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: Dishevelled?
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
I can understand why you are pessimistic, Andrew. There has been such a lot of false accusations reported in the newspapers recently (two or three a week, I think? Is anyone keeping count?) that it is easy to think that juries make their minds up beforehand, and that nobody bothers with proof any more.
But surely, given what happened to Mr King last time, When he could actually prove he was not in the same country as the accusers at the time, and they wouldn't let him present the evidence that would have cleared him, they wont let the same thing happen twice? I should think they would be extra careful?
Link to Woffingdon thing.... www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567549...alibi-sent-jail.html |
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
The Mirror describes Mr King as dishevelled because his tie isn't straight 
Wouldn't a normal person say "your tie's wonky mate" and then take the photo when it was fixed? 
www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/dish...nathan-king-12680904
Hoping it all goes smoothly and fairly, as expected, and that Mr king stays calm and strong. 
I think it was more the blue trainers worn with the suit that looked ridiculous, it was a personal choice to do that, so he can't really complain. There was very little news on this today on the mainstream media, compared to 2001 when the first trial occurred. Probably because there have been far more famous people accused and convicted thatn jk (Rolf, Saville, William Roache, Stuart Hall). Anyway I hope he gets a fair trail.
I suppose once everyone has seen you jigging in a blue wig there is no point in trying to look conservative.
Anyway, probably best to be yourself in these situations.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
robbiex wrote:
andrew wrote:
Just trying to put a brave face on. I have an odd feeling he will be sent down again.
Judging by the newspaper reports I would be surprised if he was cleared this time. Claimed he didn't know the alleged victims, then the plod find photos of them in his house. It doesn't look good.
Can you name or recognise everyone in every photo in your house? I jolly well cant!
Well I could actually but I don't have many photos. It is not clear about the details of the photos. If they were individual shots of the boys, then it would be difficult to believe that he hadn't met them or know them, if they were crowd shots from the Walton Hop, then it is quite plausable. If the story about Sam Fox is obtained from more than one of the accusers and they could prove that they were completely independent and had never met or communicated with each other then that is quite damning, although people on here will claim that the plod corroborated the evidence. I can understand if shown a picture of a child or teenager that you once knew then years later you wouldn't recognise them. I was recently shown some pictures by my sister of my childhood. There was one picture of another child and I said who is that. It was the boy next door who we used to see everyday for years.
The scary thing with almost all "belated reporting" of a sex crime is that evidence disappears very quickly as would be the case with many crime types. For example, if Andrea Constand had reported ASAP and the police had taken a blood sample then there would be a lot less chance for um's and ah's at the crazy BC trials. A hell of a lot less on someone's word only.
So what happens when there is "No Reliable Evidence" the justice system then throws the idea of "reliable evidence" and fair trial out the window. Next it creates a "Hollywood type set" to build "a story". So the story adds things like "a photo" "quotes" and in some cases a real photo actually appears but often the fictional idea is now accepted fact and was just added so the jury can continue to develop the picture in their minds that becomes real. Robbiex here is right in how many of us react including myself that the first reaction is "well now there must be something...". For me I have the major problem of re questioning the information so of course I end up - out of sync, thus at odds with others who swallow the intended story and image. Honey here has raised the question of photos and memories. Also, the issue of a person actually been in close proximity to another whether they remember or not does not equal crime. Only a pointer for any police investigation never a conclusion.
So my whole point here is a trial to be fair must be based on "reliable evidence" and there have been many reported examples particularly with modern mobile phones with video recording that have evidently convicted or exonerated the accused. And no one is wondering what is the real truth afterwards.
I am writing here in general. So there are also a few cases (very few) where the evidence is based on "available and verifiable recorded reporting" at the time the sexual abuse took place. Some institutions have called the police and senior officials with several reported incidences at the institution, thus at the time establishing the reported incidences confirmed as the truth. NOT stories reported much later.
www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch...re-evidence-20170516
So for older historic alleged crimes where no movie made etc and no contemporaneous evidence then almost every case is not viable for "a fair trial". NO reliable evidence. Even supposedly supportive evidence later of similar stories can not be accepted due to the ease of collusion and finding information.
THIS "evidence thing" is separate to whether the allegations are false or true. Whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Every single person in the courtrooms up and down the UK wants a fair trial and would not like themselves to be in court on concocted stories. Thus individuals will accept "Reliable evidence" trial even though they may not like the outcome but I have never meet one person who would be happy to stand trial on word only.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
wjlmarsh wrote:
robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
robbiex wrote:
andrew wrote:
Just trying to put a brave face on. I have an odd feeling he will be sent down again.
Judging by the newspaper reports I would be surprised if he was cleared this time. Claimed he didn't know the alleged victims, then the plod find photos of them in his house. It doesn't look good.
Can you name or recognise everyone in every photo in your house? I jolly well cant!
