Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: And we're off again, YEWTREE destroyer
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
John Marsh |
Chris wrote:
This yarn was discussed here in 2013 - and recall someone (Hedda I think) pointed out that the hotel wasn't built at the time in question.
I see one media story link here notes it as the "old" President Hotel as Chris recalled that the hotel had not been built in 1976. On the site page it has the year built as 1997. As to what the old hotel is about no idea except possibly another story change to cover up the glaring error of the hotel not existing at the time.
www.hotelsone.com/cape-town-hotels-za/pr...vDrNMCFYIEaAodJcYF7g
When I wrote my first two books reviewing the Max Clifford and Rolf Harris trials I was totally unaware that the police believed everything the complainant said. So I had expected basic facts to be checked. Well this is a typical example the basic fact of the hotel is not checked and cleared up by either the journalist or the police. (There well may be a legitimate previous President Hotel of the number of floors etc to match the story but somehow not referred to in that context so i doubt it.)
My assumption that police are there to investigate is clearly backed up in a programme three part series "The Detectives" where the discovery of a wall with teenagers scibbles were given a story that to this day has never been established.
Quote from Part one of "The Detectives"
"The ABC of being a detective is assume nothing, believe no-one, check everything.
But if you treat a rape victim like that, you've already gone horribly wrong.
And that's why it's a specialism."
The last comment is the lie bedded in sounding reasonable using the word treat. As in reality treat and the ABC given are two difference issues. A police officer can follow, as would be expected of a person performing their public duty, the ABC. And yet at the same time treat the complainant or victim with respect and concern. A correctly performed investigation following the detective's own rules (ABC) will ensure the best result for a victim as opposed to the believe everything they say which will and does corrupt an investigation. |
|
Jo |
hedda wrote:
It's not just false accusers- there is ample evidence now of police collusion with claimants to pervert the law (and that goes for lying ex-cop scumbags as well). Until one is destroyed in the courts and sent to jail Britain's corrupted police will continue.
It's high time it came to that. Here's hoping that Harvey Proctor and Cliff Richard have set the ball rolling. |
|
giles2008 |
As it is being reported in South Africa where the event supposedly took place.
www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/british-pop-...ens-70s-rape-8670237
"And the smoking gun is the bloodied sheets. If the prosecution can find someone from The President housekeeping staff who remembers removing bloodied linen from the sixth floor it would leave the defence having to explain a lot. Not least how a minor came to shed so much blood in a private hotel room where the only other person present was the star in question".
www.presidenthotel.co.za/
The 3 Arts venue in Plumstead has been refurbished but you can get a feel of the place as it was then on this link
www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/8624176594
Rolf Harris played there at one time it seems.
I smell Slater And Gordon in this!! |
|
tdf |
hedda wrote:
The Yewtree cops are determined to stitch someone up, anyone. I love this star and always have and perceive he's far stronger than others these creatures have falsely accused. I think his lawyers will make mince-meat not only of the claimant but the cops themselves...it's getting to the point where someone MUST sue individual policeman for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
They make 'em tough in the Welsh valleys! 
www.metrolyrics.com/a-boy-from-nowhere-lyrics-tom-jones.html |
|
PaulB |
I remember a case, about 25 years ago (so it's nothing new) where a girl claimed she had been abused. She first claimed that her 'abuser' had touched her bottom, but in a later interview she changed that to her boobs. She described him as having a beard, even though he had always been clean shaven. There were other questions about her claim, such as time and location. It was quite obvious that she was trying to remember what she had said last time, rather than remembering something that had actually happened.
The jury gave a majority guilty verdict. One journalist said that he thought the jury had trouble believing that anyone would lie about being abused (or not).
The judge, on sentencing, told the accused that it was 'unfortunate' for him.
I remember thinking that this couldn't ever happen again.
And that wasn't even a case involving a celebrity. |
|
|
|
