IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: DLT Acquitted
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
In The Know (as always) wrote:
hedda wrote:
is there a link to this story ?
Always happy to point you in the right direction, hedda !
==
In a separate blow to the prosecution, Travis's lawyers were allowed by the judge, Anthony Leonard, to tell the jury that one of the alleged victims had served jail time in 2010, in what they said was evidence of her unreliability as a witness.
The woman, a former BBC runner who said she had been groped by Travis in his Radio 1 studio, had pleaded guilty to threatening to kill her former business partner and attending her property with a knife to slash her tyres. She was jailed after breaching her bail conditions, the jury were told.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/13/...ee-travis-fell-apart
So this accuser isn't anonymous any more. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
Dave has no idea of hell; if he'd been found guilty of crimes that never took place and been given a 7 year sentence when the guide lines were 2 years, he's be starting to get some idea about hell.
If something is as beyond what you can cope with at the time, it is hell.
I am glad the hell didn't get worse for him.  |
|
JK2006 |
Thank you for this Patt; I said it all 14 years ago when I was told one of my accusers had applied for and got the "shopping list" (as my lawyer called it) and had put in for the full £33K (he claimed that going to the toilet had hurt him badly for 40 years - something beyond belief but signed off by his friendly local GP).
I immediately applied for and got the same shopping list. I was astonished by how many claims against me met the conditions with almost exact similar wording.
Yes, the compensation issue is a major factor. Another of my "victims" - I use the word as I was wrongly convicted of his claims - he was the one who claimed I had sex with him when I can now prove I was in America at that time - swore in the box that the Policewoman interviewing him had discussed details of how much he could get with him. When she was later questioned (she had not been in court when he gave his evidence) she swore she had never spoken with him about compensation. The jury (then) chose to ignore this discrepancy.
Those nice Police Chiefs standing on court steps really ought to say "You will be believed and we will assist you with nuggets of info in order to gain extra convictions and meet our targets". Then they might start winning cases again. |
|
Pattaya |
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559003...stain-character.html
'This is how it so easily could work. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays fixed damages to victims of violent crime. On its website, the first page supplies a PDF link; on page 66 of that is a tariff that any idiot can understand of what you may claim for various sexual transgressions.
For example: under 18, one incident, non-penetrative = £3,300. Two incidents = £4,400. But if you say it was penetrative, it leaps to £13,500; find a doctor to swear you are very psychologically disturbed by it and you net £27,000. And so forth.
Now then. If you are claiming there was an assault 30, 40 or even 50 years ago, with no witnesses, no forensic or any other evidence - what, you might think, have you to lose by trying it on? And, while you’re at it, exaggerating to the hilt? For further encouragement, ever since the Jimmy Savile revelations, the inclination on the part of the authorities is to believe those who accuse the famous. Now this may be commendable, but is it justice? Certainly, two juries thought not.
My guess is that a great many of Savile’s accusers were indeed mauled by him but that, almost certainly, not all were.
Yet with no obligation for proof, compensation will be paid by the million on a presumption of guilt over innocence; a complete reversal of the principle of our judicial system.
There will be those who point to these two recent sets of acquittals and say, well, at least juries are smart enough to work out that the evidence presented to them did not prove guilt.
But there is a further very serious issue: as good juries throw out ill-considered cases dating back decades, what effect will that have on a woman today who is the victim of sexual abuse and may understandably feel she won’t be believed?
If that is the result of the CPS’s mishandling of these cases, then that really will be a tragedy for women.' |
|
In The Know (as always) |
hedda wrote:
is there a link to this story ?
Always happy to point you in the right direction, hedda !
==
In a separate blow to the prosecution, Travis's lawyers were allowed by the judge, Anthony Leonard, to tell the jury that one of the alleged victims had served jail time in 2010, in what they said was evidence of her unreliability as a witness.
The woman, a former BBC runner who said she had been groped by Travis in his Radio 1 studio, had pleaded guilty to threatening to kill her former business partner and attending her property with a knife to slash her tyres. She was jailed after breaching her bail conditions, the jury were told.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/13/...ee-travis-fell-apart |
|
|
|
|
