Film, Media & TV0 min ago
How Can One Alleged Event Possibly Be Proved Beyond Doubt From 1985?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The important point here - which is the default positin of the CPS, and often ignored or glossed over in media hysteria, is this quote from them -
'We will now carefully consider its contents in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, in order to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it is in the public interest to do so.'
So, if they do not proceed with a prosecution, it does not mean that Mr Richard is being proven either innocent or guilty - but that the evidence is not strong enough to provide a justification for spending public money on a case which may not be concluded successfully with a verdict.
But watch this space - the media machine is grinding into gear as I write ...
'We will now carefully consider its contents in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, in order to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it is in the public interest to do so.'
So, if they do not proceed with a prosecution, it does not mean that Mr Richard is being proven either innocent or guilty - but that the evidence is not strong enough to provide a justification for spending public money on a case which may not be concluded successfully with a verdict.
But watch this space - the media machine is grinding into gear as I write ...
Dave...it is up to the CPS to decide if there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it is in the public interest to do so.
The veracity of that evidence will a key factor in the CPS's decision, but I can see no reason whatsoever why the allegation cannot be proved beyond doubt from 1985.
By the way, its not up to "Plod" to decided whether to go ahead with a prosecution of not (17:28)......I don't know who you are, as the avatars have gone begger-up again.
The veracity of that evidence will a key factor in the CPS's decision, but I can see no reason whatsoever why the allegation cannot be proved beyond doubt from 1985.
By the way, its not up to "Plod" to decided whether to go ahead with a prosecution of not (17:28)......I don't know who you are, as the avatars have gone begger-up again.
Arrods - //Wow - is it usual for the CPS effectively to say already that there is evidence but whether it's (a) sufficient to secure a conviction and (b) in the public interest to pursue it is something to be considered? //
Absolutely - that statement is virtually a script that the CPS use in their preliminary observations.
It's designed to advise everyone of exactly why they fail to proceed - if it turns out that this is their decision when they have looked at everything.
It does what it says on the tin - not enough evidence for a reasonable shot at a conviction - we're not going ahead, it's a waste of public money. It doesn't mean he's innocent, or guilty - it means we haven't got enough to be sure of a conviction.
It's that simple and that straightforward - its designed to stop the media hysteria.
It never works, but you can't blame them for trying.
Absolutely - that statement is virtually a script that the CPS use in their preliminary observations.
It's designed to advise everyone of exactly why they fail to proceed - if it turns out that this is their decision when they have looked at everything.
It does what it says on the tin - not enough evidence for a reasonable shot at a conviction - we're not going ahead, it's a waste of public money. It doesn't mean he's innocent, or guilty - it means we haven't got enough to be sure of a conviction.
It's that simple and that straightforward - its designed to stop the media hysteria.
It never works, but you can't blame them for trying.
//'We will now carefully consider its contents in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, in order to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it is in the public interest to do so.' // CPS + AH
there is nothing special about this
this is the standard two stage criteria for bringing a prosecution
what HAS changed - is that the CPS are now bringing prosecutions under these criteria on
he raped me - no I didnt cases ....
and we have to admit some are resulting in convictions
that means that the juries are believing the victim in some of the cases
having supported someone in this case
you get five days of he raped me he did ! he did !
balanced with no I didnt I wasnt even there !
and in the case I witnessed the defendant was acquitted in ten minutes. end of...... after two years .....
but in contrast stuart hall - didnt he half way thro say - yeah OK I did .....
and Rolfie - he always admitted that he had had sex with a girl who had said " OK another £100k and I really do forget it... "
so far more cases are left to the jury
and that is what the DPP wants .....
there is nothing special about this
this is the standard two stage criteria for bringing a prosecution
what HAS changed - is that the CPS are now bringing prosecutions under these criteria on
he raped me - no I didnt cases ....
and we have to admit some are resulting in convictions
that means that the juries are believing the victim in some of the cases
having supported someone in this case
you get five days of he raped me he did ! he did !
balanced with no I didnt I wasnt even there !
and in the case I witnessed the defendant was acquitted in ten minutes. end of...... after two years .....
but in contrast stuart hall - didnt he half way thro say - yeah OK I did .....
and Rolfie - he always admitted that he had had sex with a girl who had said " OK another £100k and I really do forget it... "
so far more cases are left to the jury
and that is what the DPP wants .....
> How Can One Alleged Event Possibly Be Proved Beyond Doubt From 1985?
Only yesterday somebody was convicted of a crime from 1984, based on some remarkable forensic work:
http://
The perpetrator's daughter's DNA was taken in response to a different enquiry, and he was tracked via her DNA!
That said, Cliff Richard would be remarkably unlucky to face charges. Most of the Yewtree-like charges have been made on the basis of lots of unrelated, consistent complaints creating a "weight" of evidence. It's hard to believe that a single complaint, based only on one complainant's testimony with no forensic evidence, could have a reasonable chance of conviction.
Only yesterday somebody was convicted of a crime from 1984, based on some remarkable forensic work:
http://
The perpetrator's daughter's DNA was taken in response to a different enquiry, and he was tracked via her DNA!
That said, Cliff Richard would be remarkably unlucky to face charges. Most of the Yewtree-like charges have been made on the basis of lots of unrelated, consistent complaints creating a "weight" of evidence. It's hard to believe that a single complaint, based only on one complainant's testimony with no forensic evidence, could have a reasonable chance of conviction.
// He deserves his day in court where in can be shown beyond peradventure that he is totally innocent and will be be able to walk from court without a blemish on his character// sandy
er no
the VICTIM deserves his day in court and not the defendant
it i the other way round
and no the defendant does NOT have to show he is innocent
the prosecuution has to show he done it
so THAT is the other way round
other than that I cant find much wrong with your last post
er no
the VICTIM deserves his day in court and not the defendant
it i the other way round
and no the defendant does NOT have to show he is innocent
the prosecuution has to show he done it
so THAT is the other way round
other than that I cant find much wrong with your last post
No, not really. Since the burden of proof is on the prosecution, all that is required for a "not guilty" verdict is that the prosecution fails to make a strong enough case. But the case can be weak even if the allegations are true after all. For that matter, defendants can offer no defence and be found not guilty. Defendants can offer a defence that is essentially rejected in its entirety and still can be found not guilty.
Really I think it's because of this -- that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean that he didn't do it, and everybody knows this -- that not even the innocent would want a day in court. They can be cleared of the charges, but because of the ambiguity of "not guilty" vs. "actually genuinely totally innocent", the allegations may stick with them forever. Far better not to be in court at all. It's a harrowing experience if you didn't do it.
Really I think it's because of this -- that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean that he didn't do it, and everybody knows this -- that not even the innocent would want a day in court. They can be cleared of the charges, but because of the ambiguity of "not guilty" vs. "actually genuinely totally innocent", the allegations may stick with them forever. Far better not to be in court at all. It's a harrowing experience if you didn't do it.
another cold case from 1986 has produced an arrest today
http://
http://
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.