Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
This really seems to have split opinion with some on here seeing it as a victory to justice whilst others see it as a legal system with an axe to grind.
After the first case he was found not guilty on 10 counts and undecided on two others. It is at that point a reasonable response would have been to look at what had gone wrong and make a reasoned judgement as to the way forward. It seemed that even with the two cases the CPS decided to go ahead, the two he was found not guilty on in the end. He was found guilty, by majority of 10 to 2 I understand, of the case that he was subsequently charged with regarding the Mrs Merton show. The evidence seemed to be her word, and Dave Gorman reporting on office gossip he heard afterwards, not the most reliable really but when the CPS is hanging on to its credibility they gave it a go and got lucky.
Not being in court this will have come down to the Barristers qualities at winning over a jury, in this case the CPS won. It is just a pity that the police and CPS weren't better with cases like the killing of PC Blakelock, Stephen Lawrence and many other cases.
I like many others feel justice has not really been served here, egos have been massaged, scores settled perhaps but not justice. And for those saying "if it was your wife", well it did happen, she punched the guy and I had words with him afterwards that was justice served.
After the first case he was found not guilty on 10 counts and undecided on two others. It is at that point a reasonable response would have been to look at what had gone wrong and make a reasoned judgement as to the way forward. It seemed that even with the two cases the CPS decided to go ahead, the two he was found not guilty on in the end. He was found guilty, by majority of 10 to 2 I understand, of the case that he was subsequently charged with regarding the Mrs Merton show. The evidence seemed to be her word, and Dave Gorman reporting on office gossip he heard afterwards, not the most reliable really but when the CPS is hanging on to its credibility they gave it a go and got lucky.
Not being in court this will have come down to the Barristers qualities at winning over a jury, in this case the CPS won. It is just a pity that the police and CPS weren't better with cases like the killing of PC Blakelock, Stephen Lawrence and many other cases.
I like many others feel justice has not really been served here, egos have been massaged, scores settled perhaps but not justice. And for those saying "if it was your wife", well it did happen, she punched the guy and I had words with him afterwards that was justice served.
spaximus said:
I like many others feel justice has not really been served here, egos have been massaged, scores settled perhaps but not justice. And for those saying "if it was your wife", well it did happen, she punched the guy and I had words with him afterwards that was justice served.
The offence here is one of sexual assault by a man with some degree of authority over the victim. This is not a case of a drunk at a party but a considered assault in circumstances where the victim is unlikely to complain.Travis suggests that it is the fault of the CPS that £millions have been wasted yet had he admitted his guilt at an early stage, the costs would have been minimal.
At a time when the CPS has been castigated for refusing cases due to the status of the person charged, with multiple complainants I would suggest they had little option but to proceed.
Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
So what should be the limit for anticipated costs? Wherever it is it would let off Savile and Smith don't forget, both of whom were 'bigger' than Travis.
Derek Smith said:
The offence here is one of sexual assault by a man with some degree of authority over the victim. This is not a case of a drunk at a party but a considered assault in circumstances where the victim is unlikely to complain.
If true as told, was it considered or was he drunk with his own power and fame?
Travis suggests that it is the fault of the CPS that £millions have been wasted yet had he admitted his guilt at an early stage, the costs would have been minimal.
He has maintained his innocence, was he an innocent man like William Roache and Kevin Le Vell, why admit guilt if he was not?
At a time when the CPS has been castigated for refusing cases due to the status of the person charged, with multiple complainants I would suggest they had little option but to proceed.
Which comes back to my thoughts that the CPS did go ahead with something to save face, in their defence they would be dammed if they did dammed if they did not.
Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
Cost should not be a consideration for serious offences, as said, sometimes the winner is the best Barrister not justice being served. Even the judge summed it up well that this was a nasty thing to do but not one that suggested a sex criminal in the same way as Saville or Hall.
So what should be the limit for anticipated costs? Wherever it is it would let off Savile and Smith don't forget, both of whom were 'bigger' than Travis.
It is hard to compare Travis and the other cases. I am not defending what he did which the jury found him guilty of, however even if he had been found guilty of all the remaining three charges would his sentence have been so much worse anyway?
He has paid a heavy price for what he was found guilty of, he is still is likely to live many years and has no money or future income. He is still also looking at a civil case from another alleged victim who police found to have no evidence at all but that will not stop the no wins with a lower burden of proof going for what he does have left.
If true as told, was it considered or was he drunk with his own power and fame?
Travis suggests that it is the fault of the CPS that £millions have been wasted yet had he admitted his guilt at an early stage, the costs would have been minimal.
He has maintained his innocence, was he an innocent man like William Roache and Kevin Le Vell, why admit guilt if he was not?
At a time when the CPS has been castigated for refusing cases due to the status of the person charged, with multiple complainants I would suggest they had little option but to proceed.
Which comes back to my thoughts that the CPS did go ahead with something to save face, in their defence they would be dammed if they did dammed if they did not.
Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
Cost should not be a consideration for serious offences, as said, sometimes the winner is the best Barrister not justice being served. Even the judge summed it up well that this was a nasty thing to do but not one that suggested a sex criminal in the same way as Saville or Hall.
So what should be the limit for anticipated costs? Wherever it is it would let off Savile and Smith don't forget, both of whom were 'bigger' than Travis.
It is hard to compare Travis and the other cases. I am not defending what he did which the jury found him guilty of, however even if he had been found guilty of all the remaining three charges would his sentence have been so much worse anyway?
He has paid a heavy price for what he was found guilty of, he is still is likely to live many years and has no money or future income. He is still also looking at a civil case from another alleged victim who police found to have no evidence at all but that will not stop the no wins with a lower burden of proof going for what he does have left.
Derek Smith said:
Travis suggests that it is the fault of the CPS that £millions have been wasted yet had he admitted his guilt at an early stage, the costs would have been minimal.
Why should someone who is innocent admit guilt to save the CPS costs?Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 26th September 19:48
Derek Smith said:
Travis suggests that it is the fault of the CPS that £millions have been wasted yet had he admitted his guilt at an early stage, the costs would have been minimal.
Except he wasn't found guilty of any of the charges from the 1st trial - only of a subsequent charge 18 months after the initial arrest and 2 months after the 1st trial.So, had he admitted a guilt, he'd have admitted guilt to offences a court would have actually cleared him of.
REALIST123 said:
And the 'victim' who 'only wanted the truth to be told' chooses to remain anonymous.
Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
I assume your not talking about the BBC researcher, she is far from anonymous in this.Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
onyx39 said:
REALIST123 said:
And the 'victim' who 'only wanted the truth to be told' chooses to remain anonymous.
Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
I assume your not talking about the BBC researcher, she is far from anonymous in this.Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
Surprised that given her degree of fame, she didn't just name and shame and dare him to sue? Surely it would have done as much damage to his career as a suspended sentence. To actually try and get him banged up by the police and CPS would seem to be more than a little vindictive.
spaximus said:
After the first case he was found not guilty on 10 counts and undecided on two others. It is at that point a reasonable response would have been to look at what had gone wrong and make a reasoned judgement as to the way forward.
They did. They went through their criteria and rationale as I've posted earlier. I'm yet to see any evidence they did anything other than follow their standard procedures.
Jimboka said:
So CPS judgement was 90%+ wrong
Heads should roll
It's not abut "wrong" or "right", it's an assessment as to whether it's more likely or not, and then it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Heads should roll
So, crudely, greater than 50% to get it to court, and greater than 95% for a conviction. There's clearly a lot of scope to fall between those two.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You think this is money well spent to provide justice for one person who claims DLT squeezed her boobs?
I guess that the CPS don't have a cost effectiveness criteria. Perhaps they should. The money could be better spent elsewhere.
You're taking the outcome as justification. There were three charges for the second trial. It so happened only one reached the threshold. Had all three would you feel the same? I guess that the CPS don't have a cost effectiveness criteria. Perhaps they should. The money could be better spent elsewhere.
Derek Smith said:
At a time when the CPS has been castigated for refusing cases due to the status of the person charged, with multiple complainants I would suggest they had little option but to proceed.
Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
Indeed. Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
Derek Smith said:
The offence here is one of sexual assault by a man with some degree of authority over the victim.
So what authority did DLT have over the victim?By 'some degree', what does that mean?
The victim was a researcher for a TV show,DLT a DJ, does being a DJ elevate his position?
Would I or any other mere mortal have to doff my cap at a DJ?
onyx39 said:
REALIST123 said:
And the 'victim' who 'only wanted the truth to be told' chooses to remain anonymous.
Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
I assume your not talking about the BBC researcher, she is far from anonymous in this.Good choice, love; I'd be similarly ashamed if I'd been responsible for this huge waste of public resources just 'cause somebody grabbed my norks....
http://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_e...
38 mins in
make of this what you will...
Scuffers said:
if it's who I think it is, her she is talking about it in a pod cast from a few years back,
http://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_e...
