Discussion:
He raped me in 1977
(too old to reply)
Svenne
2018-02-11 08:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Did he really?"

"Yes, he really did!"

"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/

What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?

What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?

A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Norman Wells
2018-02-11 09:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.

You can't get a conviction otherwise.
Post by Svenne
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
The police gather the evidence and form a view. They then have to
convince trained and experienced lawyers at the independent Crown
Prosecution Service that the evidence is sufficient to give a greater
chance than not of securing a conviction at trial. Then 12 members of
an independent jury have to be convinced that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Post by Svenne
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over backwards
to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any judicial
system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an inevitable
consequence of trying to determine what someone did when they deny it.

The time to start worrying is not when cases like this make the
headlines, but when they don't.
A. Filip
2018-02-11 09:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
You can't get a conviction otherwise.
[...]
Do not forget about London Police Mobile Firing Squad (Israeli Trained).
You can get even death penalty without such burden.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-police-officers-shouldshould-not-be-prosecuted-echr
Post by Norman Wells
Wed 30 Mar 2016 14.16 BST
Jean Charles de Menezes: family lose fight for police officers to be prosecuted
European court of human rights ends legal saga over Brazilian
electrician’s death at Stockwell tube station, south London [...]
--
A. Filip
| Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
| perspiration. (Thomas Alva Edison )
Norman Wells
2018-02-11 09:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A. Filip
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
You can't get a conviction otherwise.
[...]
Do not forget about London Police Mobile Firing Squad (Israeli Trained).
You can get even death penalty without such burden.
Give police guns and they'll shoot people. It's obvious really.
Happens everywhere.
Post by A. Filip
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-police-officers-shouldshould-not-be-prosecuted-echr
Post by Norman Wells
Wed 30 Mar 2016 14.16 BST
Jean Charles de Menezes: family lose fight for police officers to be prosecuted
European court of human rights ends legal saga over Brazilian
electrician’s death at Stockwell tube station, south London [...]
The sooner we're out of it the better then.
Svenne
2018-02-11 10:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
That's a lot of retards the bullshit has to get through. It's worrying
there are so many of them about.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
The police gather the evidence and form a view. They then have to
convince trained and experienced lawyers at the independent Crown
Prosecution Service that the evidence is sufficient to give a greater
chance than not of securing a conviction at trial. Then 12 members of
an independent jury have to be convinced that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
With so many retards about it's little wonder the bullshit filters don't
work.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over backwards
to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any judicial
system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an inevitable
consequence of trying to determine what someone did when they deny it.
The safeguards are not there. As long as ancient and uncorroborated
recollections are considered sufficient evidence there are no safeguards.

That is a consequence of determining someone did something because
somebody else claims they remembered them doing it 40 years ago.
Post by Norman Wells
The time to start worrying is not when cases like this make the
headlines, but when they don't.
It's worrying shit like this even needs to hit the headlines.
abelard
2018-02-11 10:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
That's a lot of retards the bullshit has to get through. It's worrying
there are so many of them about.
human memory is *known* to be *highly* fallible...
a *very* large %age of people will blindly follow perceived authority
and conform to peer pressure...it's why and how dictatorships
are established and maintained

the safeguards have been irresponsibly removed by bliar and co
in order to get more 'convictions'

the offered safeguards are a fake tissue of nonsense
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
The police gather the evidence and form a view. They then have to
convince trained and experienced lawyers at the independent Crown
Prosecution Service that the evidence is sufficient to give a greater
chance than not of securing a conviction at trial. Then 12 members of
an independent jury have to be convinced that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
With so many retards about it's little wonder the bullshit filters don't
work.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over backwards
to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any judicial
system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an inevitable
consequence of trying to determine what someone did when they deny it.
The safeguards are not there. As long as ancient and uncorroborated
recollections are considered sufficient evidence there are no safeguards.
That is a consequence of determining someone did something because
somebody else claims they remembered them doing it 40 years ago.
Post by Norman Wells
The time to start worrying is not when cases like this make the
headlines, but when they don't.
It's worrying shit like this even needs to hit the headlines.
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2018-02-11 13:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
That's a lot of retards the bullshit has to get through. It's worrying
there are so many of them about.
human memory is *known* to be *highly* fallible...
And the 1947 vintage valve computer memory is minute...RH
Post by abelard
a *very* large %age of people will blindly follow perceived authority
and conform to peer pressure...it's why and how dictatorships
are established and maintained
...and 1947 vintage valve computers dumbly follow their owner's programming... RH
Norman Wells
2018-02-11 11:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
That's a lot of retards the bullshit has to get through. It's worrying
there are so many of them about.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
The police gather the evidence and form a view. They then have to
convince trained and experienced lawyers at the independent Crown
Prosecution Service that the evidence is sufficient to give a greater
chance than not of securing a conviction at trial. Then 12 members of
an independent jury have to be convinced that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
With so many retards about it's little wonder the bullshit filters don't
work.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over backwards
to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any judicial
system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an inevitable
consequence of trying to determine what someone did when they deny it.
The safeguards are not there. As long as ancient and uncorroborated
recollections are considered sufficient evidence there are no safeguards.
That is a consequence of determining someone did something because
somebody else claims they remembered them doing it 40 years ago.
That's not the fault of 'the system' but of the people who decide. And
as long as you have people deciding things, there will be mistakes from
time to time.

But you don't know, even now, if the accused was guilty. All you can
have is a view.

And you weren't there to hear the evidence, so really you don't even
have a view but just a guess.
Svenne
2018-02-11 12:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over
backwards to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any
judicial system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an
inevitable consequence of trying to determine what someone did when
they deny it.
The safeguards are not there. As long as ancient and uncorroborated
recollections are considered sufficient evidence there are no
safeguards.
That is a consequence of determining someone did something because
somebody else claims they remembered them doing it 40 years ago.
That's not the fault of 'the system' but of the people who decide. And
as long as you have people deciding things, there will be mistakes from
time to time.
If idiots create a broken system then you have a broken system.
Post by Norman Wells
But you don't know, even now, if the accused was guilty. All you can
have is a view.
And you weren't there to hear the evidence, so really you don't even
have a view but just a guess.
The press reports that all the evidence presented consisted of one
accusation based on an alleged memory that had been fermenting in the
depths of someone's brain for decades.

That the fermenting vessel turned out to be a liar is irrelevant. Basing
a conviction on something as nebulous and unreliable as an ancient memory
is insane.
Norman Wells
2018-02-11 13:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
All the safeguards are there. In fact, the system bends over
backwards to protect the innocent from being convicted. But in any
judicial system there will be miscarriages of justice. They are an
inevitable consequence of trying to determine what someone did when
they deny it.
The safeguards are not there. As long as ancient and uncorroborated
recollections are considered sufficient evidence there are no safeguards.
That is a consequence of determining someone did something because
somebody else claims they remembered them doing it 40 years ago.
That's not the fault of 'the system' but of the people who decide. And
as long as you have people deciding things, there will be mistakes from
time to time.
If idiots create a broken system then you have a broken system.
Got a better one?
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
But you don't know, even now, if the accused was guilty. All you can
have is a view.
And you weren't there to hear the evidence, so really you don't even
have a view but just a guess.
The press reports that all the evidence presented consisted of one
accusation based on an alleged memory that had been fermenting in the
depths of someone's brain for decades.
As I said, you weren't there to hear what evidence there was, but
strangely just blindly trust what certain bits of the Press have told you.
Post by Svenne
That the fermenting vessel turned out to be a liar is irrelevant. Basing
a conviction on something as nebulous and unreliable as an ancient memory
is insane.
Not all liars lie about everything all of the time.
Svenne
2018-02-11 15:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
If idiots create a broken system then you have a broken system.
Got a better one?
A statute of limitations in cases where there is no materiel evidence.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
But you don't know, even now, if the accused was guilty. All you can
have is a view.
And you weren't there to hear the evidence, so really you don't even
have a view but just a guess.
The press reports that all the evidence presented consisted of one
accusation based on an alleged memory that had been fermenting in the
depths of someone's brain for decades.
As I said, you weren't there to hear what evidence there was, but
strangely just blindly trust what certain bits of the Press have told you.
"the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of David Bryant, a former
fireman of seemingly impeccable character, for abusing a boy four decades
earlier in a case that was based upon the uncorroborated word of a man
revealed to be “a chronic liar."

