/ Dave Lee Travis NOT GUILTY

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
So has the acquittals of Bill Roache and now DLT sent any sort of message to the CPS?
Steve Perry - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

He's guilty of being a bad DJ, he can't get off that rap!
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> So has the acquittals of Bill Roache and now DLT sent any sort of message to the CPS?

A similar sort of message to every case where the accused is found not guilty by a jury I would imagine.
GrahamD - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> So has the acquittals of Bill Roache and now DLT sent any sort of message to the CPS?

No, why should it ? if all cases brought by the CPS were nailed on certainties, why bother with courts ?
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

The point I was trying to make was that if I robbed a bank then they'd a wealth of potential evidence from CCTV to DNA. The CPS are currently allowing a prosecution to take place based on a single woman's account of an incident 40 years ago. "He said, she said" Is that sort of prosecution in the public interest?
toad - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

it looked like it was more nuanced than that. Given it took the jury some time before the judge said he would accept a majority verdict, I think it was sufficiently balanced that the CPS were right in taking it to a trial. The CPS shouldn't only prosecute where a Guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. They decided there was a case to answer, and now it's been answered.
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to toad:

> it looked like it was more nuanced than that. Given it took the jury some time before the judge said he would accept a majority verdict,
You could infer that but truth be told we'll never know. So is it in the public interest to prosecute on such flimsy evidence.
PeterM - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> You could infer that but truth be told we'll never know. So is it in the public interest to prosecute on such flimsy evidence.

You make no sense and contradict yourself with the above.
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> The point I was trying to make was that if I robbed a bank then they'd a wealth of potential evidence from CCTV to DNA. The CPS are currently allowing a prosecution to take place based on a single woman's account of an incident 40 years ago. "He said, she said" Is that sort of prosecution in the public interest?

By "single woman" I take it you mean "11 single women" and by "an incident 40 years ago" you mean "incidents that spanned a range of years from 1976 to 2008"...
toad - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:
> (In reply to toad)
>
> [...]
> You could infer that but truth be told we'll never know. So is it in the public interest to prosecute on such flimsy evidence.

I'm not sure if the evidence was "flimsy" that the trial would have taken so long. Plus... wot off duty said
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> By "single woman" I take it you mean "11 single women" and by "an incident 40 years ago" you mean "incidents that spanned a range of years from 1976 to 2008"...
My understanding was that the initial complaint was made during the original pressure cooker outing of Jimmy Saville by I believe Liz Kersaw saying she'd been groped by a major BBC celebrity but not actually mentioning the persons name. She then went to the police and named the individual. DLT's name was either leaked to the press or the press found out and we had an "Ulrika Jonsson moment" where other women made "He said, She Said claims". Now the CPS had a number of allegations coupled with a hugely bad reputation with regards 'sex crimes' so decided that a high profile prosecution was in the public interest.
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> My understanding was that the initial complaint was made during the original pressure cooker outing of Jimmy Saville by I believe Liz Kersaw saying she'd been groped by a major BBC celebrity but not actually mentioning the persons name. She then went to the police and named the individual. DLT's name was either leaked to the press or the press found out and we had an "Ulrika Jonsson moment" where other women made "He said, She Said claims". Now the CPS had a number of allegations coupled with a hugely bad reputation with regards 'sex crimes' so decided that a high profile prosecution was in the public interest.

I have no idea what rumour mill might have started the ball rolling.

I'm not entirely sure what that has got to do with the fact that the CPS were faced with a case that at its core had 11 women that were prepared to give evidence, on oath, in court, in relation to events that occurred over a 30 year period - other than the fact that it bears no resemblance to your allegation "The CPS are currently allowing a prosecution to take place based on a single woman's account of an incident 40 years ago. "He said, she said" Is that sort of prosecution in the public interest?
"
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to toad:

Unless anyone knows of any hard evidence in the case then I believe that the prosecution case rested purely on a series of people claiming they's been sexually assaulted i.e there was no other evidence other than the women's claims of the sexual assaults. Of the 11 women to make the claims 10 have decided to remain anonymous.

toad - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

and there's the possibility of a retrial on the undecided charges
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> Unless anyone knows of any hard evidence in the case then I believe that the prosecution case rested purely on a series of people claiming they's been sexually assaulted i.e there was no other evidence other than the women's claims of the sexual assaults. Of the 11 women to make the claims 10 have decided to remain anonymous.

Err, no - 10 have maintained their right under law as alleged victims of sexual assault to have their anonymity preserved. A nice bit of victim blaming though.
Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I believe the issue is one of a fair trial. The CPS has just as much a duty to the accused as to the accuser.


off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> I believe the issue is one of a fair trial. The CPS has just as much a duty to the accused as to the accuser.

