Operation Yewtree

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Scary isn't it. anyone can be accused of anything, end up losing their savings, house, job, reputation, pretty much everything and still be found not guilty, but destroyed anyway.

Justice eh.

Indeed and the accusers name is kept secret in the process.

He wasn't found not guilty of these crimes. The Jury could not reach a decision and therefore the CPS are retrying them.

---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Indeed and the accusers name is kept secret in the process.

and so it should be. How many people do you think would go to the police to report abuse and/or rape if they're names would be broadcast across the media as a result?

[techguyone]

Perhaps the person being accused then tried would be afforded that same courtesy too then, until (if) found guilty...

Originally Posted by techguyone

Perhaps the person being accused then tried would be afforded that same courtesy too then, until (if) found guilty...

Yes I think that would be a good idea, unless a judge rules otherwise (i.e in case there are other alleged victims who may come forward).

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

He wasn't found not guilty of these crimes. The Jury could not reach a decision and therefore the CPS are retrying them.

which obviously means that the "beyond reasonable doubt" test was not met, for many of the Jury.

Which suggests the evidence is not compelling. Unless "new" evidence is available I would have to question the decision to re-try.

He was found not guilty of all the other charges.

and so it should be. How many people do you think would go to the police to report abuse and/or rape if they're names would be broadcast across the media as a result?

I agree, but is the accuser has anonymity, then so should the accused.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

There are several winners in this operation.

The lawyers who must be charging the earth for there services. The accusers who are seeing their attackers in court.

BUT, so far out of all these cases NOT one person has been found guilty. I feel deep down that cases like these should NOT be brought to court unless there is concrete evidence to convict.

Put it this way, l was abused 30 years ago for a solid year by a member of the church, l told my parents - they done nothing, If l came forward and told the police ten years ago - where is the evidence. DNA wasn't even thought of then. The person is dead now and l got a letter from his mother just saying that he has passed away.
BUT, to me you cannot take things like this to court from an early age and try for a conviction - to me its impossible.

Also has anyone noticed that its Stars that are being tried.

Yes, all the evidence is now coming out of the woodwork about Saville - why didn't it come out when he was alive.

I feel that there should be a limit of when these cases can come to court- as again the evidence will have gone by then

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

BUT, so far out of all these cases NOT one person has been found guilty.

Stuart Hall?

Originally Posted by Pierre

which obviously means that the "beyond reasonable doubt" test was not met, for many of the Jury.

But it seems the Jury was split on this enough to be unable to find him not guilty either.

He was found not guilty of all the other charges.

Not these two which are, IIRC, the more recent ones. It's also worth noting that the jury took a while to reach those verdicts too and still couldn't get a unanimous verdict so it suggests that, while he was not guilty of those crimes, the CPS hadn't prosecuted on a flimsy case.

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Don't get me wrong this is a big call from the CPS. If he is found not guilty then they'll be asked some serious questions.....

[Doug P]

I may be proved wrong, but I doubt a second jury will unanimously find him guilty if the same evidence is produced.

[MalteseFalcon]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Stuart Hall?

Wasn't found guilty, he changed his plea to guilty at the last minute before a trial started.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Perhaps the person being accused then tried would be afforded that same courtesy too then, until (if) found guilty...

I don't think they should as a matter of course, certain claimants should though, like the woman in the bill roach case who couldn't be sure if she hadn't dreamt it.

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

Wasn't found guilty, he changed his plea to guilty at the last minute before a trial started.

Wasn't found guilty despite changing his plea to guilty, being sentenced and being currently banged up, he must have had one **** hot lawyer

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes I think that would be a good idea, unless a judge rules otherwise (i.e in case there are other alleged victims who may come forward).

Let me correct that " those who see a pay check in it " I agree that there are more genuine accusers than non genuine but there should be anonymity on both sides until the case is over.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

[/COLOR]

Wasn't found guilty despite changing his plea to guilty, being sentenced and being currently banged up, he must have had one **** hot lawyer

Techinically no he wasn't FOUND guilty.
If you plead guilty nobody FINDS you so...

Either way, he was convicted of the crimes.

[Stuart]

Freddie Starr will not be prosecuted.