The comment section is interesting.



www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650672...onviction-rates.html

giles2008 wrote:
The comment section is interesting.



www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650672...onviction-rates.html

At the time of JK's conviction circa 2000 there did seem to be a feeling that the police and prosecutors knew what they were doing,and could be trusted to only bring 'guilty' people before the courts.

Wind forward a few years,corrupt police,and the fiasco of badly prepared celeb witch-hunts after Saville have meant juries are now actually waiting for a 'burden of proof' beyond reasonable doubt to be presented.

None of us know the real facts in individual cases,some are true,some fantasy,some bend the truth just enough to make it illegal.Some want revenge,some want compensation...some just want attention!

We must also note that almost none will have any real evidence,and here is the key,the best actor/actress syndrome doesn't give us real facts,just who is more believable.

Perhaps if both parties were to undertake 'lie-detector' testing then that evidence could be admissible in court?
I also find it hard to believe that just because someone makes an unprovable accusation to police that they are automatically believed....while the accused is treated as if 'guilty',under investigation on purely the word of a person who has not been checked out themselves.

Very good post, Pattaya.

Of course the real crime is in failing to report at the time - and in so doing allowing potential evidence (of guilt / innocence) to disappear.

Now ... when are you returning the £100K that I loaned you?
Do I need to contact the police?

In The Know wrote:
Very good post, Pattaya.

Of course the real crime is in failing to report at the time - and in so doing allowing potential evidence (of guilt / innocence) to disappear.

Now ... when are you returning the £100K that I loaned you?
Do I need to contact the police?.......compensationnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I begged to be allowed to take a lie detector test - and for my accusers to do the same. Police refused - saying they were not reliable! But I don't think this Saunders statement is entirely wrong; we do need to relook at the definition of rape. It's such a vague word and can cause terrible problems both ends. But taking one extreme or the other is a mistake. Police and prosecutors must be MUCH more ruthless in deciding what is or isn't a rape claim. They are too often either fooled or believe people who actually believe their own version of events. And historic abuse claims need REAL tightening up. The CPS and police should pursue almost none. Finally juries are wising up; that's why there are now more and more acquittals.