course. The police will abuse this willingness to help. And I have no problem being effusively helpful - but I'm aware that the moment I'm put under caution, it's no long about "clearing up a misunderstanding", it's about *gathering evidence* to use against *Mr JTB*.

And remember, a court is not interested in truth - it just weighs the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone seen the documentary 'Making a Murderer'?

I've given up after 3 episodes. One episode with CCTV of the police interviewing a clearly mentally disabled man under caution and tricking him into implicating himself in a crime he can't possibly have been involved in made me sick to my stomach. More upset than I ever thought I could be at something involving people I don't know on the TV.

Don't ever talk to the police about anything, ever. They're not your friend. Most people (like the man in this case) think they can cooperate, go along to get along, clear up any misunderstanding but that is not the point. The point is to build a case against you.

On another slightly adjacent topic - I don't understand the current caution. Why could remaining silent harm your case? Let's say you were charged with murder, kept quiet all the way to trial then produced an absolutely rock solid alibi undoubtedly proving your innocence, could that evidence be discounted because you didn't reveal it early enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.