http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/shocking-injustices-the-conviction-
of-david-bryant/

Even if an accuser cannot be proven to be a chronic liar, the
uncorroborated and decades old memories of a single person is not
sufficient for a prosecution to be brought. Anyone in a position of
authority who thinks otherwise is dangerously mentally deranged.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
That the fermenting vessel turned out to be a liar is irrelevant.
Basing a conviction on something as nebulous and unreliable as an
ancient memory is insane.
Not all liars lie about everything all of the time.
There is no way of determining whether a statement about very old
memories is true or not. The person recounting the antique recollections
need not even be lying for what they are saying to have little or no
relation to actual events.

Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane and a
legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
Norman Wells
2018-02-11 20:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
If idiots create a broken system then you have a broken system.
Got a better one?
A statute of limitations in cases where there is no materiel evidence.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
But you don't know, even now, if the accused was guilty. All you can
have is a view.
And you weren't there to hear the evidence, so really you don't even
have a view but just a guess.
The press reports that all the evidence presented consisted of one
accusation based on an alleged memory that had been fermenting in the
depths of someone's brain for decades.
As I said, you weren't there to hear what evidence there was, but
strangely just blindly trust what certain bits of the Press have told you.
"the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of David Bryant, a former
fireman of seemingly impeccable character, for abusing a boy four decades
earlier in a case that was based upon the uncorroborated word of a man
revealed to be “a chronic liar."
http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/shocking-injustices-the-conviction-
of-david-bryant/
Even if an accuser cannot be proven to be a chronic liar, the
uncorroborated and decades old memories of a single person is not
sufficient for a prosecution to be brought. Anyone in a position of
authority who thinks otherwise is dangerously mentally deranged.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
That the fermenting vessel turned out to be a liar is irrelevant.
Basing a conviction on something as nebulous and unreliable as an
ancient memory is insane.
Not all liars lie about everything all of the time.
There is no way of determining whether a statement about very old
memories is true or not. The person recounting the antique recollections
need not even be lying for what they are saying to have little or no
relation to actual events.
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane and a
legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
Svenne
2018-02-11 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane and
a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because the
man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from the
misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.

The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able to
bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.

For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said happened
many decades in the past actually didn't happen.

And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's word
is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it. The accused should not
have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should not be put in the
position of having to guess which of them might be the more accurate
interpreter of the past.

Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system they
wouldn't.
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 09:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane and
a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because the
man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from the
misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able to
bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.

It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said happened
many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's word
is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.

You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
Post by Svenne
The accused should not
have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should not be put in the
position of having to guess which of them might be the more accurate
interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system they
wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Svenne
2018-02-12 12:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
Post by Norman Wells
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 12:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
Post by Norman Wells
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
If there is evidence which proves to old claims were false etc - as in a
recent famous case where the claim centred around somewhere there was no
record of the accused ever being and there would have been in the
circumstances- then clearly there is something amiss.

However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused insists
(for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was, and there
are other supporting factors, then you must accept there is more than
good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the case.

While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier, although some did it
seems. Then I can't imagine want it must be like to be in the position
of a young victim. Plus, you've only to look at Rotherham to see how
things can be allowed to continue for far, far, too long. Once is too long.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 13:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
If there is evidence which proves to old claims were false etc - as in a
recent famous case where the claim centred around somewhere there was no
record of the accused ever being and there would have been in the
circumstances- then clearly there is something amiss.
However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused insists
(for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was, and there
are other supporting factors, then you must accept there is more than
good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the case.
While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier,
I can. Most were young kids and in care homes at the time. They were
threatened with all manner of punishments if they told *anyone* about their
experiences.

Their lives were pretty miserable already with either dead, alcoholic/abusive
or estranged parents; and sadistic autocratic regimes imposed by the
institution they had to live in.

Why make things ten times worse by going to the authorities, who would only
say they didn’t believe them anyway?

After all, Jimmy S was seen as a saint, especially (for some still unknown
reason) at the BBC. The fact that he had his own room at Stoke Mandeville and
was given the keys to Broadmoor for his own use, were portrayed by the Beeb
as something for us ordinary mortals to be in awe of; and the idea of him
using those privileges for anything other than being the UK’s answer
to Mother Theresa was never even to be considered.
Post by Brian Reay
although some did it
seems. Then I can't imagine want it must be like to be in the position
of a young victim. Plus, you've only to look at Rotherham to see how
things can be allowed to continue for far, far, too long. Once is too long.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 13:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
If there is evidence which proves to old claims were false etc - as in a
recent famous case where the claim centred around somewhere there was no
record of the accused ever being and there would have been in the
circumstances- then clearly there is something amiss.
However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused insists
(for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was, and there
are other supporting factors, then you must accept there is more than
good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the case.
While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier,
I can. Most were young kids and in care homes at the time. They were
threatened with all manner of punishments if they told *anyone* about their
experiences.
Their lives were pretty miserable already with either dead, alcoholic/abusive
or estranged parents; and sadistic autocratic regimes imposed by the
institution they had to live in.
Why make things ten times worse by going to the authorities, who would only
say they didn’t believe them anyway?
I understand that and I'm not blaming them. Never having lived under
those conditions etc I can't imagine that sense of 'isolation' if that
is the word. Plus, being a parent- well do I need to say more.

When I was training to teach, part of it involved child protection
training (which continues throughout your time teaching, you have
regular 'top ups' etc). Part of the training deals with case studies or
examples, so you know what to look for etc. I found it very
distressing. I can't imagine what youngsters must feel or how anyone
could be so evil to harm a child.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 14:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the
time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
If there is evidence which proves to old claims were false etc - as in a
recent famous case where the claim centred around somewhere there was no
record of the accused ever being and there would have been in the
circumstances- then clearly there is something amiss.
However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused insists
(for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was, and there
are other supporting factors, then you must accept there is more than
good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the case.
While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier,
I can. Most were young kids and in care homes at the time. They were
threatened with all manner of punishments if they told *anyone* about their
experiences.
Their lives were pretty miserable already with either dead,
alcoholic/abusive
or estranged parents; and sadistic autocratic regimes imposed by the
institution they had to live in.
Why make things ten times worse by going to the authorities, who would only
say they didn’t believe them anyway?
I understand that and I'm not blaming them. Never having lived under
those conditions etc I can't imagine that sense of 'isolation' if that
is the word. Plus, being a parent- well do I need to say more.
When I was training to teach, part of it involved child protection
training (which continues throughout your time teaching, you have
regular 'top ups' etc). Part of the training deals with case studies or
examples, so you know what to look for etc. I found it very
distressing. I can't imagine what youngsters must feel or how anyone
could be so evil to harm a child.
Agreed, but the usual excuse from the those who believe no well known person
could possibly be a child abuser, is “how can this have happened without
anyone in authority finding out at the time?”

The implication being that if they did not report it, and the abuser denies
the accusations, then the children must have been making it up.

