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.
Paul Petty wrote: Wyot wrote: In how many cases do we EVER get proof?
Crimes witnessed by others have proof - just like those involving body fluids, verified by DNA examinations.
Proof is an absolute your examples are not.
"Let him have it!" a witness attests that soon to be sentenced to death Derek Bentley (19) said as "proof" that he encouraged murder. When he may have meant hand him the gun, not fire it. DNA can be proof that, for example, intercourse took place, but can't prove a rape.
Crimes require establishing mental intent (mens rea) as well as an action.
Proof is vanishingly impossible to establish. What has to be established is a balance of evidence (which can include accusations - strongly or weakly, true or malicious) "beyond reasonable doubt".
Paul Petty wrote: Wyot wrote: In how many cases do we EVER get proof?
Crimes witnessed by others have proof - just like those involving body fluids, verified by DNA examinations.
Not always straightforward, Barney.
Different people seeing the same thing will give different accounts, even if they are telling the truth.
As for DNA, it is only ever part of the picture. Different countries have different thresholds, such as in the McCann case with traces in the car, and the way it is collected, stored or tampered with can make it pointless, such as the OJ Simpson case, where his DNA was found but shown to be from a stored sample due to the preservative mixed in with it.
We only aim for beyond reasonable doubt though, not absolute proof.
Wyot wrote: DNA can be proof that, for example, intercourse took place, but can't prove a rape.
But it can prove that a crime took place if the perpetrator's semen is found inside a minor, for instance. Nevertheless DNA certainly doesn't solve everything.
However, using new DNA techniques, The Innocence Project (in the USA) has overturned hundreds of wrongful convictions.
Usually by being able to show that the individuals were elsewhere at the times particular crimes were committed, and couldn't have been involved.
Or that DNA evidence, linked to a specific crime, was that of someone else; techniques, as well as the size of databases, have expanded dramatically in recent years.
Close to 10% of US prisoners are thought to be innocent and the Project views DNA advancement are the only real route to an innocent person's freedom.
Paul Petty wrote: Wyot wrote: DNA can be proof that, for example, intercourse took place, but can't prove a rape.
But it can prove that a crime took place if the perpetrator's semen is found inside a minor, for instance. Nevertheless DNA certainly doesn't solve everything.
However, using new DNA techniques, The Innocence Project (in the USA) has overturned hundreds of wrongful convictions.
Usually by being able to show that the individuals were elsewhere at the times particular crimes were committed, and couldn't have been involved.
Or that DNA evidence, linked to a specific crime, was that of someone else; techniques, as well as the size of databases, have expanded dramatically in recent years.
Close to 10% of US prisoners are thought to be innocent and the Project views DNA advancement are the only real route to an innocent person's freedom.
Yes DNA can certainly be useful and often persuasive evidence Barney.
I guess my friend who was raped by Russell Brand 13 years ago dreamt it all, eh? Him being a serial rapist has been an open secret in the comedy world for years. The Times tried to run a story on him about all of this 10 years ago but his lawyers shut it down. He's as evil as they come.
How odd that your friend didn't go straight to the police. I would have done. But you clearly know much more than we do. We only know what we read in the media; you have close, if second hand, information.
Mike H wrote: I guess my friend who was raped by Russell Brand 13 years ago dreamt it all, eh? Him being a serial rapist has been an open secret in the comedy world for years. The Times tried to run a story on him about all of this 10 years ago but his lawyers shut it down. He's as evil as they come.
The times knew he was a serial rapist, said nothing, and let him carry on raping people for ten years?
If I was sure, I would shout it from the rooftops and bugger the lawyers.
JK2006 wrote: How odd that your friend didn't go straight to the police. I would have done. But you clearly know much more than we do. We only know what we read in the media; you have close, if second hand, information.
If you were determined to have revenge, Mr King, you might be better not going to the police.
There is a 75 percent chance of conviction if it goes to court, but 100 percent if it doesnt.
Honey wrote: Mike H wrote: I guess my friend who was raped by Russell Brand 13 years ago dreamt it all, eh? Him being a serial rapist has been an open secret in the comedy world for years. The Times tried to run a story on him about all of this 10 years ago but his lawyers shut it down. He's as evil as they come.
The times knew he was a serial rapist, said nothing, and let him carry on raping people for ten years?
If I was sure, I would shout it from the rooftops and bugger the lawyers.
A former business man I had ties with sued The Guardian. It was settled out of court. He didn't have the time to take it further. He had his daughter's wedding to sort out. It was a nice lump sum they paid out.
However every now and then he will shout out 'Fake news' if he goes by their head office.
Honey wrote: Mike H wrote: I guess my friend who was raped by Russell Brand 13 years ago dreamt it all, eh? Him being a serial rapist has been an open secret in the comedy world for years. The Times tried to run a story on him about all of this 10 years ago but his lawyers shut it down. He's as evil as they come.
The times knew he was a serial rapist, said nothing, and let him carry on raping people for ten years?
If I was sure, I would shout it from the rooftops and bugger the lawyers.
Do you know how many files there are on various celebs at papers that they won't run with for fear of being sued?
Having been shut down by Russell Brand before, The Times made sure that they had enough supporting evidence so that his lawyers couldn't block the story.
Spare your main anger for the serial rapist and not The Times.
Mike H wrote: Honey wrote: Mike H wrote: I guess my friend who was raped by Russell Brand 13 years ago dreamt it all, eh? Him being a serial rapist has been an open secret in the comedy world for years. The Times tried to run a story on him about all of this 10 years ago but his lawyers shut it down. He's as evil as they come.
The times knew he was a serial rapist, said nothing, and let him carry on raping people for ten years?
If I was sure, I would shout it from the rooftops and bugger the lawyers.
Do you know how many files there are on various celebs at papers that they won't run with for fear of being sued?
Having been shut down by Russell Brand before, The Times made sure that they had enough supporting evidence so that his lawyers couldn't block the story.
Spare your main anger for the serial rapist and not The Times.
Isn't that like leaving the field gate open and saying "save your anger for the bull"?
I don't believe him when he says all his sexual interactions were consensual. A woman says he'd come into a bathroom in a radio studio after her and exposed himself to her. That's not consensual. And it apparently did happen, since he'd laughed about it just afterwards with a colleague on air.
Forums 
