Dlt In Court Again

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26787306

I know we have discussed this before on AB but how on earth is this man going to get a fair trial when the previous case was splashed across the media for weeks earlier this year ? Will it be possible to choose a Jury that knows nothing about what has previously go on ?

[starone]

I did jury service once, many years ago and came to the conclusion it was all pretty much hit or miss. And Peter, sorry, don't agree with you, the jury I was on were a load of idiots (including me).

[naomi24]

Pixie, It doesn't make it true either - but nevertheless his reputation is tainted forever.

[ChillDoubt]

I did jury service once, many years ago and came to the conclusion it was all pretty much hit or miss. And Peter, sorry, don't agree with you, the jury I was on were a load of idiots (including me).
--------------------------
Brings to mind the old adage:

You're going to have to trust and have your fate decided by 12 people who were too dumb to get out of Jury duty.

[pixie373]

Yes, i agree with that, Naomi. I was just saying why i didn't think accusers should be named.

[naomi24]

Pixie, sorry but I still don't understand why you think people who make false accusations and ruin a man's reputation shouldn't be named. I think they deserve everything they get.

[pixie373]

Because we'll never know which are "false allegations" and which are just no proven. There is no distinction made in court.

[pixie373]

...not proven. sorry .

[naomi24]

That's the problem isn't it? The charges are brought but not proven, therefore the accusation sticks regardless of the truth. I think there are a lot of people who, as teenagers, hung around these blokes hoping to attract their attention, and now, in their dotage, suddenly jumping on this appalling bandwagon in the hope of earning a few bob. Never forget, there are more out than in!

[pixie373]

Mud sticks. That's why i think the accused shouldn't be named unless/ until found guilty. I guess there's some truth somewhere. How serious it was at the time, i don't know. Of course, celebrities are easy to remember and easy to find, even years later. I would be surprised if every single woman in all these cases, were out -and-out liars.

[naomi24]

Pixie, But they're not named at all. Unless these women have been subjected to violent abuse, which if they had they would have reported to the police at the time, they need to concede that times have changed. These women might have been cuddled, or had their bum or their boob touched - but they didn't object at the time and I doubt very much that it's had a great impact on their lives. Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that DLT is guilty, but to be perfectly honest I'd say there are few women who have never been 'groped' - but they don't take it to court. Jimmy Savile has more to answer for than we imagine.

Going to bed. Night. x

[mikey4444]

There is a fatal flaw in a Jury-based system.

People are not normally rounded up at random and charged. Occasionally that happens of course, like the famous cases from years ago, like the Birmingham Six etc, Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. But in the vast majority of occasions, people are charged and brought to court because there is enough evidence to suggest that they are guilty of the offences. So there is a presumption of guilt to begin with. It may be up to the prosecution to prove somebodys guilt, but the defendant is relying on his defence counsel to rebut any evidence of his guilt. A defendant may be innocent until proved guilty but he is presumed to be guilty in the first instance, otherwise he wouldn't be in Court.

I am not suggesting for one minute that we abandon our legal system, just pointing out that the proceedings are always angled against an acquittal right from the start. If the defendant is wealthy, he can afford a top-flight Barrister, which will help his case no end.

My original post questioned how DLT can be guaranteed a fair trial when he has already been dragged through the media on the same charges just a few weeks ago. Not sure if anybody had a good go at answering this question, nor do I think that a satisfactory answer is easy to arrive at.

[Svejk]

how could the people in the last s. lawrence trial get a fair one. we were all told for 10 years how they'd got away with murder. does anybody think we should go back to 'one bite at the apple' for the public prosecutor.

[mikey4444]

Its a good point Svejk I have to admit. The judgement of Solomon is perhaps needed here. But in the case of Stephen Lawrence, new evidence was found and used to convict some of his killers, if my memory serves me right.

[Ann]

I was on Jury service once, I didn't want to go but it is so difficult to get out of it. We were sent away to decide the verdict of a young man who was caught stealing and attempting (and very nearly succeeding) in running down a female police officer. Imagine how horrified I was (and several others were too) when one of the jurors, who come from all walks of life, randomly chosen, said very heatedly "She probably deserved it, she is "the fuzz" after all - I hate every one of them!" Another juror agreed with him, the chairman of our jury reported them and the case was adjourned and a new jury formed. Everyone's fate is in the hands of those on the jury - good in some cases but scary if you are innocent and get the wrong type of jurors.

[mikey4444]

It must be very difficult to prevent stupid people from being on a Jury.

[Svejk]

i was going to add without 'compelling' new evidence coming to light but didnt want to muddy the waters, as it were.
what i'm saying is if the state are determined to convict you, you have no chance against their 'infinite' resources.

[pixie373]

I disagree, Mikey. The law is angled distinctly towards acquittal. To find someone guilty, you have to be 99/100% sure and proven. To find them "not guilty" you don't have to be 99/100% sure. Even 10% would do it.

[youngmafbog]

This is becoming a joke.

Plod are not doing themselves any good on gris topic.

[ummmm]

The police are just doing their job. It's not them who decides whether it goes to court or not.