Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY

[Scuffers]

SamHH said:

My post wasn't intended as an exhaustive description of the CPS's functions.

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.

well, on the basis that the two charges carried over were then both thrown out in the second trial, that basically makes the point.

they should not have wasted our money and DTL's time and money on the second trial.

[SamHH]

Scuffers said:

well, on the basis that the two charges carried over were then both thrown out in the second trial, that basically makes the point.

The point that it was not in the public interest? How so? Do you think every acquittal is evidence that the prosecution was not in the public interest? If not, what is different about this one?

[Wacky Racer]

What many people in their twenties and thirties forget is it was a different culture in the seventies and eighties, and even to some extent the nineties. (I'm definitely not defending it btw), but there was usually always the office "pest", and usually a fair amount of "slap and tickle" went on...in today's climate anyone saying to a young secretary "That's a nice skirt you've got on", would probably be put on the sex offenders register...

I repeat I'm not defending the culture but that's how it was.

Regarding DLT, yes it did turn out to be a waste of money, but it was right that the case came to court (imo), if you followed the financial argument, what happens if someone is charged with murder, the case costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the accused, (who did it), gets off on a minor technicality......was that money down the drain?

[Scuffers]

SamHH said:

Scuffers said:

well, on the basis that the two charges carried over were then both thrown out in the second trial, that basically makes the point.

The point that it was not in the public interest? How so? Do you think every acquittal is evidence that the prosecution was not in the public interest? If not, what is different about this one?

not in the public interest?

Easy, they had a good run at him, 12 charges, 10 dismissed, 2 failed to reach a verdict (even 10/2).

to then waste more time/money on the second trial on these two charges that subsequently get dismissed is NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

[SamHH]

Scuffers said:

not in the public interest?

Easy, they had a good run at him, 12 charges, 10 dismissed, 2 failed to reach a verdict (even 10/2).

to then waste more time/money on the second trial on these two charges that subsequently get dismissed is NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

So it's your position that it is never in the public interest to have a retrial when a jury fails to reach a verdict?

[Scuffers]

SamHH said:

So it's your position that it is never in the public interest to have a retrial when a jury fails to reach a verdict?

without new evidence, yes.

[SamHH]

Scuffers said:

without new evidence, yes.

In that case, your criticism ought to be levelled at the English criminal system in general, not at any particular error made made by the CPS in this case.

CPS policy on retrials said:

There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial.

Archbold said:

If the jury are discharged from giving a verdict, the defendant may be, and generally is, tried upon the indictment by a second jury

[Scuffers]

SamHH said:

Scuffers said:

without new evidence, yes.

In that case, your criticism ought to be levelled at the English criminal system in general, not at any particular error made made by the CPS in this case.

CPS policy on retrials said:

There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial.

Archbold said:

If the jury are discharged from giving a verdict, the defendant may be, and generally is, tried upon the indictment by a second jury

that does not make it right.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Again, it's not about right or wrong. It's about applying the Full Code Test correctly and then allowing a jury to make their minds up. If you really want to frame it as right or wrong, then once more, they're looking at a +50% threshold to go to court, not a 98% conviction.

Do you see the distinction?

Jimboka said:

So far off the scale it is either gross incompetence or another motive.

If you only are willing to consider those two possibilities, then that doesn't help with understanding.

There are plenty of Crown Court cases with multiple charges that result in NG verdicts. You're presenting / thinking this as an atypical example when it's not.

Jimboka said:

Either way they have damaged their reputation.

In the eyes of 20 (?) or so who've commented on a topic on the internet, perhaps. They may have had a net enhancement across the country. Either way, they aren't a PR firm, they're there to make objective assessments as to prosecutions.

No one has shown me any evidence they did not do just that.

Scuffers said:

SamHH said:

Scuffers said:

without new evidence, yes.

In that case, your criticism ought to be levelled at the English criminal system in general, not at any particular error made made by the CPS in this case.

CPS policy on retrials said:

There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial.

Archbold said:

If the jury are discharged from giving a verdict, the defendant may be, and generally is, tried upon the indictment by a second jury

that does not make it right.

But it makes it consistent, objective and standard fare, not as you've presented it like this:

Scuffers said:

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.

What evidence is there it's "got to get a result mentality" when the above quotes (I took the time some pages ago to also show), show a re-trial is a standard, consistent procedure?

[Scuffers]

La Liga said:

What evidence is there it's "got to get a result mentality" when the above quotes (I took the time some pages ago to also show), show a re-trial is a standard, consistent procedure?

just because something is standard practice does not mean it's the right thing to do.

the whole point here is it's at the discretion of the CPS if to go for a re-trial or not.

back to this case, they failed on 12 of 14 charges, then failed again on the remaining 2, so are you suggesting it standard practice to keep going when your clearly on a looser?

if that is not dogmatic rhetoric, not sure what it is?

[anonymous-user]

How were the two carried over from the first trial "a clear loser" when the jury were undecided?

[Mr GrimNasty]

The whole circus was a pointless exercise and a gross waste of time and money. Here's some sense spoken from a woman's perspective (although I don't personally think he's even as 'guilty' as she thinks).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2772320/...

[Scuffers]

La Liga said:

How were the two carried over from the first trial "a clear loser" when the jury were undecided?

Two words...


Reasonable doubt.

[anonymous-user]

So any charge that ends up having reasonable doubt is a "clear loser"?

I'd have thought it's rather unclear if a jury are undecided right at the threshold.

[Bill]

Mr GrimNasty said:

The whole circus was a pointless exercise and a gross waste of time and money. Here's some sense spoken from a woman's perspective (although I don't personally think he's even as 'guilty' as she thinks).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2772320/...

If a quick trip to the magistrates followed by a kick to the nuts was an option then she'd have a point.

When you say you don't think he's as guilty as she does, what do you mean? Do you not believe he groped someone's tits in the corridor, or just that it wasn't that serious an offence?

[anonymous-user]

Bill said:

If a quick trip to the magistrates followed by a kick to the nuts was an option then she'd have a point.

Yeah she's rather light on facts. She's happy for him to go to court, but just in the exact circumstances that she wants. Then again it is the Mail.

[Bill]

saaby93 said:

warmth of his nature

Is that a euphemism?

[CAPP0]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Indeed. A quick google or trip to IMDB will reveal exactly who she is.

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.

I can honestly say that I've never heard of her and prior to Googling her yesterday I wouldn't have been able to name her if she appeared on the TV. In terms of celeb x-listings, I'd say she was a D, max C. Probably at a similar fame level to someone like Andy Parsons (and who would know him if they didn't watch MtW?).

Anyway, that doesn't take away from the case or the gravitas, outcome, etc etc. I just find it odd that she is being referred to in much of the press as some sort of well-known celeb.

Edited by CAPP0 on Monday 29th September 11:16

[King Herald]

I remember grabbing my mates girlfriends tits at a bike rally in 1986, and since this sort of world-changing revelations is now fashionable and are currently changing the world, I'm living in fear she may one day 'come clean' to the cops and ruin my life.

I did it, I plead guilty, we were all drunk and I overstepped the mark....

However, I'm not famous, have no money, no social status, so maybe it doesn't apply to people like me?

[PurpleTurtle]

Scuffers said:

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.

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...

Very interestting, notwithstanding the fact that DLT shouldn't have been running around groping anybody's boobs.