My reasoning above was an attempt to illustrate to the establishment
sycophants just how simple it is to threaten vulnerable youngsters and scare
them shitless.Therefore those with the power get away with it, do so; and the
co-ordinated shrill screams from the sycophants in later years are an attempt
to silence the victims’ a second time.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 14:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Brian Reay
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
Post by Svenne
Cases like this should not come to court and in a sane legal system
they wouldn't.
The police obviously thought they had enough evidence, and they were
clearly able to persuade the independent Crown Prosecution Service
lawyers that they would have a better chance than not of securing a
conviction at trial Since they did, neither the police nor the CPS did
anything wrong. Their decision to bring the case to trial in court was
perfectly vindicated by the result.
Yes, they did an incredibly dangerous thing and wrecked somebodies life
in the process.
If there is evidence which proves to old claims were false etc - as in a
recent famous case where the claim centred around somewhere there was no
record of the accused ever being and there would have been in the
circumstances- then clearly there is something amiss.
However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused insists
(for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was, and there
are other supporting factors, then you must accept there is more than
good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the case.
While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier,
I can. Most were young kids and in care homes at the time. They were
threatened with all manner of punishments if they told *anyone* about their
experiences.
Their lives were pretty miserable already with either dead,
alcoholic/abusive
or estranged parents; and sadistic autocratic regimes imposed by the
institution they had to live in.
Why make things ten times worse by going to the authorities, who would only
say they didn’t believe them anyway?
I understand that and I'm not blaming them. Never having lived under
those conditions etc I can't imagine that sense of 'isolation' if that
is the word. Plus, being a parent- well do I need to say more.
When I was training to teach, part of it involved child protection
training (which continues throughout your time teaching, you have
regular 'top ups' etc). Part of the training deals with case studies or
examples, so you know what to look for etc. I found it very
distressing. I can't imagine what youngsters must feel or how anyone
could be so evil to harm a child.
Agreed, but the usual excuse from the those who believe no well known person
could possibly be a child abuser, is “how can this have happened without
anyone in authority finding out at the time?”
The implication being that if they did not report it, and the abuser denies
the accusations, then the children must have been making it up.
My reasoning above was an attempt to illustrate to the establishment
sycophants just how simple it is to threaten vulnerable youngsters and scare
them shitless.Therefore those with the power get away with it, do so; and the
co-ordinated shrill screams from the sycophants in later years are an attempt
to silence the victims’ a second time.
I'm sure some of 'those in power' are prone to the same 'failings' as
those who aren't- the culprits in Rotherham (the people directly
involved) weren't 'in power', the cover up happened for a number of
reasons- none of them justified of course. I'm sure there is no
shortage of people 'in power' who are disgusted by abuse just as there
are ordinary people who turn a blind eye to it.

The various allegations re 'famous' politicians etc have been
discredited, I can't think of any which remain being considered
seriously. Yet not so long back some would have you believe there was a
conspiracy to protect a 'network' of perverts running through the
'establishment'. I doubt many seriously believe that now. However, that
doesn't mean there isn't the odd offender lurking somewhere- just as
there could be in any group. Bogus witch hunts don't help find such people.
Handsome Jack
2018-02-12 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Brian Reay
While I am sure we've had a lot of 'me to' cases, do you think that, for
example, all of those in the Jimmy S affair were making it up? I can't
explain why they didn't come forward earlier,
I can. Most were young kids and in care homes at the time. They were
threatened with all manner of punishments if they told *anyone* about their
experiences.
But many weren't. For example, in the "Ms A" allegation, the "victim"
was a married woman in her twenties. She was a member of Savile's fan
club, she went to a local event he was hosting, and she voluntarily went
into his caravan alone with him. He made sexual advances to her, she
rejected them, and he immediately backed off and she left. This was in
1970 when she was in her early twenties; she was in her sixties at the
time she reported it to the police in 2008.
--
Jack
just-a-guy
2018-02-12 22:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If this refers to one of the victims who were raped by sick old pedo
Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson", and "The Revd Terence
Fformby-Smythe" to old timers), then this victim should now be 43
years old.
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
However, if things 'all stack up', especially if the accused
insists (for example) he wasn't at X when there is evidence he was,
and there are other supporting factors, then you must accept there
is more than good reason to investigate and possibly pursue the
case.
How about four malicious allegations. All fully investigated by
authorities, all dismissed by those investigating as "no evidence"

Allegation 1 - the accused wasn't even in the same country
Allegation 2 - The accused was provably elsewhere with witnesses
Allegation 3 - The accused was provably elsewhere with witnesses
Allegation 4 - The accused was provably elsewhere with witnesses

When do you stop believing the fantasist, regardless of any "record" the
accused has?

And on this occasion, I mean you personally, not just you in general.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 12:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
He hasn't been found innocent. He's merely had his conviction quashed
because it was unsafe. Further, new evidence not available at the
original trial convinced the Court of Appeal that sufficient doubt
existed that the original verdict should not stand.

It's how the system works. Sometimes it takes time for new evidence to
come to light. Can't blame the system for that.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
No, that's a trite legal fiction for those of little brain. A person is
entitled to be treated as innocent until he's proved guilty but, if he
is, he's of course been guilty all along.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
You don't know what evidence was produced at trial. You weren't there.

Besides, the jury would have been instructed that they should only
convict if they were 'sure' that he did what he was accused of doing.
Yet they did. All twelve of them. Unanimously.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
You may think from your position of ignorance that the evidence was not
sufficient, but you weren't there to hear it. The twelve members of the
jury who were there, and did hear it, unanimously thought otherwise.
And they were wrong. So much for juries having to decide who's memories
of ancient events should be believed.
They may have been wrong, they may have been right. We don't know, and
never will. All the Court of Appeal has decided is that their verdict
is unsafe because of the now established tendency of the accuser to lie
and fantasise. They didn't decide he was necessarily lying or
fantasising in this particular accusation.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
The accused should not have to prove it didn't happen and a jury should
not be put in the position of having to guess which of them might be
the more accurate interpreter of the past.
There is no onus of proof on the defendant to prove anything. The
prosecution in any trial has to prove its case 'beyond reasonable
doubt', and the jury is always charged with only convicting if they are
'sure' that the defendant did what he is accused of. And they obviously
were.
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a dangerous
lunatic.
It may be or it may not. Why we have 'trials' is to establish the facts
and to convict those who, beyond reasonable doubt, are guilty.

The dangerous lunatic here may in fact be the person who believes just
some brief summary he has read in some agenda-driven newspaper, has not
heard any of the evidence, discounts the view of the police, discounts
the opinion of the lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service, and
discounts the decision of twelve independent people all of whom did hear
the evidence and were sure that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Svenne
2018-02-12 14:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up
from the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the
supposed event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
He hasn't been found innocent. He's merely had his conviction quashed
because it was unsafe. Further, new evidence not available at the
original trial convinced the Court of Appeal that sufficient doubt
existed that the original verdict should not stand.
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Post by Norman Wells
Besides, the jury would have been instructed that they should only
convict if they were 'sure' that he did what he was accused of doing.
Yet they did. All twelve of them. Unanimously.
And they were wrong. Very stupid of them to convict on a strength of an
ancient memory. Even more stupid of the legal system to prosecute such
cases.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a
dangerous lunatic.
It may be or it may not. Why we have 'trials' is to establish the facts
and to convict those who, beyond reasonable doubt, are guilty.
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 14:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up
from the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the
supposed event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
He hasn't been found innocent. He's merely had his conviction quashed
because it was unsafe. Further, new evidence not available at the
original trial convinced the Court of Appeal that sufficient doubt
existed that the original verdict should not stand.
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Besides, the jury would have been instructed that they should only
convict if they were 'sure' that he did what he was accused of doing.
Yet they did. All twelve of them. Unanimously.
And they were wrong. Very stupid of them to convict on a strength of an
ancient memory. Even more stupid of the legal system to prosecute such
cases.
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Anybody who believes a verbal account of decades old events is accurate
enough to send someone to jail and has the power to do so is a
dangerous lunatic.
It may be or it may not. Why we have 'trials' is to establish the facts
and to convict those who, beyond reasonable doubt, are guilty.
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Svenne
2018-02-12 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 16:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
No, the case was proved to the standard required.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
You don't know that there has been. It's new evidence not available at
the trial that has subsequently cast doubt on the verdict. The trial
itself was conducted perfectly properly, and there is no question that
the verdict on the evidence presented was arrived at perfectly properly.

Justice took its course, and he was found guilty. It's perfectly
possible still that he is. The Court of Appeal only quashed his
conviction on the basis that the verdict reached was unsafe and may well
have been different had the jury had the benefit of the further new
evidence. It did not declare him innocent, but just released him.
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
Obviously not. The requisite standard of proof is beyond reasonable
doubt, which judges always are at pains to say means 'sure'. And 12
independent people were all 'sure' of his guilt based on all the
evidence they heard.
Svenne
2018-02-12 16:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
Obviously not. The requisite standard of proof is beyond reasonable
doubt, which judges always are at pains to say means 'sure'. And 12
independent people were all 'sure' of his guilt based on all the
evidence they heard.
They were twelve complete idiots, as was the judge and those responsible
for the defective legal system that holds trials based on insane
premisses.
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 17:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
Obviously not. The requisite standard of proof is beyond reasonable
doubt, which judges always are at pains to say means 'sure'. And 12
independent people were all 'sure' of his guilt based on all the
evidence they heard.
They were twelve complete idiots, as was the judge and those responsible
for the defective legal system that holds trials based on insane
premisses.
Of course they are.

But your opinion is sadly worth about the same as the amount of evidence
you heard in the case.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 17:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
It is quite strange how no one can be expected to remember details of being
raped 40 years ago, and yet I bet there will be a lot of folk remembering
their personal experiences of the Winter Of Discontent; the 40th anniversary
of which will arrive later this year; and quoting those experiences as
irrefutable fact.
abelard
2018-02-12 17:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
It is quite strange how no one can be expected to remember details of being
raped 40 years ago, and yet I bet there will be a lot of folk remembering
their personal experiences of the Winter Of Discontent; the 40th anniversary
of which will arrive later this year; and quoting those experiences as
irrefutable fact.
they won't remember it...they will remember remembering it...

they will remember being told about it...they will read books and
watch films...

memory is far more unreliable than is widely realised...
--
www.abelard.org
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 17:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
It is quite strange how no one can be expected to remember details of being
raped 40 years ago, and yet I bet there will be a lot of folk remembering
their personal experiences of the Winter Of Discontent; the 40th anniversary
of which will arrive later this year; and quoting those experiences as
irrefutable fact.
they won't remember it...they will remember remembering it...
they will remember being told about it...they will read books and
watch films...
memory is far more unreliable than is widely realised...
Nonsense. I remember it.

For instance, I remember the weekly drive around town to join queues at
petrol stations for fuel.

I remember the snow and very cold temperatures, with long icicles hanging off
the guttering of our flat. I remember driving onto the M4 and wondering why
it was easy to overtake using lane 3 because it was almost empty; only to
find a few miles further along the motorway a large temporary flashing sign
on the side of the hard shoulder saying “Lane 3 Closed”.

I remember my father in law’s Daily Mirror headlines in the autumn which
made us both believe that Callaghan was going to call a snap general
election.
abelard
2018-02-12 18:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by abelard
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
It is quite strange how no one can be expected to remember details of being
raped 40 years ago, and yet I bet there will be a lot of folk remembering
their personal experiences of the Winter Of Discontent; the 40th anniversary
of which will arrive later this year; and quoting those experiences as
irrefutable fact.
they won't remember it...they will remember remembering it...
they will remember being told about it...they will read books and
watch films...
memory is far more unreliable than is widely realised...
Nonsense. I remember it.
that is your belief...
Post by johnny-knowall
For instance, I remember the weekly drive around town to join queues at
petrol stations for fuel.
I remember the snow and very cold temperatures, with long icicles hanging off
the guttering of our flat. I remember driving onto the M4 and wondering why
it was easy to overtake using lane 3 because it was almost empty; only to
find a few miles further along the motorway a large temporary flashing sign
on the side of the hard shoulder saying “Lane 3 Closed”.
I remember my father in law’s Daily Mirror headlines in the autumn which
made us both believe that Callaghan was going to call a snap general
election.
most people believe such things...next come testing
your beliefs
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 17:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Innocent is the default state until otherwise is proven.
Which of course it was.
And is.
Post by Norman Wells
You don't know what it was based on, nor what the evidence in fact was.
You weren't there. The jury was. And all twelve of them disagreed with
you.
If they had agreed with me there would not have been a miscarriage of
justice.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged events.
So you say. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's exactly
what the twelve jury members decided.
Wrong. Like I said It is impossible to prove anything beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of someone's 40 year old recollections of alleged
events. As this case demonstrates.
It is quite strange how no one can be expected to remember details of being
raped 40 years ago, and yet I bet there will be a lot of folk remembering
their personal experiences of the Winter Of Discontent; the 40th anniversary
of which will arrive later this year; and quoting those experiences as
irrefutable fact.
I'm sure many people have faced events which are 'burned' into their
memory clearly far more clearly than things like the Winter of
Discontent which, while they impacted on many of us, didn't have leave
long term scars.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 13:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
Which is why the serial rapist will always ply every woman with strong drink
or drugs.

It would not do to have the victim remembering anything coherent about the
event at any time, let alone 50 years later.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 13:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
Which is why the serial rapist will always ply every woman with strong drink
or drugs.
It would not do to have the victim remembering anything coherent about the
event at any time, let alone 50 years later.
And why, for example, if the accused is a convicted sex offender it is
relevant- especially if other aspects of his story don't stack up.

No sensible person wants to see anyone innocent accused, let alone
convicted, but equally the guilty shouldn't be allowed to escape justice.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 13:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by Svenne
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
Relying solely on ancient recollections for a conviction is insane
and a legal system which allows it monstrously perverted.
That's why the Court of Appeal, which is part of 'the legal system'
quashed it.
No it isn't. The Court of Appeal did not quash the conviction because
the man was convicted on an ancient memory someone had dredged up from
the misty depths of their consciousness many decades after the supposed
event. That part of the proceedings was legally sound.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
It didn't work for the person who spent three years of his life in jail
because someone waltzed into a police station and said he remembered
something he claimed happened 40 years ago.
Post by Svenne
The conviction was quashed because through the hard work and dedication
of the convicted man's wife and against all odds it was finally proved
that the accuser was a fantasist and a liar. If she had not been able
to bring that monumental task about he would still be in jail on the
strength of that ancient recollection of supposed events long ago.
Just because someone is a fantasist and a liar doesn't mean he's always
a fantasist and a liar and that everything he says is false all of the time.
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the accused
innocent.
Until someone is found guilty they are innocent.
Post by Svenne
For others it is impossible to prove that something someone said
happened many decades in the past actually didn't happen.
And it is this that is the poison at the heart of the law. Someone's
word is not enough, however convincing they may sound. If someone says
something happened long ago they should prove it.
That's the purpose of what we call 'a trial'.
Deciding who said what about whom many decades ago based purely on human
recollections of the alleged event should not be the business of a court
of law. Without corroborating materiel evidence these cases should not go
to trial.
Which is why the serial rapist will always ply every woman with strong drink
or drugs.
It would not do to have the victim remembering anything coherent about the
event at any time, let alone 50 years later.
And why, for example, if the accused is a convicted sex offender it is
relevant- especially if other aspects of his story don't stack up.
No sensible person wants to see anyone innocent accused, let alone
convicted, but equally the guilty shouldn't be allowed to escape justice.
No shit, Sherlock....
Ian Jackson
2018-02-12 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. 'The system' worked.
A few more years in prison, and he'd be eligible to be awarded a
posthumous 'pardon'.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 16:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.  'The system' worked.
A few more years in prison, and he'd be eligible to be awarded a
posthumous 'pardon'.
So, who's to blame?