The CPS has a duty to review the evidence before it and to decide if their is a realistic prospect of a conviction and if prosecution is in the public interest.

It does not have a requirement "to only prosecute if there is a guaranteed conviction".

Incidentally in relation to the evidence - the allegations by the women, though they were only made to the police at the time of the investigation, were, in the majority, made to acquaintances/relatives/friends at the time and this - evidence of first complaint - was also used in court.
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to toad:

No, but I cant see how Roaches case made it, there were just so many inaccuracies that were overlooked, who was there, the car, the house, no memory of it.. police mistakes..

Antigua - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Err, no - 10 have maintained their right under law as alleged victims of sexual assault to have their anonymity preserved. A nice bit of victim blaming though.

A jury has found that 8 of them aren't victims. CPS is still considering a retrial for the other 2.

As a person of prominence i.e. in the police force doesn't this sort of thing worry you? Whats to stop a person with a grudge making up an allegation about you which happened in the distant past. Your name etc is released to the press and other people also make allegations against you based on the fact no one will ever know one way or the other. They get 100% anonymity and if they sway a jury into believing the false allegations then theres compensation at the end of it.... so much the better if your rich.
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> A jury has found that 8 of them aren't victims. CPS is still considering a retrial for the other 2.

No it hasn't. A jury has found that the crown was unable to prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. It says nothing at all about the status of the alleged victims.

> As a person of prominence i.e. in the police force doesn't this sort of thing worry you? Whats to stop a person with a grudge making up an allegation about you which happened in the distant past. Your name etc is released to the press and other people also make allegations against you based on the fact no one will ever know one way or the other. They get 100% anonymity and if they sway a jury into believing the false allegations then theres compensation at the end of it.... so much the better if your rich.

What worries me is when people start posting stuff like "it was one woman's word" when there were 11 complainants and "the evidence was no more than 'he said-she said'" when the case involved allegations of similar fact evidence and evidence of first complaint at least, that I am aware of.
I have been involved in investigating a number of, for want of a better description, "common or garden" rape and sexual offences. The amount of work that goes into investigation is massive - and that includes testing the account of the alleged victim.

There is a separate discussion to be had about anonymity for rape suspects, one that I am sure the victims of Stuart Hall would have a very definite view on.
ads.ukclimbing.com
hamsforlegs - on 13 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

The other way of looking at this is to say that a number of allegations were raised which many reasonable people thought had some credibility on first consideration. That's the kind of thing that can hang over someone for years. I used to see this in my line of work (professional standards stuff) - the allegations would circulate 'under the radar' for decades, leaving a sort of dodgy smell around someone.

In this case, luckily for DLT, some of the allegations have been thoroughly investigated, prosecuted, and rejected by the jury. As such, there has been a clear statement of the allegations (no more general muttering) and a clear finding that the charges could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Given that lots of people obviously did have concerns that were widely known about, this is not actually a bad outcome.

Isn't this one of the points of a criminal justice system?
jkarran - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> No, why should it ? if all cases brought by the CPS were nailed on certainties, why bother with courts ?

In general I'd agree but there does perhaps seem to be a trend emerging from these historic celebrity sex trials. Despite the fact they are by their nature clearly hard to defend convincingly it also appears perhaps harder than anticipated to get the jury over the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' threshold.

Either that or they've been cynically pursued by police and prosecutors knowing they stand a low chance of success at trial but but that they have a window of opportunity in the wake of Savile where they need to be seen to be doing something. Seems a little far fetched to me. I suspect genuine misjudgment on the part of the CPS regarding the probability of a successful conviction. Or of course there is no meaningful pattern, just a very small sample.

Still, I guess those still facing charges may be breathing just a little easier today.

jk
wilkie14c - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

I think the charactor witness statement by the chuckle brothers sealed the deal for the hairy cornflake
Offwidth - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:
I think the CPS are doing OK. Rape and sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult to secure prosecutions on, on a beyond reasonable doubt of guilt test and the perpetrators know and exploit that (your word against mine with all that shame, time and pain). Investigations sometimes get messed up and people get off on technicalities. The test becomes harder when the prosecution faces an expensive defense team, as in a celebrity case. Enough 'Innocent' people have been prosecuted on new or improved evidence and the 'innocent' have lost civil cases following the failure of a criminal prosecution.

