You Gotta Luv Him !

[bazwillrun]

http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/national/my-nightmare-continues-clifford-1-6115604

He's innocent , its obvious ....according to everybodys favourite publicist, that is.

well max me ole mucker lets see if the court thinks its obvious tha you must be innocent

[woofgang]

If he is innocent, I would rather not be the police force that are running this case!

[mikey4444]

Not my favourite character I must admit, but the judicial process must be allowed to take its course.

He is innocent until proved Not Guilty by the Jury, or the Judge stops the case.

[askyourgran]

Why aren't the accusers seen to be facing up to their attackers? Most of these offenced took place over 40 years ago.

[albaqwerty]

case is to be heard on March 4th next year. A long time for the accusers and the accused to wait.

[mikey4444]

We have discussed that point many times here on AB askyourgran.

But it seems that any woman can make any accusation she likes, years and years after the event, and her identity will be a secret for ever, while the person she accuses is paraded before the Media. If it was a child making the complaint, and that person is still a child at the time of the court case, I could understand it but in most of these recent events that isn't the case.

Perhaps the procedure will change in the near future. I certainly think it needs to.

[youngmafbog]

I can't stand the odious man, but these cases (not just this one) seem very odd.

I really struggle to understand how there would be sufficient evidence (unless someone filmed it) so many years after. Without film (that too can be doctored) it can only be one persons word against another - after 40 years!

[mikey4444]

I have just been reading the link that baz has provided. These offences are alleged to have happened nearly 50 years ago. While I don't want to denigrate any victim in any way, nor do I want any crime to be go uninvestigated, but how on earth can anybody have total recall of an event that happened such a long time ago ? As there is likely to be no DNA or other type of evidence in this case, is a successful prosecution going to rely on one persons word against another ?

After the passage of so many years, will any conviction be entirely credible, or any aquittal come to that ?

[jno]

perhaps if you'd been molested, even 50 years ago, you'd remember the details?

I can.

[mikey4444]

I am sorry that you appear to have suffered in the past jno, but I still think that the memory recall of such a long time ago would not be difficult for a defence barrister to use constructively on behalf of a client.

There is a danger here of a guilty man getting off, as well as an innocent man being wrongly convicted. We use a adversarial system of law here in Britain, and witnesses are subject to some pretty hostile treatment in court.

Let me just say that if Clifford is guilty, than so be it.

[jno]

it wasn't much of a molestation, mikey, he got his hand on my knee before I announced that my father was coming for me in five minutes. And yet I clearly remember his bald head, his piggy eyes, his wheedling voice and his dark coat. I'd recognise him in an instant. I remember where it happened and how it happened.

But I didn't know his name.

[LazyGun]

I have not really looked at the charges, and have no opinions on Clifford much, either.

There are several important principles at stake with these cases though, ones that are worth recognising.

Should serious cases of offences against the person have some kind of "statute of limitations"?

In cases relating to sexual misconduct, should we only press ahead with a case if their is material corroborating evidence, or eye witnesses, or similar? In some Muslims countries for instance, a woman needs male eye witnesses in order to prove a rape accusation. I take it non of us want to see that?

Can a sexual assault prove sufficiently serious that it remains etched in the memory of the victim, and cause severe psychological damage sufficient that it can scar the victim for life?

I think we should take all such allegations seriously; They should be investigated, the quality of testimony assessed, any corroborating defendants etc carefully reviewed.And the person making the allegations deserved to be believed, at least to start with - Not something that has always happened.

Also remember in this instance, there are 7 women making allegations, which appears to show there is some sort of case to answer - or are we saying that all 7's recall is imperfect and/or imagined?

[mikey4444]

Again, so sorry to learn of your incident. But can you be sure that the person who was appearing in the dock was the same person who had molested you 50 years ago, when you were a child ? He might not have a dark coat on after so many years. I am sure you could hazard a guess, a pretty good one, that they are one and the same person but it would still be up to a Jury to decide if your evidence was sufficiently robust to convict a 70 yera old man, possible for the rest of his life.

Not an easy problem to solve, I would readily admit, these old abuse cases, but there is a lot at stake. Not so much for the victim, as they are not identified of course.

[jno]

oh, I agree, mikey - as I said, I didn't and don't know who he was. But suppose within, say, 10 years he'd started to become well known and get his name and photo in the papers? Or suppose I already knew who he was - friend of the family perhaps?

Another reason for these charges may be that memories of one long-ago incident might be regarded as unreliable, but if you get several people making the same allegation, and some similarities in their claims (apart from just the person named) become apparent, they might be seen to reinforce one another.

I'm not suggesting Clifford's guilty; I know nothing of the charges and am happy to let the court decide. I'm only posting to point out that it's very possible to remember lots of details of an incident - even a non-traumatic one like mine - decades after. (This one was even earlier that those alleged against Clifford.)