The police who gathered the evidence, considered it, came to a view and
passed the case to the CPS?

The CPS who considered it and came to the view that a prosecution would
more likely than not result in a conviction?

The jury who considered all the evidence and unanimously were sure that
he was guilty?

Who was supposed to have done anything differently?
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 16:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.  'The system' worked.
A few more years in prison, and he'd be eligible to be awarded a
posthumous 'pardon'.
So, who's to blame?
The police who gathered the evidence, considered it, came to a view and
passed the case to the CPS?
The CPS who considered it and came to the view that a prosecution would
more likely than not result in a conviction?
The jury who considered all the evidence and unanimously were sure that
he was guilty?
Who was supposed to have done anything differently?
Without knowing the nitty gritty detail, it is hard to know.

It is easy to blame someone in the above list for not checking xyz, or
placing too much faith in abc etc but without knowing the facts we can't
be sure why they decided what they did.

Obviously, if something comes to light which wasn't available those
involved simply acted on the evidence they had.

Likewise, if there was a 'convincing lie' told somewhere which was
'probed' etc but held up, can anyone really point the finger at other
than the liar?

I'm not trying to excuse the situation etc but second guessing without
knowing the facts is unlikely to produce a valid answer.

If malice is found, then punishment is warranted.
abelard
2018-02-12 17:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.  'The system' worked.
A few more years in prison, and he'd be eligible to be awarded a
posthumous 'pardon'.
So, who's to blame?
The police who gathered the evidence, considered it, came to a view and
passed the case to the CPS?
The CPS who considered it and came to the view that a prosecution would
more likely than not result in a conviction?
The jury who considered all the evidence and unanimously were sure that
he was guilty?
Who was supposed to have done anything differently?
Without knowing the nitty gritty detail, it is hard to know.
It is easy to blame someone in the above list for not checking xyz, or
placing too much faith in abc etc but without knowing the facts we can't
be sure why they decided what they did.
Obviously, if something comes to light which wasn't available those
involved simply acted on the evidence they had.
Likewise, if there was a 'convincing lie' told somewhere which was
'probed' etc but held up, can anyone really point the finger at other
than the liar?
I'm not trying to excuse the situation etc but second guessing without
knowing the facts is unlikely to produce a valid answer.
If malice is found, then punishment is warranted.
you can't even prove that
--
www.abelard.org
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
If malice is found, then punishment is warranted.
I'm sure this comment will come back to haunt you badly...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the
accused innocent.
You really don't get how "innocent until proven guilty" works, do you?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Norman Wells
2018-02-12 21:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Norman Wells
It just makes the conviction 'unsafe'. It does not make the
accused innocent.
You really don't get how "innocent until proven guilty" works, do you?
1) He *was* proven guilty by twelve good men and true
2) He is guilty if he committed the crime, regardless of the verdict
3) Having a conviction quashed does not mean he is innocent
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Paul Cummins
You really don't get how "innocent until proven guilty" works, do
you?
1) He *was* proven guilty by twelve good men and true
2) He is guilty if he committed the crime, regardless of the verdict
3) Having a conviction quashed does not mean he is innocent
QED
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
A. Filip
2018-02-11 12:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
You can't get a conviction otherwise.
[...]
The system _failed_ in this case. Sometimes too many safeguards make
all of them "lousy".

"David Bryant, 67, spent almost *three years in jail after being convicted*
of rape in a miscarriage of justice".

The system will fail sometimes. The good system will fail on very rare
occasions. Living system improves/degrades all them time.
SO: Was it all right in this case? Should it stay as it had been?
--
A. Filip
| I respect the institution of marriage. I have always thought that
| every woman should marry -- and no man.
| (Benjamin Disraeli, "Lothair")
Svenne
2018-02-11 13:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A. Filip
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-fire-chief-rather-investigate/
Post by A. Filip
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
1) the police,
2) the Crown Prosecution Service,
3) twelve members of the jury.
You can't get a conviction otherwise.
[...]
The system _failed_ in this case. Sometimes too many safeguards make
all of them "lousy".
I think the system worked as it was designed to work. Somebody had a
recollection from the distant past. They went to court and told the jury
of their ancient memory and the jury believed that what was told to them
was an accurate account of what happened all that time ago and duly
returned a guilty verdict.
abelard
2018-02-11 10:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
just so...
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2018-02-11 13:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
There can be errors made in old cases but sometimes they are real.

IF the accused has other, related, another conviction or conviction(s)
on his record then the such accusations should be take seriously-
especially if, for example, he is on the sex offenders register. (I'm
not suggesting that applies in the case above.)
abelard
2018-02-11 13:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
There can be errors made in old cases but sometimes they are real.
and sometimes they are not

and there is no way you can tell them apart
Post by Brian Reay
IF the accused has other, related, another conviction or conviction(s)
on his record then the such accusations should be take seriously-
especially if, for example, he is on the sex offenders register. (I'm
not suggesting that applies in the case above.)
--
www.abelard.org
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
IF the accused has other, related, another conviction or
conviction(s) on his record then the such accusations should be
take seriously- especially if, for example, he is on the sex
offenders register. (I'm not suggesting that applies in the case
above.)
Why would that be relevant?

An individual is on the sex offenders register for indecent assault on a
man in 2010, and he is then accused of raping a woman 40+ years ago?

You seem confused, as per.
--
Are you an Inadequate Kentish Defective?
Do you need help shuffling off your mortal coil?
http://www.dignitas.ch might be willing to help.
Don't delay, call them today - trade in on Smart Car offered.
Brian Reay
2018-02-11 17:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
IF the accused has other, related, another conviction or
conviction(s) on his record then the such accusations should be
take seriously- especially if, for example, he is on the sex
offenders register. (I'm not suggesting that applies in the case
above.)
Why would that be relevant?
Perverts reoffend.
Post by Paul Cummins
An individual is on the sex offenders register for indecent assault on a
man in 2010, and he is then accused of raping a woman 40+ years ago?
But if the offences are related- eg against young girls then there is a
pattern.
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
Why would that be relevant?
Perverts reoffend.
No, they don't, as has been shown again and again. They are one of the
lowest groups for reoffending.
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
An individual is on the sex offenders register for indecent
assault on a
Post by Paul Cummins
man in 2010, and he is then accused of raping a woman 40+ years ago?
But if the offences are related- eg against young girls then there
is a pattern.
That isn't the argument you tried to make. Please let us know when you
have decided where you wish to place your goalposts.

BTW, fed up with getting burned in Moderated, have to smear your shite
here now?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Brian Reay
2018-02-11 18:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
Why would that be relevant?
Perverts reoffend.
No, they don't, as has been shown again and again. They are one of the
lowest groups for reoffending.
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Paul Cummins
An individual is on the sex offenders register for indecent
assault on a
Post by Paul Cummins
man in 2010, and he is then accused of raping a woman 40+ years ago?
But if the offences are related- eg against young girls then there
is a pattern.
That isn't the argument you tried to make. Please let us know when you
have decided where you wish to place your goalposts.
BTW, fed up with getting burned in Moderated, have to smear your shite
here now?
You are the one whinning to the moderators of ulm in unnm I'm just
watching the show. I liked how Todal put you down, a classic.