I trust the jury results but like so many you seem to be making the mistake of thinking it is certain the defendants were beyond a reasonable doubt of being anything but innocent.
Post edited at 11:43
owlart - on 14 Feb 2014
Once again UKC shows that in cases involving allegations of sexual assault/misconduct there are only two verdicts - 'Guilty' and 'He got away with it'. I don't know of any other type of case where the "He could still have done it, they just couldn't prove it well enough" line is pushed quite so hard.

Can't help wondering, if those people who keep pushing this line were accused and acquitted, if they'd be happily stood there saying "I could still be guilty, you just couldn't prove it."
Offwidth - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to owlart:
How childish. Its obvious to anyone false accusations are made sometimes. The world is grey, not black and white. A few people are found guilty who are innocent and some of the guilty deserve the punishment more than others. Yet in a civilsed society we have to set a beyond reasonable doubt test and if that test is fair it is likely to free more guilty people than convict innocent ones and this is nothing to do with the obvious fact that completely innocent behaviour exists when false accusations are made.
Post edited at 12:32
off-duty - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to owlart:

> Once again UKC shows that in cases involving allegations of sexual assault/misconduct there are only two verdicts - 'Guilty' and 'He got away with it'. I don't know of any other type of case where the "He could still have done it, they just couldn't prove it well enough" line is pushed quite so hard.

> Can't help wondering, if those people who keep pushing this line were accused and acquitted, if they'd be happily stood there saying "I could still be guilty, you just couldn't prove it."


I think it's more a case of Ukc's inability to distinguish between being found not guilty and "they are therefore not victims".
I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. Unfortunately the justice system isn't designed to find out the truth it is designed to test if a prosecution case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

DLT has been found not guilty. That doesn't necessarily follow that the prosecution should never have been brought and that the victims were lying. It would be great if it did, but it doesn't.

Donnie - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to owlart:

> I don't know of any other type of case where the "He could still have done it, they just couldn't prove it well enough" line is pushed quite so hard.

Because crimes of a sexual nature are often one persons word against another they are particularly difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable. The flip side of that is that it would also be very difficult to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, you're very often left with a situation where the law finds someone innocent but any fair minded observer would be left thinking there a reasonable chance the accused is guilty.

I don't know the details of this case, but having looked at rape conviction rates I suspect that the majority of men accused of rape and found not guilty at trial are in fact guilty. (NB I'm not sure if DLT was actually accused of rape?)

IainRUK - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

The guy lost his house over this, thats not right. I'm amazed costs werent recouped.
off-duty - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> The guy lost his house over this, thats not right. I'm amazed costs werent recouped.

I believe they have to demonstrate a miscarriage in order to get costs, but I need to check that.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> A similar sort of message to every case where the accused is found not guilty by a jury I would imagine.

I'm not sure about that. It does appear that the appetite of juries for sexual abuse claims against celebrities based on events alleged to have taken place a very long time ago is generally less than the CPS had supposed, does it not? I would like to think that the CPS would factor this information into its future thinking.

Whereas I'm not sure the average acquittal of a burglar provides quite so much information about trends.

jcm
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What on earth are you talking about 'the appetite of juries'. Seems like a complete misunderstanding of the way our jury system works. The facts we have about this jury decision (anything else must remain meaningless supposition) is: not that 10 thought he was guilty and 2 not. But the exact reverse. Beyond all that you seem to forget the immense weight of responsibility the jury has to make the most correct/just decision. This bunch of '12 men and true' spent 4 days (?) thrashing it out. Please, please give them more credit for doing their rational (unemotional) job properly.
Jim C - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> Unless anyone knows of any hard evidence in the case then I believe that the prosecution case rested purely on a series of people claiming they's been sexually assaulted i.e there was no other evidence other than the women's claims of the sexual assaults. Of the 11 women to make the claims 10 have decided to remain anonymous.

I was just reading out the thread's Subject Line out loud, and my wife and ( older) sister immediately said back in the day ( when they were young and attractive I took it to mean, that is late 60's for my sister and the mid seventies for my wife) they 'often' had risqué comments , or their bums smacked, by guys who thought they were being funny, but it was just brushed aside, and they just warned other women about the 'touchy freely' types, but not report them .

Now I too was young ( maybe not attractive) back in the 70' ) but I never once patted any girls bums in an overly familiar way. But it sounds like if I had, I would have got away with it back then.

( that is the first time in 30 odd years my wife ever mentioned this, not sure if that infers anything , either way in these cases though, other that it was not uncommon.
IainRUK - on 14 Feb 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I believe they have to demonstrate a miscarriage in order to get costs, but I need to check that.

I just think that is wrong. If innocent the state should cover it. I thought Bill Roache was claiming fees?

I thought it was standard.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.