News4 mins ago
More Celebrity Abuse Of Youngsters
36 Answers
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://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I doubt it would be 'shown' to the court sandyroe but if the case hinged on it the defence would doubtless provide (for judge and jury) pictures to the contrary, if it were in their interests to do so.
Warts can be removed and leave no trace, scars, naevus(mole), tattoos etc would be far more conclusive.
Warts can be removed and leave no trace, scars, naevus(mole), tattoos etc would be far more conclusive.
Yes, a witness giving evidence can be asked to show a visible distinguishing mark. If a witness says they saw a mark on an accused, rest assured that the accused will soon demonstrate that he hasn't go it; if he remains silent on the matter, the jury will conclude that he has.
I think Coughlin said that Archer had acne on his back. Nobody asked him to show his back, but the trial was a long time after the event. And he was saying he was never there. The presence of acne is not exactly a unique identifying feature!
I think Coughlin said that Archer had acne on his back. Nobody asked him to show his back, but the trial was a long time after the event. And he was saying he was never there. The presence of acne is not exactly a unique identifying feature!
jno
/// it would be one person's evidence against another's; it is for the jury to decide who's telling the truth. Juries aren't infallible but they're the best we've got. ///
Yes but before it even went to court surely the public prosecutor would have to be shown enough evidence of guilt, for them to take it to court in the first place?
/// it would be one person's evidence against another's; it is for the jury to decide who's telling the truth. Juries aren't infallible but they're the best we've got. ///
Yes but before it even went to court surely the public prosecutor would have to be shown enough evidence of guilt, for them to take it to court in the first place?
AOG, one person's word has always been enough for a conviction, whether that be one police officer's, one traffic warden's, or one victim's of an assault.
However, there was a rule of law that the victim of any sexual offence had to be corroborated, supported in a material way by evidence which was totally independent of the victim's. This meant that their word alone was not sufficient. This archaic rule was abolished in 1994. It is interesting that this man was arrested in 1993 for like offences but was not prosecuted because the evidence was not sufficient. It is almost certain that that was because it wasn't sufficiently corroborated. Had he been arrested in 1995, the story would have been different. As it was, he went on for years after 1993, doing the same thing.
However, there was a rule of law that the victim of any sexual offence had to be corroborated, supported in a material way by evidence which was totally independent of the victim's. This meant that their word alone was not sufficient. This archaic rule was abolished in 1994. It is interesting that this man was arrested in 1993 for like offences but was not prosecuted because the evidence was not sufficient. It is almost certain that that was because it wasn't sufficiently corroborated. Had he been arrested in 1995, the story would have been different. As it was, he went on for years after 1993, doing the same thing.
The CPS are constrained by two rules of practice, AOG. They should not prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and they should not prosecute unless there is a reasonably likely prospect of conviction. That second means not just that the judge won't stop the case at half time and direct an acquittal but that , if it gets to the jury, the jury are not going to spend half an hour before throwing it out (I paraphrase)
One witness's evidence alone can easily satisfy both criteria.
One witness's evidence alone can easily satisfy both criteria.
Also, we've known for a long time that child sexual abuse happens far more frequently than we'd like to think.
"The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries."
"In the UK, a 2010 study estimated prevalence at about 5% for boys and 18% for girls (not dissimilar to a 1985 study that estimated about 8% for boys and 12% for girls]). More than 23,000 incidents were recorded by the UK police between 2009 and 2010. Girls were six times more likely to be assaulted than boys with 86% of attacks taking place against them."
http://
A distant member of my family was raped repeatedly when she was a child (in the 60s I think), and told her mother (who was his employer) about it. The mother disbelieved her own child on the grounds that he was "a good barman."
"The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries."
"In the UK, a 2010 study estimated prevalence at about 5% for boys and 18% for girls (not dissimilar to a 1985 study that estimated about 8% for boys and 12% for girls]). More than 23,000 incidents were recorded by the UK police between 2009 and 2010. Girls were six times more likely to be assaulted than boys with 86% of attacks taking place against them."
http://
A distant member of my family was raped repeatedly when she was a child (in the 60s I think), and told her mother (who was his employer) about it. The mother disbelieved her own child on the grounds that he was "a good barman."
AOG, more convincing story is one way of putting it. The jury is human. We like to think that we can judge infallibly whether a witness is lying or not. But until humans are perfect, that's the best we can do. It works pretty well. That's one reason why taped interviews are so dangerous for the defence. A man saying "I didn't do it" reads well on paper but hearing him say it on the tape tells the jury that he is lying.
Coke, yes you'd go down the civil route if the person had enough wealth to satisfy the damages and costs. But, knowing a criminal trial was due, you'd wait. On a conviction on the same facts as your claim, the defendant cannot possibly win. You'd plead the conviction and that is proof beyond reasonable doubt; you only need proof on the balance of probabilities in your civil action.
If he's acquitted, you think harder. It may be that the civil standard of proof will get you home, as it did in O J Simpson's case when he was acquitted of murder. But that decision depends on how the evidence panned out in the criminal case; Simpson was a very lucky man to be acquitted.
If he's acquitted, you think harder. It may be that the civil standard of proof will get you home, as it did in O J Simpson's case when he was acquitted of murder. But that decision depends on how the evidence panned out in the criminal case; Simpson was a very lucky man to be acquitted.
By the way, the above is the answer to the oft proclaimed argument that people make false claims of sexual assault against a living person in order to be bought off. No lawyer would settle such a claim until and unless there was a conviction for it or the accused asked for it to be taken into consideration when he was sentenced.
In Savile's case, he being dead, a false claim is a bit easier to get up and running but still the lawyers would want some police evidence that the claim was credible now.
In Savile's case, he being dead, a false claim is a bit easier to get up and running but still the lawyers would want some police evidence that the claim was credible now.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.