More Celebrity Abuse Of Youngsters

[FredPuli43]

This time a local, not national celebrity, but shades of Savile. Police were quoted on radio as saying that victims had come forward after the Savile and other cases. It rather looks like it doesn't it ?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/michael-souter-jailed-child-sex-offences

[jno]

"world famous in Norfolk" seems to be enough. It's deeply unpleasant but I'm glad it's being dealt with at last.

[ummmm]

That at last they were confident enough that they would be believed?

[FredPuli43]

Seems like it ummm, the Savile effect and changes in law and practice. The man was arrested on similar charges in 1993 but the prosecution decided that the evidence wasn't good enough to prosecute.

[CokeTulip]

I am pleased for the victims. Definite common denominators with Savile. It cant have been an easy process. Good result.. Yes.

[youngmafbog]

Yesterday we had a post on how we house pensioners.

Well it is looking more and more like we need old peoples prisons not homes. I strongly suspect this is the tip of the iceberg.

Glad these nonce's are finally being banged up.

[emmie]

he got 22 years which was amazing, i hope his victims get some peace, closure from this.

[AB Editor]

It does seem ironic doesn't it that because of the Saville scandal and horror, lots of other poeple are now coming forward because they feel they will be believed and being helped :-)

I am not making light of the situation, of course, just thought it was funny.

[anotheoldgit]

I wonder in such cases how the victim can provide such overwhelming evidence of their abuse, so as to get a conviction?

[ChillDoubt]

Rumours abound on the net that they may not have yet got to the Crinkley Bottom of this.

Make of that what you will!

[emmie]

must have been compelling evidence seeing as he got 22 years...

[sandyRoe]

He claimed that the police had fabricated the evidence against him. Did anyone ask why they might do that?

[maggiebee]

Our local newspaper ran a story recently about a groundsman at a football ground who abused young girls. Sadly this behaviour seems more prevalent these days, or perhaps it's just being reported more?

[emmie]

he was investigated years ago, but not enough evidence, according to the link the abuse continued..

[ummmm]

It's reported more.

[emmie]

maggie, these crimes are coming to light, many committed many years ago, like Savile over a long period of time, seems they get away with it because of their status, pretty much like those in the Catholic church, vile

[FredPuli43]

The truth is overwhelming , AOG. One witness, who the jury are convinced is telling the truth, is enough; you don't need to construct a case on circumstantial detail, or forensic or medical science, with that. This evidence is generally confirmed by the accused's testimony, when he is obviously lying. Here we had 7 victims. Any one being believed would be enough for conviction on ' his' counts but all seven were. Such evidence is sometimes bolstered by evidence of system; there are striking similarities in the methods, or things said, by the accused, which suggest that all are telling the truth and his innocent explanation of any one incident cannot be valid for all.

[ummmm]

I think the professionals are more highly trained nowadays.

[ChillDoubt]

I wonder in such cases how the victim can provide such overwhelming evidence of their abuse, so as to get a conviction?
---------------
If there is more than one victim, Police are careful not to prompt them with "did he say....", instead leaving it up to the victim to provide as much detail.
In such cases, there will be similarities in setting, language/terminology used, M.O, circumstances and VDM's(Visible Distinguishing Marks) not generally in full normal view.
A combination of those generally corroborates the victims individual circumstances. It's how Stuart Hall was found out, the victims all suffered abuse in similar circumstances and settings.

[sandyRoe]

Could an accused person be asked by the court to show a VDM? I think in the Archer v The Daily Star case Coughlin claimed that Archer had a memorable wart. If he did have it, and the jury had been allowed to view same, it could have given more weight to her evidence.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you FredPuli43 & ChillDoubt for those explanations, I think that those reasons you pointed out are quite reasonable when there are many victims, but say there is just one victim, surely it would be their word against his or hers?