In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
We can assume that both parties are telling the truth before the trial (unless its something drastic like Rolf in a concert that wasn't) but you cant get a fair trial if it is already fixed in the jury's mind that someone is guilty, and the press coverage does this by the way they report, such as the repeated use of the word victim, before we know who the victim is.

You cannot assume both parties are telling the truth if their stories differ widely ! (one may be true, both may be false but both cannot be true !)

As I've said many times ... a Jury will convict / acquit on the evidence and how it is presented.
Its important that the Jury see the witness and hear them giving evidence (otherwise we could do it all by post !)

Did the witness sound convincing?
Could there be an ulterior motive?
Were they "shifty"?

... these are the things the Jury will witness and will help them decide who they believe and who they don't.

Unless the jury have already been influenced beforehand. It is very difficult to shift first ideas and impressions.

Of course you can believe both parties before the trial. We dont need to have an opinion before the trial. There is no need for either party to be accused of lying beforehand.

JK2006 wrote:
Correct but without other evidence there's a danger more and more innocent will be wrongly convicted, as I was. Sadly, without corroborative evidence, we simply must no longer allow convictions solely on the word of one person against another.

I would even doubt corroborative evidence when there are huge payouts for all, as in a couple of the Jimmy Savile incidents which we now know never happened.

In The Know wrote:
As I've said many times ... a Jury will convict / acquit on the evidence and how it is presented.
Its important that the Jury see the witness and hear them giving evidence (otherwise we could do it all by post !)

Did the witness sound convincing?
Could there be an ulterior motive?
Were they "shifty"?

... these are the things the Jury will witness and will help them decide who they believe and who they don't.
A jury may not be very reliable if the verdict boils down to judging apparent shiftiness and whether or not someone seems convincing.

"Study after study has found that attempts – even by trained police officers – to read lies from body language and facial expressions are more often little better than chance. According to one study, just 50 out of 20,000 people managed to make a correct judgement with more than 80% accuracy. Most people might as well just flip a coin."
www.bbc.com/future/story/20150906-the-be...-ways-to-spot-a-liar

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
So if a jury believes the witness believes they are telling the truth, should the jury believe it IS the truth? Do you not think memories can change over years and can be influenced by media and other areas?

Yes I do ... but there is nothing else we can rely on is there?

... of course the guilty would like it that way so they can dismiss ALL claims by anyone at any time !

In consideration of a fair trial / inquiry ( A rare thing indeed in any period of history or country) - historically evidence for any trials / inquires would had to rely more on word of mouth as finger prints, CCTV, bank records, DNA mobile phones etc are recent items. People from both sexes, all ages and backgrounds lie to varying degrees and finding the truth has always been a most difficult task indeed.

So historically in essence ITK has a pointYes I do ... but there is nothing else we can rely on is there? But what the UK, Australia and now the US courts fail to recognize is that times have changed. that is in the availability of evidence to assist in finding of the truth.
My expectation that any objective court and investigative approach with integrity from any historical period would never just take anyone's word alone even if they personally knew the person to be truthful as serious matters need to be dealt with fairly thus a full examination of the facts would always be in order. And even in ancient times there would be certain records and often evidence that will support or not support the verbal testimony.
Modern times seems to produce many fine actors / actresses who are extremely convincing in their testimony and thus juries without proper direction and transparency / accountability can be persuaded to let a guilty person go free and convict an innocent person. This is the emotional approach that needs to be recognized and corrected.

So no a person's word alone is enough, never. It breaks human rights and even the CPS own code (Which they ignore as it would reduce their conviction rate).

Basically ITK's comment is "outdated" by a couple or more hundred years more or less.

Randall wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Jo wrote:
And try finding just one post from ITK not endorsing the view that multiple accusations from adults popping up late in the day with financially-friendly claims equals iron-clad guilt. Funny site to be visiting with that attitude.

Always try and see a balanced argument ... the Jury can ONLY decide on the evidence presented - but never ever (unlike many on here) always asssume that someone MUST be innocent !

There's another aspect to it, apart from guilt or innocence.