Well I could actually but I don't have many photos. It is not clear about the details of the photos. If they were individual shots of the boys, then it would be difficult to believe that he hadn't met them or know them, if they were crowd shots from the Walton Hop, then it is quite plausable. If the story about Sam Fox is obtained from more than one of the accusers and they could prove that they were completely independent and had never met or communicated with each other then that is quite damning, although people on here will claim that the plod corroborated the evidence. I can understand if shown a picture of a child or teenager that you once knew then years later you wouldn't recognise them. I was recently shown some pictures by my sister of my childhood. There was one picture of another child and I said who is that. It was the boy next door who we used to see everyday for years.
The scary thing with almost all "belated reporting" of a sex crime is that evidence disappears very quickly as would be the case with many crime types. For example, if Andrea Constand had reported ASAP and the police had taken a blood sample then there would be a lot less chance for um's and ah's at the crazy BC trials. A hell of a lot less on someone's word only.
So what happens when there is "No Reliable Evidence" the justice system then throws the idea of "reliable evidence" and fair trial out the window. Next it creates a "Hollywood type set" to build "a story". So the story adds things like "a photo" "quotes" and in some cases a real photo actually appears but often the fictional idea is now accepted fact and was just added so the jury can continue to develop the picture in their minds that becomes real. Robbiex here is right in how many of us react including myself that the first reaction is "well now there must be something...". For me I have the major problem of re questioning the information so of course I end up - out of sync, thus at odds with others who swallow the intended story and image. Honey here has raised the question of photos and memories. Also, the issue of a person actually been in close proximity to another whether they remember or not does not equal crime. Only a pointer for any police investigation never a conclusion.
So my whole point here is a trial to be fair must be based on "reliable evidence" and there have been many reported examples particularly with modern mobile phones with video recording that have evidently convicted or exonerated the accused. And no one is wondering what is the real truth afterwards.
I am writing here in general. So there are also a few cases (very few) where the evidence is based on "available and verifiable recorded reporting" at the time the sexual abuse took place. Some institutions have called the police and senior officials with several reported incidences at the institution, thus at the time establishing the reported incidences confirmed as the truth. NOT stories reported much later.
www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch...re-evidence-20170516
So for older historic alleged crimes where no movie made etc and no contemporaneous evidence then almost every case is not viable for "a fair trial". NO reliable evidence. Even supposedly supportive evidence later of similar stories can not be accepted due to the ease of collusion and finding information.
THIS "evidence thing" is separate to whether the allegations are false or true. Whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Every single person in the courtrooms up and down the UK wants a fair trial and would not like themselves to be in court on concocted stories. Thus individuals will accept "Reliable evidence" trial even though they may not like the outcome but I have never meet one person who would be happy to stand trial on word only.
Here is what the prosecuting qc said
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44472659
She also rejected his claims "not to know or remember most of the boys" related to the current charges, when there were still photographs, letters or addresses kept in his home "like trophies" up to 30 years later.
If he didn't know the boys then why would he have their addresses or letters from them at his home. It doesn't prove that a crime has taken place, but it does remove some trust in jk's defence. In this type of case there is never going to be video evidence or forensic evidence after all this time, so you have to go on patterns of behaviour. I only hope that if he didn't do these crimes then he has alibies, unlikely as this would be. I doubt whether exact dates for the alleged crimes are even given.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re:Dishevelled? 5 Years, 10 Months ago
|
|
robbiex wrote:
wjlmarsh wrote:
robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
robbiex wrote:
andrew wrote:
Just trying to put a brave face on. I have an odd feeling he will be sent down again.
Judging by the newspaper reports I would be surprised if he was cleared this time. Claimed he didn't know the alleged victims, then the plod find photos of them in his house. It doesn't look good.
Can you name or recognise everyone in every photo in your house? I jolly well cant!
Well I could actually but I don't have many photos. It is not clear about the details of the photos. If they were individual shots of the boys, then it would be difficult to believe that he hadn't met them or know them, if they were crowd shots from the Walton Hop, then it is quite plausable. If the story about Sam Fox is obtained from more than one of the accusers and they could prove that they were completely independent and had never met or communicated with each other then that is quite damning, although people on here will claim that the plod corroborated the evidence. I can understand if shown a picture of a child or teenager that you once knew then years later you wouldn't recognise them. I was recently shown some pictures by my sister of my childhood. There was one picture of another child and I said who is that. It was the boy next door who we used to see everyday for years.
The scary thing with almost all "belated reporting" of a sex crime is that evidence disappears very quickly as would be the case with many crime types. For example, if Andrea Constand had reported ASAP and the police had taken a blood sample then there would be a lot less chance for um's and ah's at the crazy BC trials. A hell of a lot less on someone's word only.
So what happens when there is "No Reliable Evidence" the justice system then throws the idea of "reliable evidence" and fair trial out the window. Next it creates a "Hollywood type set" to build "a story". So the story adds things like "a photo" "quotes" and in some cases a real photo actually appears but often the fictional idea is now accepted fact and was just added so the jury can continue to develop the picture in their minds that becomes real. Robbiex here is right in how many of us react including myself that the first reaction is "well now there must be something...". For me I have the major problem of re questioning the information so of course I end up - out of sync, thus at odds with others who swallow the intended story and image. Honey here has raised the question of photos and memories. Also, the issue of a person actually been in close proximity to another whether they remember or not does not equal crime. Only a pointer for any police investigation never a conclusion.
So my whole point here is a trial to be fair must be based on "reliable evidence" and there have been many reported examples particularly with modern mobile phones with video recording that have evidently convicted or exonerated the accused. And no one is wondering what is the real truth afterwards.
I am writing here in general. So there are also a few cases (very few) where the evidence is based on "available and verifiable recorded reporting" at the time the sexual abuse took place. Some institutions have called the police and senior officials with several reported incidences at the institution, thus at the time establishing the reported incidences confirmed as the truth. NOT stories reported much later.
www.merriam-webster.com/news-trend-watch...re-evidence-20170516
So for older historic alleged crimes where no movie made etc and no contemporaneous evidence then almost every case is not viable for "a fair trial". NO reliable evidence. Even supposedly supportive evidence later of similar stories can not be accepted due to the ease of collusion and finding information.
THIS "evidence thing" is separate to whether the allegations are false or true. Whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Every single person in the courtrooms up and down the UK wants a fair trial and would not like themselves to be in court on concocted stories. Thus individuals will accept "Reliable evidence" trial even though they may not like the outcome but I have never meet one person who would be happy to stand trial on word only.
Here is what the prosecuting qc said
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44472659
She also rejected his claims "not to know or remember most of the boys" related to the current charges, when there were still photographs, letters or addresses kept in his home "like trophies" up to 30 years later.
If he didn't know the boys then why would he have their addresses or letters from them at his home. It doesn't prove that a crime has taken place, but it does remove some trust in jk's defence. In this type of case there is never going to be video evidence or forensic evidence after all this time, so you have to go on patterns of behaviour. I only hope that if he didn't do these crimes then he has alibies, unlikely as this would be. I doubt whether exact dates for the alleged crimes are even given.
Of interest Prosecutor Rosina Cottage QC was also the Prosecutor in the Max Clifford trial.
There is at this stage "no context". For example what made items found "like trophies" - finding anything in these cases does not make them anything without proper research, investigated context (normally not possible). But I guess it may well be possible JK hoarded or keep many things for whatever reason. It is normal. So as it stands at this stage it is storytelling and should be beneath any police, judge, prosecutor or anyone for that matter. And as reporters love the one liner sensational headlines, and short sentences then if real evidence exists one would expect a reference to salient points that make the finds as trophies not mentioned. But as it stands to the very few thinking people it sounds ridiculous. And I see a mention of a blow up doll. So what!!! People have paintings, statutes that depict all sorts and are considered art not evidence of sexual abuse.
Most of these historic cases I have read on "patterns of behaviour" are stories similar to attending a conference of people who saw an alien with many similar accounts. To be an insider at these kind of things one has to have their story and a copied version is the safest with a few personal touches. It only creates a pattern in the stories not whether aliens exist or do not exist, as once these stories circulate then it becomes impossible to know that one has heard the real deal if it occurred. The current liberal use of "patterns of behaviour" is far as I can tell contradicts many overriding laws. But once again I have found nothing on what happens when laws conflict - so courts seem to have the liberty to do as they please.See Rolf Harris appeal. The overwhelming evidence the defense had to provide in the one case that was part of this pattern thingy should of raised concerns on the whole trial but to have done so would of brought into question the last few years of historic sex abuse trials.
I do apologise for going on a bit and I really do try hard to stay quiet but I feel so outraged by the criminal behaviour of the justice system. And I am not taking sides in assuming everyone on trial in historic cases is innocent. I am pro evidence and anti emotional verdicts not decided objectively on reliable evidence.
I have my own what I call "100 year rule" in that a fair trial properly conducted and detailed giving a verdict either way when read in a 100 years time (even if at a later time something came to light to alter the then reasoned verdict) the reader of the historical trial would think it was well a conducted investigation. The court case was clearly put together and the jury or judges or whoever arrived at the decision beyond all reasonable doubt. So yes more than likely correct and reliable or if changed later. Well i feel really sorry for the accused but "bad luck" or the other way. Well that was good the accused finally got nailed but the original trail was still the correct decision with all that was available at the time.
But now especially in these historic cases most (Thank something not all) I can not see how the verdict was reached. Even BC case when the one juror said BC's own evidence convicted him. So how did the juror know what bit of testimony he could accept and what bit he could not.
Thanks Robbiex for high lighting the BBC report. Details on this trial seem very scare indeed.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly wouldn't want to link to anything that could make it worse, but I was under the impression that the jury is banned from googling, and barristers couldn't fail to miss headlines?
