Rolf Harris - trial starts today
Discussion
telecat said:
Hardly surprising as that is no argument merely supposition. Where is the Logic in it? The article is based on the evidence and the evidence looks very flawed. The test of guilt is "Beyond Reasonable doubt". That there is doubt is missed here. If Harris can afford it I would expect there to be an appeal. That's another flaw in the current system. The Accusers tend not to be financially prosecuted at any stage in these Trials. The defendants tend to lose more with very little chance of the Justice System ever replacing it if found "not Guilty".
Are we really going to have this retarded and ill thought out argument again? Really?Halb said:
Harris has been convicted, he is guilty. He may appeal?
Here is an article that goes on about how he may not be 'guilty'.
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...
Leaving aside all the other charges, on which he may well be guilty as found by the jury, I do find them finding him guilty on count 1 very bizarre. He was a big celebrity and they could find no evidence of him ever having visited this community centre.Here is an article that goes on about how he may not be 'guilty'.
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/r...
You can't appeal a crown court conviction on the basis you think the jury got it wrong or made a mistake. One feature of the jury system is that they are empowered to make their decision as rationally or otherwise as they choose.
You can appeal on the basis the court misdirected the jury or made some other error with regards the law, such as allowing evidence that should have been excluded (or the opposite), behaved irrationally, failing to stay a case when they should or significant new evidence comes to light and so on.
But no, you can't appeal on the basis of "we think the jury made a mistake".
You can appeal on the basis the court misdirected the jury or made some other error with regards the law, such as allowing evidence that should have been excluded (or the opposite), behaved irrationally, failing to stay a case when they should or significant new evidence comes to light and so on.
But no, you can't appeal on the basis of "we think the jury made a mistake".
Oakey said:
telecat said:
Hardly surprising as that is no argument merely supposition. Where is the Logic in it? The article is based on the evidence and the evidence looks very flawed. The test of guilt is "Beyond Reasonable doubt". That there is doubt is missed here. If Harris can afford it I would expect there to be an appeal. That's another flaw in the current system. The Accusers tend not to be financially prosecuted at any stage in these Trials. The defendants tend to lose more with very little chance of the Justice System ever replacing it if found "not Guilty".
Are we really going to have this retarded and ill thought out argument again? Really?You say the evidence is 'flimsy'. I would like to know on what basis you suggest this?
If, having heard the prosecution evidence and before they gave their own, the defence thought the evidence was insufficient to make out any offence, they are entitled to make an application of no case to answer (a 'half time submission'). The court can dismiss the case at this point.
To paraphrase, the test for whether the evidence is sufficient, is to ask whether a jury, properly directed, would have heard evidence sufficient to allow it to reach a guilty verdict.
I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
If, having heard the prosecution evidence and before they gave their own, the defence thought the evidence was insufficient to make out any offence, they are entitled to make an application of no case to answer (a 'half time submission'). The court can dismiss the case at this point.
To paraphrase, the test for whether the evidence is sufficient, is to ask whether a jury, properly directed, would have heard evidence sufficient to allow it to reach a guilty verdict.
I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
As for the Appeal as I understand it the Trial itself requires to be scrutinized by the Defense team and or a specialized Barrister. This can take a great deal of time. The following is from a specialist website and basically explains why the appeal may not be lodged immediately.
The normal procedure would be to have the trial Barrister or Solicitor(s) file an appeal brief on behalf of the person who has been convicted. However, one problem with the appeal process is that most people have no understanding as to what it is or what it accomplishes. An appeal is basically a study of the trial transcript by the Higher Court to determine if the lower court committed reversible errors and, if it has, are those errors significant and properly identified by the defence Barrister.
The Higher Court can reverse the conviction, but usually in favor of a new trial. Right back to square one. Never loose sight of the fact that if the trial Barrister did not object to crucial issues, the lower Court would have had nothing to rule on and, therefore, the Higher Court would have nothing to reverse on.
During the appeal process, the convicted party often sits in prison, for as long as a year and sometimes more, before an appeal Barrister has prepared an appeal, filed it with the Court; and then possibly another two years waiting for a decision from the higher Court. In most cases the Higher Court will simply uphold the conviction. If the appeal is denied, then there are other avenues of post-conviction relief available, each with a price tag and each taking time.
Please note also the last sentence. The Price Tag of innocence is higher than that of accusation.
The normal procedure would be to have the trial Barrister or Solicitor(s) file an appeal brief on behalf of the person who has been convicted. However, one problem with the appeal process is that most people have no understanding as to what it is or what it accomplishes. An appeal is basically a study of the trial transcript by the Higher Court to determine if the lower court committed reversible errors and, if it has, are those errors significant and properly identified by the defence Barrister.
The Higher Court can reverse the conviction, but usually in favor of a new trial. Right back to square one. Never loose sight of the fact that if the trial Barrister did not object to crucial issues, the lower Court would have had nothing to rule on and, therefore, the Higher Court would have nothing to reverse on.
During the appeal process, the convicted party often sits in prison, for as long as a year and sometimes more, before an appeal Barrister has prepared an appeal, filed it with the Court; and then possibly another two years waiting for a decision from the higher Court. In most cases the Higher Court will simply uphold the conviction. If the appeal is denied, then there are other avenues of post-conviction relief available, each with a price tag and each taking time.
Please note also the last sentence. The Price Tag of innocence is higher than that of accusation.
telecat said:
Really? Why Not? The CPS seem able to throw mud and if it sticks it is very difficult to remove no matter how flimsy the evidence or how much money the defendant throws at it.
This one's being thrown around a bit, too - that the CPS are just charging whatever regardless of how much evidence. This probably because there was a small of 'not guilty' pleas in a row so people assign their own cause, regardless of the evidence to support it or not. The CPS apply the Full Test Code when making charging decisions. If they neglect to do this then they open themselves up to a successful half time submission (amongst other things). I don't believe there have been any submission so far from highly-competent defence teams.
telecat said:
The English Justice system is the only one that seems to operate in this way against these people. It seems that the Politicians and Pressure groups are pushing "Historical" cases that other Justice systems would not countenance as credible.
Which other justice systems do you refer? Does it seem that way? Or does it seem the justice system, as a collective, has put in place an effective operation to give victims the confidence to finally come forward? We can both pick speculation which suits our side.
tenpenceshort said:
I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
Quite. The ignorance of people to think they can make any sort of judgement against the verdict with only knowing a fraction of the evidence is astounding. telecat said:
Please note also the last sentence. The Price Tag of innocence is higher than that of accusation.
What are you on about?Why don't you put some of your energies into considering some of the bona fide miscarriages of justice where the system has conspired to either protect the guilty or convict the innocent.
There are plenty of cases worthy of your concern.
tenpenceshort said:
This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
Except that there are cases where juries have convicted in error.It's also worth noting there was seemingly a good deal of 'bad character' evidence produced at the trial from people assaulted by Harris but not subject (for varying reasons) to the charges in this case.
I don't doubt the applications to adduce this evidence would have been hotly contested within the allowable bounds.
Again, we've heard nothing from the defence or Harris himself regards any grounds for appeal or dissatisfaction at use of these.
It is worth remembering that Harris is getting on and is of considerable means. His defence is amongst the best and most experienced and he can afford to have them spending time looking for avenues to suggest his conviction is unsafe.
He has about 3 weeks left to notify his intention to appeal his conviction, let's see if he or his lawyers can find that elusive PH fact surrounding the flimsical nature of the evidence and get the court of appeal to quash his conviction.
I don't doubt the applications to adduce this evidence would have been hotly contested within the allowable bounds.
Again, we've heard nothing from the defence or Harris himself regards any grounds for appeal or dissatisfaction at use of these.
It is worth remembering that Harris is getting on and is of considerable means. His defence is amongst the best and most experienced and he can afford to have them spending time looking for avenues to suggest his conviction is unsafe.
He has about 3 weeks left to notify his intention to appeal his conviction, let's see if he or his lawyers can find that elusive PH fact surrounding the flimsical nature of the evidence and get the court of appeal to quash his conviction.
tenpenceshort said:
Can you provide an example of a conviction that was appealed on the basis of 'there was no procedural error at trial but we think the jury got it wrong'?
No, because as you know perfectly well there are no such grounds for appeal. That doesn't make juries infallible though.The 'compensation' geniuses probably don't actually know what they are practically saying. Here they are saying:
1) Several Women have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?
2) Each of these independent Women from different times has managed to come up with the same MO for Harris. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.
4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown Court cases to secure money.
5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.
6) They get their lies through the CPS (who on a related note are happy to put any old s
t to court).
7) At no point through the process do any of them "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.
8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a group of liars.
9) The collective liars manage to convince a jury enough to convict.
This is what people are really suggesting? Is the stupidity more obvious if I provide a simple, general comparison?
It's like taking 9 bags of a thousand marbles. 999 red and 1 blue and making a case to pick the 9 blue marbles one after another. Possible. Yes. Improbable? Highly.
Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
1) Several Women have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?
2) Each of these independent Women from different times has managed to come up with the same MO for Harris. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.
4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown Court cases to secure money.
5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.
6) They get their lies through the CPS (who on a related note are happy to put any old s
t to court). 7) At no point through the process do any of them "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.
8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a group of liars.
9) The collective liars manage to convince a jury enough to convict.
This is what people are really suggesting? Is the stupidity more obvious if I provide a simple, general comparison?
It's like taking 9 bags of a thousand marbles. 999 red and 1 blue and making a case to pick the 9 blue marbles one after another. Possible. Yes. Improbable? Highly.
Dr Jekyll said:
No, because as you know perfectly well there are no such grounds for appeal. That doesn't make juries infallible though.
Where has anyone said the justice system is infallible? Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
tenpenceshort said:
This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
This is clearly saying that juries would never convict on insufficient evidence.Dr Jekyll said:
tenpenceshort said:
This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
This is clearly saying that juries would never convict on insufficient evidence.tenpenceshort said:
You say the evidence is 'flimsy'. I would like to know on what basis you suggest this?
If, having heard the prosecution evidence and before they gave their own, the defence thought the evidence was insufficient to make out any offence, they are entitled to make an application of no case to answer (a 'half time submission'). The court can dismiss the case at this point.
To paraphrase, the test for whether the evidence is sufficient, is to ask whether a jury, properly directed, would have heard evidence sufficient to allow it to reach a guilty verdict.
I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
He's saying the the idea the CPS have 'beat' all the safeguards and slid an evidence-less case through for the jury to make a decision is fanciful - the point is the jury wouldn't even have to make the decision as it would be taken from them due to the safeguards. "When they otherwise wouldn't" means during normal operation. If, having heard the prosecution evidence and before they gave their own, the defence thought the evidence was insufficient to make out any offence, they are entitled to make an application of no case to answer (a 'half time submission'). The court can dismiss the case at this point.
To paraphrase, the test for whether the evidence is sufficient, is to ask whether a jury, properly directed, would have heard evidence sufficient to allow it to reach a guilty verdict.
I don't believe Harris' lawyers made a half time submission and, if they did, we know it was not successful. This idea from some here that the CPS have somehow managed to get the jury to accept insufficient evidence and convict when they otherwise wouldn't be able to is fanciful and ignorant of how the system works.
He says nothing about juries never convicting on insufficient evidence. "Fanciful" means unrealistic, not never.
La Liga said:
here has anyone said the justice system is infallible?
Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
You forgot No.10; The jury are all a bunch of incompetent, gibbering morons.Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
I'm sure some people dont know how the system works
Take an example of a motorist perhaps driving through a red light
An officer stops him and says hes gone through a red light
Sometimes the motorist agrees and the system is happy
However if there's disagreement
it could be that the officer is mistaken
or it could be the motorist is mistaken
It goes to court
Who sounds credible? Who doesn't sound credible?
Who can discredit the other?
Is it a balance of probabilities or without doubt?
If you always assumed there was doubt, no-one would be convicted.
Someone has to decide.
If we didnt go with it the system would fall apart
Take an example of a motorist perhaps driving through a red light
An officer stops him and says hes gone through a red light
Sometimes the motorist agrees and the system is happy
However if there's disagreement
it could be that the officer is mistaken
or it could be the motorist is mistaken
It goes to court
Who sounds credible? Who doesn't sound credible?
Who can discredit the other?
Is it a balance of probabilities or without doubt?
If you always assumed there was doubt, no-one would be convicted.
Someone has to decide.
If we didnt go with it the system would fall apart
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 5th July 19:54
I wonder if the UK should have some statute of limitations like America. It seems extremely hard to prove innocence 20 years down the line. I know you shouldn't even have to prove innocence and the other side has to prove guilt.... but if you end up with a liar making accusations the passage of time makes it extremely difficult to prove otherwise.
La Liga said:
The 'compensation' geniuses probably don't actually know what they are practically saying. Here they are saying:
1) Several Women have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?
2) Each of these independent Women from different times has managed to come up with the same MO for Harris. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.
4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown Court cases to secure money.
5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.
6) They get their lies through the CPS (who on a related note are happy to put any old st to court).
7) At no point through the process do any of them "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.
8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a group of liars.
9) The collective liars manage to convince a jury enough to convict.
This is what people are really suggesting? Is the stupidity more obvious if I provide a simple, general comparison?
It's like taking 9 bags of a thousand marbles. 999 red and 1 blue and making a case to pick the 9 blue marbles one after another. Possible. Yes. Improbable? Highly.
Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
You may well ask why so many who were not Communists were persecuted by McCarthy in the 1950's and why Satanic Sexual Abuse was believed rampant in the 1980's. Both are now ridiculed. I suppose we can only give thanks that the original Yewtree Report did think that the majority of reports of Saville's abuses were just too ridiculous to include. The remainder it jumps straight from Allegations to Facts in one foul sweep. This sorry state of affairs means that very probably, real abusers can now rest easy knowing they have got away with their crime. 1) Several Women have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?
2) Each of these independent Women from different times has managed to come up with the same MO for Harris. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.
4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown Court cases to secure money.
5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.
6) They get their lies through the CPS (who on a related note are happy to put any old s
t to court). 7) At no point through the process do any of them "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.
8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a group of liars.
9) The collective liars manage to convince a jury enough to convict.
This is what people are really suggesting? Is the stupidity more obvious if I provide a simple, general comparison?
It's like taking 9 bags of a thousand marbles. 999 red and 1 blue and making a case to pick the 9 blue marbles one after another. Possible. Yes. Improbable? Highly.
Dr Jekyll said:
No, because as you know perfectly well there are no such grounds for appeal. That doesn't make juries infallible though.
Where has anyone said the justice system is infallible? Planes aren't infallible from crashing, but I don't go to an airport and point at one for no specific reason and say "that one will crash", do I?
The point being I don't irrationally rely on the improbable. I know you're not specifically suggesting this conviction is unsafe, but that is the general behaviour of those who are.
At least two of the "victims" had already profited from telling their "Stories" by the way. Just continuing mining the "seam".
Edited by telecat on Saturday 5th July 20:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff