Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY

[EskimoArapaho]

Adrian W said:

Like so many other so called public servants, when they cock up on this sort of scale, they should have to pay the costs themselves. Then let's see how many things get done right don't get done at all.

Rather more likely.

[Scuffers]

pork911 said:

Scuffers said:

Is that supposed to impress us?

So, the Stephen lawrence case is now some great success for the cps?

do you mean the case as a whole or the convictions?

Both...

If it was me, I wouldn't want that case on my CV....

[Du1point8]

How that he has had to sell his home, etc to cover costs.

Does he get it all back again now found not guilty?

[turbobloke]

Bill said:

Not convinced it does tbh.

dandarez said:

Jury were though.

This article extract gives some insight into the way the jury were thinking and marks the acquittal as a result of believing DLT over the accusers.

---

The jury comprised eight women and four men – the same male-female split as the jury who cleared Coronation Street star William Roache last week.

On the third day of their deliberations, they sent a question to the Judge asking what to do if they believed a woman’s testimony but had no additional evidence.

The question read: ‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’

In response, the Judge reminded them the prosecutor had said that, if they concluded what the complainant said was accurate and truthful, then they should convict.

The jurors went back into their room and continued deliberating for a further day. In the end, they decided to believe Travis’s account.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558992/Wh...

[rohrl]

Kier Starmer has published an article about the decision making behind prosecution today.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/...

[Bill]

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

Not convinced it does tbh.

dandarez said:

Jury were though.

The OP originally forgot a link and the title was missing the DLT reference, so my comment refers to my confusion rather than anything about the result.

[turbobloke]

Bill said:

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

Not convinced it does tbh.

dandarez said:

Jury were though.

The OP originally forgot a link and the title was missing the DLT reference, so my comment refers to my confusion rather than anything about the result.

OK

[pork911]

does anyone know, what is the substantive difference in the case between being cuddly rather than predatory?

[gpo746]

pork911 said:

does anyone know, what is the substantive difference in the case between being cuddly rather than predatory?

One is a bit "hands like tentacles but basically ok"
The other is "it's not just his hands watch out for his fingers"

[Ozzie Osmond]

Du1point8 said:

How that he has had to sell his home, etc to cover costs.

Does he get it all back again now found not guilty?

It was his decision to fund a decent legal team and not make do with a cheaper version - so he pays.

A cynic might say, "Well, if he was innocent he was never at risk of being found guilty so must have been a fool to waste so much money on lawyers."

[turbobloke]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Du1point8 said:

How that he has had to sell his home, etc to cover costs.

Does he get it all back again now found not guilty?

It was his decision to fund a decent legal team and not make do with a cheaper version - so he pays.

A cynic might say, "Well, if he was innocent he was never at risk of being found guilty so must have been a fool to waste so much money on lawyers."

Then again, a realist would look at the pc 'social justice' system and see the benefits of having a decent defence team.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Indeed.

These trials are a popularity contest for the accused and a jousting match for the lawyers. 40 years after the (alleged) event it's not much more than a lottery.

[Scuffers]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Indeed.

These trials are a popularity contest for the accused and a jousting match for the lawyers. 40 years after the (alleged) event it's not much more than a lottery.

Mind you, you only have to look at the piers Morgan thread to see that!

[saaby93]

turbobloke said:

This article extract gives some insight into the way the jury were thinking and marks the acquittal as a result of believing DLT over the accusers.

---

The jury comprised eight women and four men – the same male-female split as the jury who cleared Coronation Street star William Roache last week.

On the third day of their deliberations, they sent a question to the Judge asking what to do if they believed a woman’s testimony but had no additional evidence.

The question read: ‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’

In response, the Judge reminded them the prosecutor had said that, if they concluded what the complainant said was accurate and truthful, then they should convict.

The jurors went back into their room and continued deliberating for a further day. In the end, they decided to believe Travis’s account.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558992/Wh...

surely that cant be right? your source noted
If it was believing one vs believing another the legal system would be in a right pickle
Benefit of doubt. Unless you can be shown to be guilty, youre presumed innoecent

[turbobloke]

saaby93 said:

turbobloke said:

This article extract gives some insight into the way the jury were thinking and marks the acquittal as a result of believing DLT over the accusers.

---

The jury comprised eight women and four men – the same male-female split as the jury who cleared Coronation Street star William Roache last week.

On the third day of their deliberations, they sent a question to the Judge asking what to do if they believed a woman’s testimony but had no additional evidence.

The question read: ‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’

In response, the Judge reminded them the prosecutor had said that, if they concluded what the complainant said was accurate and truthful, then they should convict.

The jurors went back into their room and continued deliberating for a further day. In the end, they decided to believe Travis’s account.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558992/Wh...

surely that cant be right? your source noted
If it was believing one vs believing another the legal system would be in a right pickle
Benefit of doubt.

Unless you can be shown to be guilty, youre presumed innoecent

Agreed. Is it in the words used? It looks as though there was reasonable doubt in the minds of the 12, as such they could not convict.

The question from the jury mentioned truth but the answer from the Judge referred to accuracy and truth. Weighing both accounts, the verdict tells us which way the jury opted on accuracy and truth in terms of reasonable doubt over the guilt of the accused. Express this as required to suit personal preference!

[PlankWithANailIn]

He could of applied for legal aid, he would have had to pay an upfront contribution plus a couple of additional payments but they would be refunded if found not guilty. The downside is he would have a legal aid lawyer, but seeing as they are the same ones you get privately that's not a downside. To get legal aid he would have to lay bare his financial situation...he might have lost more than his house if this was a bit dodgy..and most likely is else why did he not apply for legal aid?

[Ozzie Osmond]

PlankWithANailIn said:

He could of applied for legal aid, he would have had to pay an upfront contribution plus a couple of additional payments but they would be refunded if found not guilty.

PlankWithANailIn said:

The downside is he would have a legal aid lawyer, but seeing as they are the same ones you get privately that's not a downside.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about??

Not my territory but it sounds fishy.

[anonymous-user]

Ozzie, perhaps I am being unduly harsh, but the chance of someone who uses the term "could of" having an accurate understanding of how the legal aid system works (or doesn't work) looks to me to be rather slender.

[Countdown]

Breadvan72 said:

Ozzie, perhaps I am being unduly harsh, but the chance of someone who uses the term "could of" having an accurate understanding of how the legal aid system works (or doesn't work) looks to me to be rather slender.

True dat

[Steffan]

Countdown said:

Breadvan72 said:

Ozzie, perhaps I am being unduly harsh, but the chance of someone who uses the term "could of" having an accurate understanding of how the legal aid system works (or doesn't work) looks to me to be rather slender.

True dat

Indubitably. I can well believe DLT is financially seriously challenged. The explanation offered is inadequate IMO. At best.