What a huge waste of public money

[TTwiggy]

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

TTmonkey said:

What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?

No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.

In this case no offence took place.

Person A has been murdered.
Person B is tried for the murder and found not guilty.
Has person A no longer been murdered?

[WinstonWolf]

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

TTmonkey said:

What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?

No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.

In this case no offence took place.

Person A has been murdered.
Person B is tried for the murder and found not guilty.
Has person A no longer been murdered?

"In this case".

[TTwiggy]

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

TTmonkey said:

What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?

No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.

In this case no offence took place.

Person A has been murdered.
Person B is tried for the murder and found not guilty.
Has person A no longer been murdered?

"In this case".

This case went to trial. It went all the way to a jury decision. He was found not guilty. I don't think that proves that no offence took place.

I'm not arguing this from a moral POV by the way, simply from the legal facts as they are known.

[WinstonWolf]

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

TTmonkey said:

What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?

No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.

In this case no offence took place.

Person A has been murdered.
Person B is tried for the murder and found not guilty.
Has person A no longer been murdered?

"In this case".

This case went to trial. It went all the way to a jury decision. He was found not guilty. I don't think that proves that no offence took place.

I'm not arguing this from a moral POV by the way, simply from the legal facts as they are known.

Then you truly are an idiot.

Explain what offence could possibly have happened in the half second they were in each other's proximity. Oh, and the INNOCENT party has both hands full.

Take your time...

[dudleybloke]

We all know the CPS like to take on easy cases so I take it we will hear about her getting charged with PCOJ or similar.

[TTwiggy]

WinstonWolf said:

Then you truly are an idiot.

Explain what offence could possibly have happened in the half second they were in each other's proximity. Oh, and the INNOCENT party has both hands full.

Take your time...

You're missimng my point - and there's no need to be nasty about it.

He was found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. If every not guilty verdict proved that no offence had taken place then there would be a lot of 'victims' up for PCOJ or wasting police time. I agree that this case is bizarre and am as shocked as anyone that it came to trial. But the facts as presented do not 'prove' anything.

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

[dudleybloke]

Did she speak in court?

[saaby93]

TTwiggy said:

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

We've been round this so many times in these forums it could do with a sticky

The two ends point in a trial are you're found Guilty or you're presumed innocent

Any one of us could be accused of any number of allegations and so without going to court and being found guilty, we're all presumed innocent otherwise we wouldn't be able to get a job or carry on with normal life.

The problem arises when based on allegations it becomes assumed you must be guilty until shown otherwise
The guy subject of this thread felt as though he had 12 months of it
How do we turn that around so during this time despite allegations you're presumed innocent?

[WinstonWolf]

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you truly are an idiot.

Explain what offence could possibly have happened in the half second they were in each other's proximity. Oh, and the INNOCENT party has both hands full.

Take your time...

You're missimng my point - and there's no need to be nasty about it.

He was found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. If every not guilty verdict proved that no offence had taken place then there would be a lot of 'victims' up for PCOJ or wasting police time. I agree that this case is bizarre and am as shocked as anyone that it came to trial. But the facts as presented do not 'prove' anything.

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

The only guilty party in this case appears to be SF.

[A10]

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

Then you truly are an idiot.

Explain what offence could possibly have happened in the half second they were in each other's proximity. Oh, and the INNOCENT party has both hands full.

Take your time...

You're missimng my point - and there's no need to be nasty about it.

He was found not guilty. A not guilty verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. If every not guilty verdict proved that no offence had taken place then there would be a lot of 'victims' up for PCOJ or wasting police time. I agree that this case is bizarre and am as shocked as anyone that it came to trial. But the facts as presented do not 'prove' anything.

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

I fully understand the legal standpoint you are championing, and there's no point people being snippy with you. You don't make the laws, you are simply commenting on them, after all.

However, surely with this case you must concede, it's physically impossible to carry out the alleged assault in the time frame they crossed paths. Then add to that, that he had his hands full and she was wearing leggings. It just doesn't stand up.

So while, I see the point you making, deep down you must know he didn't assault her in any way shape or form.

[TTwiggy]

saaby93 said:

TTwiggy said:

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

We've been round this so many times in these forums it could do with a sticky

The two ends point in a trial are you're found Guilty or you're presumed innocent

Any one of us could be accused of any number of allegations and so without going to court and being found guilty, we're all presumed innocent otherwise we wouldn't be able to get a job or carry on with normal life.

The problem arises when based on allegations it becomes assumed you must be guilty until shown otherwise
The guy subject of this thread felt as though he had 12 months of it
How do we turn that around so during this time despite allegations you're presumed innocent?

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out that a verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. Which was the contention of the poster who I first replied to who believed that the woman's name could now be made public.

This man is not guilty of the crime. I don't think that proves that no crime was commited (no matter how unbelievable it may seem from the facts that we do know about this case).

[Trax]

La Liga said:

es, they thought they'd be cunning and alter the speed of time stamped CCTV. If it weren't for those pesky seconds constantly displayed on the images that the defense (who'd often send CCTV to an expert as standard) would spot it...

The police would prepare the CCTV, not the CPS. Who knows why it was slowed. Easier for interview? If the police didn't create a story board the CCTV was probably not that important to the prosecution. The prosecution apparently only used it to show he was there at the time, which I expect wasn't disputed in any event.

I cannot understand this, CPS and Police look over evidence, have Oyster card use putting man at scene, and an allegation. So, from that it looks a fair decision to prosecute, provide testimony from woman was good. Mind you, we also have no witnesses, to what was a fairly aggressive, and long lasting assault, which would have been obvious to anyone near, from the womans testimony.

However, we also have video, which on viewing also puts man at scene, and in close proximity to the woman. On reviewing the video, it is clear to anyone; the Police or CPS, that this assault did not happen. For this then to go any further is surely criminal?

I was watching an episode of season 7 of the xfiles yesterday, and in summary, a prosecutor did not disclose evidence that showed criminal was inoccent, therefore getting a conviction. A result of coming clean, the prosecuter went to jail. I know its fiction, and in America, but prosecuting someone, when evidence is available showing no offence happened, PCOJ? If not, it must be something else.

[TTwiggy]

A10 said:

I fully understand the legal standpoint you are championing, and there's no point people being snippy with you. You don't make the laws, you are simply commenting on them, after all.

However, surely with this case you must concede, it's physically impossible to carry out the alleged assault in the time frame they crossed paths. Then add to that, that he had his hands full and she was wearing leggings. It just doesn't stand up.

So while, I see the point you making, deep down you must know he didn't assault her in any way shape or form.

Not at all - I agree with you 100%. It's a very very bizarre case and I really feel very sorry for the bloke and would welcome a review of the case and, if appropriate, some charge laid at the woman.

But we don't know everything - no matter how odd it all seems. For some reason the CPS ran this. For some reason the defence didn't look to have the case thrown out. For some reason the judge didn't halt things or direct the jury to return a not guilty. For some reason the jury took 90 minutes to talk about it. It's all very strange indeed.

[saaby93]

TTwiggy said:

I don't think that proves that no crime was commited (no matter how unbelievable it may seem from the facts that we do know about this case).

Yes I know, nor does it prove there was a crime. Sometimes you get people thinking that if one person didnt do a crime, it must have been the accuser that 'done' a crime or someone else when there may have been no crime.
There's a need to be careful trying to draw corollaries, or you end up putting a sequence of people or charges in the dock until one carries, which may not be well founded either.

[TTmonkey]

TTwiggy said:

WinstonWolf said:

TTwiggy said:

TTmonkey said:

What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?

No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.

In this case no offence took place.

Person A has been murdered.
Person B is tried for the murder and found not guilty.
Has person A no longer been murdered?

Is there ANY evidence that the offence took place? 99% of murder victims leave evidence that they've been murdered, usually a body. If no body, there's usually other evidence.

Where is the evidence in this case that the offence as described by the complainant took place?

[dandarez]

TTwiggy said:

saaby93 said:

TTwiggy said:

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

We've been round this so many times in these forums it could do with a sticky

The two ends point in a trial are you're found Guilty or you're presumed innocent

Any one of us could be accused of any number of allegations and so without going to court and being found guilty, we're all presumed innocent otherwise we wouldn't be able to get a job or carry on with normal life.

The problem arises when based on allegations it becomes assumed you must be guilty until shown otherwise
The guy subject of this thread felt as though he had 12 months of it
How do we turn that around so during this time despite allegations you're presumed innocent?

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out that a verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. Which was the contention of the poster who I first replied to who believed that the woman's name could now be made public.

This man is not guilty of the crime. I don't think that proves that no crime was commited (no matter how unbelievable it may seem from the facts that we do know about this case).

FH! No wonder the world has gone mad. You're part of it!

You are the type that would make a square peg fit a round hole. The problem today is there seem to be more, and more, and more of you.

Jeezus!

[TTwiggy]

dandarez said:

FH! No wonder the world has gone mad. You're part of it!

You are the type that would make a square peg fit a round hole. The problem today is there seem to be more, and more, and more of you.

Jeezus!

All I said was that his not guilty verdict doesn't prove anything. If you think that view is responsible for the decline of western civilisation then I fear you are beyond help.

For my view of the case you are welcome to read my response to A10.

[WinstonWolf]

dandarez said:

TTwiggy said:

saaby93 said:

TTwiggy said:

edited to add - legally, he is not 'innocent' (even if you use capital letters), he is 'not guilty'.

We've been round this so many times in these forums it could do with a sticky

The two ends point in a trial are you're found Guilty or you're presumed innocent

Any one of us could be accused of any number of allegations and so without going to court and being found guilty, we're all presumed innocent otherwise we wouldn't be able to get a job or carry on with normal life.

The problem arises when based on allegations it becomes assumed you must be guilty until shown otherwise
The guy subject of this thread felt as though he had 12 months of it
How do we turn that around so during this time despite allegations you're presumed innocent?

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pointing out that a verdict doesn't 'prove' anything. Which was the contention of the poster who I first replied to who believed that the woman's name could now be made public.

This man is not guilty of the crime. I don't think that proves that no crime was commited (no matter how unbelievable it may seem from the facts that we do know about this case).

FH! No wonder the world has gone mad. You're part of it!

You are the type that would make a square peg fit a round hole. The problem today is there seem to be more, and more, and more of you.

Jeezus!

So if you don't believe no crime was committed you must believe that some crime was committed. What was the crime?

[TTwiggy]

I give up. I do not have the energy to argue against things I never said.

[WinstonWolf]

TTwiggy said:

I give up. I do not have the energy to argue against things I never said.

Finally, finally you understand how the rest of us feel