The thread you whined about has generated a lot of interest.
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Paul Cummins
That isn't the argument you tried to make. Please let us know
when you
Post by Paul Cummins
have decided where you wish to place your goalposts.
BTW, fed up with getting burned in Moderated, have to smear your shite
here now?
You are the one whinning to the moderators of ulm in unnm I'm just
watching the show. I liked how Todal put you down, a classic.
The thread you whined about has generated a lot of interest.
Have you finished repositioning your goalposts yet?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 11:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Paul Cummins
That isn't the argument you tried to make. Please let us know
when you
Post by Paul Cummins
have decided where you wish to place your goalposts.
BTW, fed up with getting burned in Moderated, have to smear your shite
here now?
You are the one whinning to the moderators of ulm in unnm I'm just
watching the show. I liked how Todal put you down, a classic.
The thread you whined about has generated a lot of interest.
Have you finished repositioning your goalposts yet?
The thread is still running and generating interest. Your objection to
it was dismissed by the moderators, as were your other recent whining
objections.

You really should just accept that the problem, like dandruff, is on
your head and shoulders.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
You really should just accept that the problem, like dandruff, is
on your head and shoulders.
Is that really the best you can do, you sad, inadequate little man?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Vidcapper
2018-02-11 16:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Svenne
2018-02-11 17:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
An uncorroborated recollection from 40 or 50 years ago is sufficient for
a conviction and lengthy jail sentence.

It's all down to whether a jury is insane enough to return a guilty
verdict on a wisp off fluff like that. Some juries are that insane.
abelard
2018-02-11 17:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2018-02-12 07:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim
- and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim...
2018-02-12 09:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.

Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.

tim
Handsome Jack
2018-02-12 09:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
A dangerous thing to say, though, especially in court. The prosecutor's
follow-up could then be, "Well, if you don't remember, then you can't
truthfully deny it, can you?"
--
Jack
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by tim...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
A dangerous thing to say, though, especially in court. The
prosecutor's follow-up could then be, "Well, if you don't remember,
then you can't truthfully deny it, can you?"
No, I can't, but it's your place to prove it, not mine to disprove, Mr
Prosecutor"
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Handsome Jack
2018-02-12 20:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by tim...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
A dangerous thing to say, though, especially in court. The
prosecutor's follow-up could then be, "Well, if you don't remember,
then you can't truthfully deny it, can you?"
No, I can't, but it's your place to prove it, not mine to disprove, Mr
Prosecutor"
He will prove it. He will have a statement from the accuser that you did
it. And you will not be able to contradict that statement, since you
have already admitted that you don't remember what really happened.
--
Jack
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
He will prove it. He will have a statement from the accuser that
you did it.
That is not poof.

An allegation, unsupported by other evidence, proves nothing.

I've hd many allegations made against me, all of which are in statements
made by my accuser. On each and every occasion, her allegation has been
proven, BY EVIDENCE, to be false.

Yet you would convict me on her word.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Handsome Jack
2018-02-12 21:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Handsome Jack
He will prove it. He will have a statement from the accuser that
you did it.
That is not poof.
It was proof enough in the Bryant case.
Post by Paul Cummins
An allegation, unsupported by other evidence, proves nothing.
It proved enough to send Bryant to prison.
Post by Paul Cummins
I've hd many allegations made against me, all of which are in statements
made by my accuser. On each and every occasion, her allegation has been
proven, BY EVIDENCE, to be false.
You were lucky. In most cases, there is no way of proving the accusation
to be false.
--
Jack
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
You were lucky. In most cases, there is no way of proving the
accusation to be false.
Which is exactly why the accusation standing alone cannot prove itself to
be true beyond reasonable doubt.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Svenne
2018-02-13 18:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Handsome Jack
You were lucky. In most cases, there is no way of proving the
accusation to be false.
Which is exactly why the accusation standing alone cannot prove itself
to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
The accusation doesn't need to be proven to be true, which is a good
piece of luck because, as you point out, it cant be.

All it needs to do is convince a jury, which all boils down to who can
put on the best theatrical performance. Put on a top hat, black your face
and grab a walking cane in your white gloved hand then give a heart
warming rendering of "Mammy" while swinging your coat tails and you'll
have the jury in your hands. They'll return a "Guilty" verdict while
dabbing away the tears and justice will be served.

To really capture the spirit of British justice the judge should be
dressed like Ronald McDonald with a big red balloon on a stick.
Norman Wells
2018-02-13 21:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Handsome Jack
You were lucky. In most cases, there is no way of proving the
accusation to be false.
Which is exactly why the accusation standing alone cannot prove itself
to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
The accusation doesn't need to be proven to be true, which is a good
piece of luck because, as you point out, it cant be.
All it needs to do is convince
... every single one of twelve independent randomly-selected UK adults
to be sure of the guilt of the accused on ...
Post by Svenne
a jury, which all boils down to who can
put on the best theatrical performance. Put on a top hat, black your face
and grab a walking cane in your white gloved hand then give a heart
warming rendering of "Mammy" while swinging your coat tails and you'll
have the jury in your hands. They'll return a "Guilty" verdict while
dabbing away the tears and justice will be served.
Of course they will if you say so, dear.
Post by Svenne
To really capture the spirit of British justice the judge should be
dressed like Ronald McDonald with a big red balloon on a stick.
Isn't a wig and a blue or red dress enough then?
Svenne
2018-02-14 08:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Svenne
To really capture the spirit of British justice the judge should be
dressed like Ronald McDonald with a big red balloon on a stick.
Isn't a wig and a blue or red dress enough then?
A Ronald McDonald suit and a balloon on a stick suits the reality of
British justice much better.
Handsome Jack
2018-02-14 11:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Cummins
Post by Handsome Jack
You were lucky. In most cases, there is no way of proving the
accusation to be false.
Which is exactly why the accusation standing alone cannot prove itself to
be true beyond reasonable doubt.
It cannot in your opinion and mine, no. But there are other people who
think otherwise, and they sit on juries too.

And in fact the judicial system tells them that their view is correct
and ours is wrong, at least in cases of sexual assault.
--
Jack
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 10:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.

In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them going
round and around in the head at all times, especially when triggered by
something you see or read.

This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.
tim
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years ago,
under threat of dismissal if you refused.
abelard
2018-02-12 10:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them going
round and around in the head at all times, especially when triggered by
something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.
tim
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years ago,
under threat of dismissal if you refused.
would you 'remember' best if you made it up for revenge or for money?
--
www.abelard.org
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 10:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retir
ed
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them going
round and around in the head at all times, especially when triggered by
something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.
tim
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years ago,
under threat of dismissal if you refused.
would you 'remember' best if you made it up for revenge or for money?
One would have to be a very good liar, to make up a story from 50 years ago
which was not full of historical inaccuracies, but I suppose it could be done
with a lot of research.

Would it be worth it, though?

One fact overlooked and the accuser would be made to look an idiot in court,
let alone face perjury charges.
abelard
2018-02-12 11:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by abelard
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retir
ed
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them going
round and around in the head at all times, especially when triggered by
something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.
tim
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years ago,
under threat of dismissal if you refused.
would you 'remember' best if you made it up for revenge or for money?
One would have to be a very good liar, to make up a story from 50 years ago
which was not full of historical inaccuracies, but I suppose it could be done
with a lot of research.
Would it be worth it, though?
One fact overlooked and the accuser would be made to look an idiot in court,
let alone face perjury charges.
don't be daft...victims/survivors must be believed

as for history...'highly respected university academics' took a poll
among themselves and decided wislon was a great man...
--
www.abelard.org
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
let alone face perjury charges.
you are kidding, right?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 11:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by abelard
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retir
ed
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and probably be
telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them going
round and around in the head at all times, especially when triggered by
something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my immediate
supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could not recall
where I had met him before.
tim
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years ago,
under threat of dismissal if you refused.
would you 'remember' best if you made it up for revenge or for money?
One would have to be a very good liar, to make up a story from 50 years ago
which was not full of historical inaccuracies, but I suppose it could be done
with a lot of research.
Would it be worth it, though?
One fact overlooked and the accuser would be made to look an idiot in court,
let alone face perjury charges.
While there are cases of false accusations, not all 'old cases' are
based on them.