38 mins in
make of this what you will...
Indeed!http://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_e...
38 mins in
make of this what you will...
A comical tale when retold to Markus Birdman, however years later the event turned into:
In a victim impact statement, which was read out at London's Southwark Crown Court ahead of his sentencing, the victim said: "I was a naive and trusting 22-year-old when I was subjected to an unprovoked and terrifying physical assault at my place of work.
"I was too paralysed with fear to confront my assailant."
The woman said she felt "lucky" that she was "physically resilient" enough to get on with her life "thanks largely to my colleagues".
She said the process of remembering the incident still took her back to "feeling like a scared, vulnerable young woman".
"Being called a liar and fantasist and being forced to recall the evidence in court has been painful," she said.
The woman, who chose to retain her anonymity, told the court that she would not claim compensation "now or in the future".
"I simply wanted to tell the truth," she said.
La Liga said:
spaximus said:
After the first case he was found not guilty on 10 counts and undecided on two others. It is at that point a reasonable response would have been to look at what had gone wrong and make a reasoned judgement as to the way forward.
They did. They went through their criteria and rationale as I've posted earlier. I'm yet to see any evidence they did anything other than follow their standard procedures.
Jimboka said:
So CPS judgement was 90%+ wrong
Heads should roll
It's not abut "wrong" or "right", it's an assessment as to whether it's more likely or not, and then it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Heads should roll
So, crudely, greater than 50% to get it to court, and greater than 95% for a conviction. There's clearly a lot of scope to fall between those two.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You think this is money well spent to provide justice for one person who claims DLT squeezed her boobs?
I guess that the CPS don't have a cost effectiveness criteria. Perhaps they should. The money could be better spent elsewhere.
You're taking the outcome as justification. There were three charges for the second trial. It so happened only one reached the threshold. Had all three would you feel the same? I guess that the CPS don't have a cost effectiveness criteria. Perhaps they should. The money could be better spent elsewhere.
Derek Smith said:
At a time when the CPS has been castigated for refusing cases due to the status of the person charged, with multiple complainants I would suggest they had little option but to proceed.
Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
Indeed. Whilst I think it is a waste of money I know whom I blame for it.
The question as to whether to bin a case due to likely costs is one which haunts prosecutors. They have little to no control over how much a case will cost. The richer the person, the more likely they are to drag the damn thing out. Should the CPS consider how rich the offender is before deciding on whether to proceed? That's likely to go uncriticised on here.
So they fell well short of their target. So far off the scale it is either gross incompetence or another motive. Either way they have damaged their reputation.
Jimboka said:
But the CPS assessment was wrong 10 times out of 11, or 12 times out of 13.
So they fell well short of their target. So far off the scale it is either gross incompetence or another motive. Either way they have damaged their reputation.
An exercise in damage limitation IMO.So they fell well short of their target. So far off the scale it is either gross incompetence or another motive. Either way they have damaged their reputation.
After the Savile 'escape' the reputation of the police force and CPS must be maintained, hence a scapegoat must be found.
The oldest concept in the history of the courts and the legal profession.
SamHH said:
I suspect you're misunderstanding what the CPS have to assess. It's not their job to judge whether there definitely will be a conviction. If you think about it, I'm sure you'll realise that would be absurd. It would place the prosecutor in the position of the magistrates or jury, deciding the case before it even reached court.
The CPS simply have to judge whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. The fact that most of the charges resulted in acquittal does not mean that the CPS were wrong.
bit more to it than that.The CPS simply have to judge whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. The fact that most of the charges resulted in acquittal does not mean that the CPS were wrong.
they also have to consider if it's in the public interest.
you can just about argue that the first trial was warranted, however, from that point on was purely dogmatic 'got to get a result' mentality.
One good thing, apparently this conviction does not result in him being on the sex offenders register.
I do wonder with the evidence of the pod-cast etc. if he has a prospect of winning an appeal?
Scuffers said:
bit more to it than that.
they also have to consider if it's in the public interest.
you can just about argue that the first trial was warranted, however, from that point on was purely dogmatic 'got to get a result' mentality.
My post wasn't intended as an exhaustive description of the CPS's functions.they also have to consider if it's in the public interest.
you can just about argue that the first trial was warranted, however, from that point on was purely dogmatic 'got to get a result' mentality.
I've not seen anyone advance any reason why the second trial wasn't in the public interest. Bare assertions like yours above are weightless without anything to support them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff