As I would have been in today's climate; at last Jurors are starting to become aware of false allegations.

It's taken 14 years.

I agree Jonathan, just a shame it's taken this long.

Apparently the CPS are deciding on 24 February, whether to have a retrial on two charges the jury couldn't agree on.

Sounds like a waste of time and money.

JK2006 wrote:
at last Jurors are starting to become aware of false allegations.

Yes, once again the Jury has decided that they don't believe a word (when someone has waited 40 years !)

They may have all kinds of reasons ... seeking fame / selling their story / wanting "compo" / wanting to appear on Big Brother / feeling lonely and neglected now they are Fifty, Fat and Fading Fast! ... but Juries are having NONE of it !

We can also infer that during ALL the deliberations that the majority of the Jury were in favour of acquittal - with just one / two hanging on?

Now hunt the Liars & Witch-Hunters!

Mike Willis wrote:
Apparently the CPS are deciding on 24 February, whether to have a retrial on two charges the jury couldn't agree on.

Sounds like a waste of time and money.

There will be NO retrial.

It would be a complete waste of time and money (as you syY).

We can clearly infer (on the charges where no result was brought) that at least 9 of the Jury were in favour of acquittal and 3 in favour of guilt (If it had been 10-2 the Judge would have accepted the majority verdict).

With each of these trials being rejected by a Jury it makes it even harder for future convictions.

twitter wickedness :

ITK: I've been through this, remember, and I strongly believe most false accusers genuinely believe their claims and that often such claims are simply exaggerations brought by time and media coverage. A very few (often the ones that start it: a clue - they go to publicists or newspapers before police or doctors) are simply after money, fame, sympathy or revenge (Mia Farrow springs to mind).

But most either decrease their age by a year or two; claim they didn't enjoy it when, at the time, they did ("how could I have?"); believe things happened that didn't (whilst all other connected things - food, drink, music, friendship) did; have inflated relationships over the years - or just remember a joke slapped bum and know it's no longer acceptable.

Always encouraged by media (it's a great story), and by the police and CPS who, understandably, want convictions if they believe the suspect is guilty (and some bad apples who know the suspect is innocent but want a conviction for their own reasons; karma tends to kick in there, though I'm still waiting for someone to examine why Levi Belfield was free to kill 2 more innocent girls) - we need to remind those bent coppers that easy encouragement of crime ("You will be believed - even if you are lying") is not just irresponsible but possibly criminal behaviour.

Individual accountability is needed. Which police officers chose to prosecute Michael Le Vell, William Roache, Dave Lee Travis? How exactly did the Jimmy Savile fiasco begin? How dare certain people - media, individuals, police - leak names of falsely accused celebrities? Examination of guilty pleas by innocent people. And most of all... whatever happened to INNOCENT UNLESS OR UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

JK2006 wrote:
ITK: I've been through this, remember, and I strongly believe most false accusers genuinely believe their claims and that often such claims are simply exaggerations brought by time and media coverage. A very few (often the ones that start it: a clue - they go to publicists or newspapers before police or doctors) are simply after money, fame, sympathy or revenge (Mia Farrow springs to mind).

But most either decrease their age by a year or two; claim they didn't enjoy it when, at the time, they did ("how could I have?"); believe things happened that didn't (whilst all other connected things - food, drink, music, friendship) did; have inflated relationships over the years - or just remember a joke slapped bum and know it's no longer acceptable.

Always encouraged by media (it's a great story), and by the police and CPS who, understandably, want convictions if they believe the suspect is guilty (and some bad apples who know the suspect is innocent but want a conviction for their own reasons; karma tends to kick in there, though I'm still waiting for someone to examine why Levi Belfield was free to kill 2 more innocent girls) - we need to remind those bent coppers that easy encouragement of crime ("You will be believed - even if you are lying") is not just irresponsible but possibly criminal behaviour.

Individual accountability is needed. Which police officers chose to prosecute Michael Le Vell, William Roache, Dave Lee Travis? How exactly did the Jimmy Savile fiasco begin? How dare certain people - media, individuals, police - leak names of falsely accused celebrities? Examination of guilty pleas by innocent people. And most of all... whatever happened to INNOCENT UNLESS OR UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?


I don't know how you bear it all with such grace and generosity of spirit, but it's to your credit and their eternal shame.

Delighted for DLT---hopefully Rolf next. Again JK said this would happen. About time people started paying more attention to this message forum.

Not to forget that if DLT/Roache had died over the last year the allegations would have stuck!

JK2006 wrote:
ITK: I've been through this, remember, and I strongly believe most false accusers genuinely believe their claims and that often such claims are simply exaggerations brought by time and media coverage. A very few (often the ones that start it: a clue - they go to publicists or newspapers before police or doctors) are simply after money, fame, sympathy or revenge (Mia Farrow springs to mind).

It now turns out that one of the accusers has actually been to jail for "stalking" someone previously.

Another tried to "sell her story" BEFORE even contacting the police.

How come the CPS do not take such matters into account? - someone who makes these claims / or seeks financial gain is clearly unreliable (and HAS a motive !).

Yes ITK: frequently these things are started by someone with a grudge or after money. My "whistleblower", by his own flawless admission, went to Max Clifford first (but not for money... because he lived in the area... LOL). But Karma is no bitch; I consider her a fine lady. As viewers to Vile Pervert: The Musical know, karma arrived for cuRt in the shape of mild health problems. Mr Clifford is discovering what it's like to be accused (whether falsely or not we shall doubtless find out in March - I predict a verdict on April Fool's Day).

Pru; thank you for your kind comments but I only behave as my nature decrees. I try to be decent.

Absolutely fucking fantastic!

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.

A fresh Exposure - and believe you me, the court reconstruction is pretty accurate

Just to remind you, according to some, hell has nine circles.

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
ITK: I've been through this, remember, and I strongly believe most false accusers genuinely believe their claims and that often such claims are simply exaggerations brought by time and media coverage. A very few (often the ones that start it: a clue - they go to publicists or newspapers before police or doctors) are simply after money, fame, sympathy or revenge (Mia Farrow springs to mind).

It now turns out that one of the accusers has actually been to jail for "stalking" someone previously.

Another tried to "sell her story" BEFORE even contacting the police.

How come the CPS do not take such matters into account? - someone who makes these claims / or seeks financial gain is clearly unreliable (and HAS a motive !).

is there a link to this story ?

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

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.'