Sometimes, while the accusation is true the culprit will escape justice-
perhaps even before trial- due to a lack of evidence, even if he has a
history of serious related offences.

The CPS etc shouldn't proceed with charges against the accuser unless
they believe the original accusation is baseless.


We seen some 'high profile' cases reported, were someone has been
accused etc and it has made the media etc. Only to it be discovered the
accusation was baseless.

That is different to a case where the accused isn't placed in the public
eye but actively places himself there- even before he is supposedly
cleared and proceeds to torment his accuser by giving details of her.
Very odd behaviour.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Paul Cummins
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
That is different to a case where the accused isn't placed in the
public eye but actively places himself there- even before he is
supposedly cleared and proceeds to torment his accuser by giving
details of her.
Very odd behaviour.
Surely if someone is identifying the victim of rape etc, the police
should go after him?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Svenne
2018-02-12 13:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:43:54 +0000, Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-
pursued-retired
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of
memories left marinating in the depths of someones brain for
decades. What sane person would assume with that kind of
certitude that something even remotely resembling the present
form of the memory ever happened in the first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
People can recall traumatic events vividly, but far from accurately.
Memories of traumatic events are very unreliable and become increasingly
so with time.
Post by johnny-knowall
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them
going round and around in the head at all times, especially when
triggered by something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added. After
forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so much
memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone to jail
on the strength of them.
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my
immediate supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could
not recall where I had met him before.
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years
ago, under threat of dismissal if you refused.
After two years there is likely a reasonable chance something substantial
could be gained from investigating the incident. After fifty years much
can have changed in memory.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-12 14:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:43:54 +0000, Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-
pursued-retired
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient
recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of
memories left marinating in the depths of someones brain for
decades. What sane person would assume with that kind of
certitude that something even remotely resembling the present
form of the memory ever happened in the first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
People can recall traumatic events vividly, but far from accurately.
Memories of traumatic events are very unreliable and become increasingly
so with time.
Yes, but the phrase I was replying to was “most people would say ‘I
don’t recollect’”

Which (given a traumatic experience) is just nonsense spouted from yet
another ignorant.

I agree they may not be accurate, but they rarely forget.Unless of course
they have been tempted into an alcoholic stupor - which is why that course of
action is the preferred method for abusers of women.
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them
going round and around in the head at all times, especially when
triggered by something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added.
Do you have a link for the results of your research into this?
Post by Svenne
After
forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so much
memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone to jail
on the strength of them.
Is that a scientifically proven medical view, or just your own masquerading
as one?
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my
immediate supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could
not recall where I had met him before.
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years
ago, under threat of dismissal if you refused.
After two years there is likely a reasonable chance something substantial
could be gained from investigating the incident. After fifty years much
can have changed in memory.
But one thing remains constant - most men don’t like taking it up the arse.

And yet, if that is proposed as the nearest analogy to a woman being raped,
the men go strangely silent and change the subject.
Svenne
2018-02-12 16:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added.
Do you have a link for the results of your research into this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
After forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so
much memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone
to jail on the strength of them.
Is that a scientifically proven medical view, or just your own
masquerading as one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/
abelard
2018-02-12 16:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:43:54 +0000, Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-
pursued-retired
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient
recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of
memories left marinating in the depths of someones brain for
decades. What sane person would assume with that kind of
certitude that something even remotely resembling the present
form of the memory ever happened in the first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
People can recall traumatic events vividly, but far from accurately.
Memories of traumatic events are very unreliable and become increasingly
so with time.
Yes, but the phrase I was replying to was “most people would say ‘I
don’t recollect’”
Which (given a traumatic experience) is just nonsense spouted from yet
another ignorant.
I agree they may not be accurate, but they rarely forget.Unless of course
they have been tempted into an alcoholic stupor - which is why that course of
action is the preferred method for abusers of women.
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them
going round and around in the head at all times, especially when
triggered by something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added.
Do you have a link for the results of your research into this?
Post by Svenne
After
forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so much
memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone to jail
on the strength of them.
Is that a scientifically proven medical view, or just your own masquerading
as one?
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my
immediate supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could
not recall where I had met him before.
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years
ago, under threat of dismissal if you refused.
After two years there is likely a reasonable chance something substantial
could be gained from investigating the incident. After fifty years much
can have changed in memory.
But one thing remains constant - most men don’t like taking it up the arse.
And yet, if that is proposed as the nearest analogy to a woman being raped,
the men go strangely silent and change the subject.
svenne is reporting accurately...you should learn

it's much worse than he's telling you

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/repressed_memory.htm

and that is without lying for money, popularity, publicity and revenge

the british behaviour instigated by fascist 'new' labour is as he
correctly says, insane

part of bliar et al's campaign to undermine the rule of law
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2018-02-13 13:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:43:54 +0000, Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-
pursued-retired
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient
recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of
memories left marinating in the depths of someones brain for
decades. What sane person would assume with that kind of
certitude that something even remotely resembling the present
form of the memory ever happened in the first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
People can recall traumatic events vividly, but far from accurately.
Memories of traumatic events are very unreliable and become increasingly
so with time.
Yes, but the phrase I was replying to was “most people would say ‘I
don’t recollect’”
Which (given a traumatic experience) is just nonsense spouted from yet
another ignorant.
I agree they may not be accurate, but they rarely forget.Unless of course
they have been tempted into an alcoholic stupor - which is why that course of
action is the preferred method for abusers of women.
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them
going round and around in the head at all times, especially when
triggered by something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added.
Do you have a link for the results of your research into this?
Post by Svenne
After
forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so much
memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone to jail
on the strength of them.
Is that a scientifically proven medical view, or just your own masquerading
as one?
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my
immediate supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could
not recall where I had met him before.
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years
ago, under threat of dismissal if you refused.
After two years there is likely a reasonable chance something substantial
could be gained from investigating the incident. After fifty years much
can have changed in memory.
But one thing remains constant - most men don’t like taking it up the arse.
How do you or they know this? I can't imagine that most men have experienced
having their back door smashed in.
johnny-knowall
2018-02-13 14:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:43:54 +0000, Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-
pursued-retired
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient
recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of
memories left marinating in the depths of someones brain for
decades. What sane person would assume with that kind of
certitude that something even remotely resembling the present
form of the memory ever happened in the first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying
stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her'
claim -
and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
From 50 years ago most people would say "I don't recollect", and
probably be telling the truth.
Believe me, if a really traumatic event ever happened to you - you would
recall it quite vividly, even after 50 years or more.
People can recall traumatic events vividly, but far from accurately.
Memories of traumatic events are very unreliable and become increasingly
so with time.
Yes, but the phrase I was replying to was “most people would say ‘I
don’t recollect’”
Which (given a traumatic experience) is just nonsense spouted from yet
another ignorant.
I agree they may not be accurate, but they rarely forget.Unless of course
they have been tempted into an alcoholic stupor - which is why that course of
action is the preferred method for abusers of women.
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
In fact, the main problem with those memories is trying to prevent them
going round and around in the head at all times, especially when
triggered by something you see or read.
This is especially so when trying to sleep at 2am.
Correct, and this is the danger with traumatic memories. The more they
circulate around the brain the more distorted they become, with detail
falling away and other details that never happened being added.
Do you have a link for the results of your research into this?
Post by Svenne
After
forty or fifty years the memories will have been subjected to so much
memory processing they would be far to unreliable to send someone to jail
on the strength of them.
Is that a scientifically proven medical view, or just your own masquerading
as one?
Post by Svenne
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by tim...
Hell, I even bumped into (at a new job) someone who had been my
immediate supervisor from only 2 years previous. And I genuinely could
not recall where I had met him before.
I believe you might have recalled him if he had arse-raped you two years
ago, under threat of dismissal if you refused.
After two years there is likely a reasonable chance something substantial
could be gained from investigating the incident. After fifty years much
can have changed in memory.
But one thing remains constant - most men don’t like taking it up the arse.
How do you or they know this? I can't imagine that most men have experienced
having their back door smashed in.
Because if they did like it, there would be lots of straight men doing it and
it would be reported regularly as an enjoyable pastime.
abelard
2018-02-12 09:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
dna does not show rape/coercion
True enough, but it would at least undermine any 'I never met her' claim
- and if a defendant were to be caught in one lie...
all humans lie....even females...

much of what goes on in courts is fiction...
--
www.abelard.org
tim...
2018-02-12 09:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
Unless they have DNA evidence a conviction seems unlikely.
the figures prove you wrong

tim
peterwn
2018-02-12 09:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-retired-
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane person
would assume with that kind of certitude that something even remotely
resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the first
place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal (since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for assault for caning the boys.
Svenne
2018-02-12 12:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some
things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained
about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being
raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false
rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose
rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants
became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain
originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic
complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal
(since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for
assault for caning the boys.
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated. But
if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple independent
corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be cause for
those to go to trial.
Fredxx
2018-02-12 12:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some
things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained
about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being
raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false
rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose
rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants
became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain
originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic
complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal
(since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for
assault for caning the boys.
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated. But
if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple independent
corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be cause for
those to go to trial.
Given the change of tide, there now needs to be a statute of
limitations. I recall listening to Greville Janner's daughter and she
had some very good points.

I also feel now that if any witnesses/victims don't come forward, and so
the perpetrator continues to offend, some of that responsibility should
fall on them too.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 12:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some
things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained
about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being
raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false
rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose
rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants
became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain
originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic
complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal
(since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for
assault for caning the boys.
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated. But
if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple independent
corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be cause for
those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts. There will generally, probably,
be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of alternate
locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence, etc. May be
other cases, accusations against the accused etc.

There may not be enough to prove the accusation but not enough to
establish that is bogus either, especially if the accused offers
conflicting evidence which is found to be flawed but no incriminating.
For example, he claims not to have been in the area but it is verified
he was. Not, of course, conclusive either way.
Fredxx
2018-02-12 14:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some
things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained
about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being
raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false
rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose
rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants
became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain
originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic
complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal
(since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for
assault for caning the boys.
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated. But
if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple independent
corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be cause for
those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts.  There will generally, probably,
be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of alternate
locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence, etc. May be
other cases, accusations against the accused etc.
There may not be enough to prove the accusation but not enough to
establish that is bogus either, especially if the accused offers
conflicting evidence which is found to be flawed but no incriminating.
For example, he claims not to have been in the area but it is verified
he was. Not, of course, conclusive either way.
And given the passage of time records are lost.

I recall Jonathan King's appeal, where he offered evidence, not
available at his trial, that he was elsewhere to that claimed by a witness.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 14:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
"Did he really?"
"Yes, he really did!"
"Oh, that's all right then. Send him down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/police-wrongly-pursued-
retired-
Post by peterwn
Post by Svenne
fire-chief-rather-investigate/
What sort of retard would put such faith in an ancient recollection?
What sort of legal system would prosecute on the basis of memories left
marinating in the depths of someones brain for decades. What sane
person would assume with that kind of certitude that something even
remotely resembling the present form of the memory ever happened in the
first place?
A fucked up legal system based on insane shit. Terrifying stuff.
The trouble is that complainants were too scared to speak out on some
things years ago. For example a couple of schoolboys who complained
about a pedophile teacher got the cane. Women who complained of being
raped were stigmatised. A woman in USA was convicted of making a false
rape complaint when she had been raped (she just took it on the nose
rather than spending money and stress defending it). As complainants
became more willing to come forward, those who were afraid to complain
originally then found the courage to do so. This is why the historic
complaints are surfacing and are taken seriously.
The (then) schoolboys complained and the teacher concerned and principal
(since retired) were investigated and charged - the principal for
assault for caning the boys.
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated. But
if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple independent
corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be cause for
those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts.  There will generally,
probably, be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of
alternate locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence,
etc. May be other cases, accusations against the accused etc.
There may not be enough to prove the accusation but not enough to
establish that is bogus either, especially if the accused offers
conflicting evidence which is found to be flawed but no incriminating.
For example, he claims not to have been in the area but it is verified
he was. Not, of course, conclusive either way.
And given the passage of time records are lost.
I recall Jonathan King's appeal, where he offered evidence, not
available at his trial, that he was elsewhere to that claimed by a witness.
Of course that can happen, no one is disputing it. I'm referring to
cases where there is evidence, for example, the suspect was in the area
and not where they claimed. Of course, that isn't conclusive. If, for
example, they claim not to have been, say, in a Norfolk Pub on the night
but in, say, Wales, and there is proof they were in the relevant pub-
even in the face of firm evidence to the contrary, something doesn't sit
right. (Norfolk and Wales etc picked at random, BTW.)
Svenne
2018-02-12 14:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated.
But if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple
independent corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be
cause for those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts. There will generally, probably,
be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of alternate
locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence, etc. May be
other cases, accusations against the accused etc.
If a number of pupils at a school independently make accusations of abuse
against the same teacher after a period of many years and the details of
the abuse are similar then there is cause for the teacher to be charged
and go to trial.
Brian Reay
2018-02-12 14:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated.
But if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple
independent corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be
cause for those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts. There will generally, probably,
be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of alternate
locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence, etc. May be
other cases, accusations against the accused etc.
If a number of pupils at a school independently make accusations of abuse
against the same teacher after a period of many years and the details of
the abuse are similar then there is cause for the teacher to be charged
and go to trial.
That isn't the scenario you started with, although it is one I'm sure
could happen and probably has.

Your scenario was one victim with multiple witnesses to the 'event'.
Svenne
2018-02-12 16:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
If a number of pupils at a school independently make accusations of
abuse against the same teacher after a period of many years and the
details of the abuse are similar then there is cause for the teacher to
be charged and go to trial.
That isn't the scenario you started with, although it is one I'm sure
could happen and probably has.
Your scenario was one victim with multiple witnesses to the 'event'.
The case I was posting about was one complainant accusing someone of
raping him forty years earlier and the accused being found guilty and
being sent to prison on the basis of that old memory.
Fredxx
2018-02-13 00:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Svenne
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Svenne
All complaints should certainly be taken seriously and investigated.
But if there is nothing more to go on than a verbal account of old
recollections then the case should not go to trial. Multiple
independent corroborating accounts are a different matter, there can be
cause for those to go to trial.
I rather doubt many rapes, or other such attacks, have witnesses to
provide multiple independent accounts. There will generally, probably,
be two accounts and some other evidence- statements of alternate
locations perhaps, in recent cases may be physical evidence, etc. May be
other cases, accusations against the accused etc.
If a number of pupils at a school independently make accusations of abuse
against the same teacher after a period of many years and the details of
the abuse are similar then there is cause for the teacher to be charged
and go to trial.
Except it would be more difficult to prove independently made
accusations as there is a distinct possibility the ex-pupils may have
know each other.

If they were from different schools then independence would be more likely.
Svenne
2018-02-13 07:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by Svenne
If a number of pupils at a school independently make accusations of
abuse against the same teacher after a period of many years and the
details of the abuse are similar then there is cause for the teacher to
be charged and go to trial.
Except it would be more difficult to prove independently made
accusations as there is a distinct possibility the ex-pupils may have
know each other.
If they were from different schools then independence would be more likely.
If the pupils were from different years it would also increase
credibility, but in the days of smartphones and social media it is going
to be difficult to rule out evidence contamination.
Loading...