That's the idea that Harvey Weinstein did indeed do the casting couch stuff alleged, but the argument is over whether that is illegal or just bad manners, or should be illegal. From the anti-male feminist side, there has been consistent pressure over decades to expand which manifestations of bad manners fall within the prohibitions of the criminal law.

An example from the Harvey Weinstein reports is whether a casting couch fumble was a quid pro quo OR whether his position of financial and career influence over the actresses vitiated their consent to do what they did in return for advancement (which they did indeed receive...)

Randall exhibiting insight here.

Perhaps the Casting Couch was for some time but not all time.

Things, society are in constant change. Recall it was powerful Studio moguls who ran Hollywood and some indulged in the Casting Couch- some just were happily married but were completely ruthless and made and broke careers because they could.

Throw in a whole lot of enablers- agents, managers, producers (remember- one of Marylin Monroe's greatest loves was he manager who never mistreated her and recognized her as an intelligent but damaged woman and cared for her accordingly).

So do we today punish people for acting in a way that was the norm for 60/50/20/10 years ago?.
If people are convicted of a "historic" crimes they can only face the penalties that were on the books then.

Along with some who will be re-writing a decision to be fiddled with as "rape"- do we say they are as guilty as f*ck for helping perpetuate a system and culture of abuse?

# do NOT tell me some aspiring actress who agrees to go to the bedroom of a powerful producer does NOT know what the score is..they just aren't that stupid (not in California)

## I believe the Weinstein trial (in about 2 years time) will claim many more scalps..innocent and guilty.

### More and more people are proclaiming that it is better that some INNOCENT are convicted as long as it snares the guilty : we are witnessing the gradual change in one of the greatest tenets of law virtually in every civilised country being gradually over-turned.

wjlmarsh wrote:
In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
So if a jury believes the witness believes they are telling the truth, should the jury believe it IS the truth? Do you not think memories can change over years and can be influenced by media and other areas?

Yes I do ... but there is nothing else we can rely on is there?

... of course the guilty would like it that way so they can dismiss ALL claims by anyone at any time !

In consideration of a fair trial / inquiry ( A rare thing indeed in any period of history or country) - historically evidence for any trials / inquires would had to rely more on word of mouth as finger prints, CCTV, bank records, DNA mobile phones etc are recent items. People from both sexes, all ages and backgrounds lie to varying degrees and finding the truth has always been a most difficult task indeed.

So historically in essence ITK has a pointYes I do ... but there is nothing else we can rely on is there? But what the UK, Australia and now the US courts fail to recognize is that times have changed. that is in the availability of evidence to assist in finding of the truth.
My expectation that any objective court and investigative approach with integrity from any historical period would never just take anyone's word alone even if they personally knew the person to be truthful as serious matters need to be dealt with fairly thus a full examination of the facts would always be in order. And even in ancient times there would be certain records and often evidence that will support or not support the verbal testimony.
Modern times seems to produce many fine actors / actresses who are extremely convincing in their testimony and thus juries without proper direction and transparency / accountability can be persuaded to let a guilty person go free and convict an innocent person. This is the emotional approach that needs to be recognized and corrected.

So no a person's word alone is enough, never. It breaks human rights and even the CPS own code (Which they ignore as it would reduce their conviction rate).

Basically ITK's comment is "outdated" by a couple or more hundred years more or less.
A new programme at Harvard Law School aims to influence national policies and help reform the nations criminal justice system "with help from Harvard students and faculty". Bearing this as well as Hedda's recent comment about the USA having "an 'expert' on everything" in mind, it's worrying when a professor from HLS, Jeannie Suk Gersen, writes an article for a national magazine discussing the effects of the #MeToo movement on the recent Cosby trial guilty verdict without any further discussion of the danger the new evidentiary procedure poses to the presumption of innocence principle. While it's good to see acknowledgement of #MeToo influence, the only hint that something is not quite right about this appears in the concluding paragraph where she describes the new evidence issue as controversial.

today.law.harvard.edu/reforming-criminal...ce-national-policies

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bill-co...merican-legal-system