Historical cases evidence.

[Frane Selak]

I want to make clear from the start, this is not about me. It seems that someone I work with occasionally has recently been sent down for a bit of noncing. I don't know him that well so have absolutely no idea or indeed care whether he is guilty or not but a couple of the lads who have known him for years say there is no way he is guilty and has been fitted up by a very disturbed family member. (he went not guilty apparently)

Obviously we aren't privy to all the details that the jury gets to hear so it could be anything really but given loads of people seem to get off lots of different court cases for nothing more than a technicality, how do people like this ever get found guilty, surely it cant be just because someone says they were once bummed 20 years ago. If that was the case I could out of the blue say a past teacher did something to me years ago, or maybe if I had a disliking for a workmate say last time I was drunk on a works outing they "touched me down there".

Surely it cant be that easy, or is it odds on there is a lot more to it we just don't know about and he is probably 99% a paedo?

[Ubiquitous2024]

Its what the jury decide based on evidence presented.

[alscar]

I doubt you get sent down for ( to use your words ) " a bit ".
The jury of 12 decided he was 100% guilty.
The end.

[IJWS15]

Some people are very good at hiding their misdeeds.

[Frane Selak]

I get the jury decides on the evidence but where do they get the evidence from, you see guilty verdicts fairly often for this sort of stuff, usually teachers recently, mainly female at the moment as well. surely you would need multiple victims to all say similar things about the perp to get a conviction. If the jury can decide based on the testimony of one person surely they have to take equal consideration to the bloke when he says he didn't do it.

To be clear, I'm not defending him, I don't know enough to go one way or another on it, he seemed ok to me but they always do don't they, I just don't see where they get the "beyond reasonable doubt bit from".

[Ubiquitous2024]

Your questioning the logic and efficiency of the whole system, not this case. All jurys work the same regardless of offence.

[mac96]

It must be hard to get an open minded jury for these cases. A lot of people seem to either fit into the 'it's too long ago to be provable ' or the 'lynch the paedo' camp.

[Frane Selak]

Ubiquitous2024 said:

Your questioning the logic and efficiency of the whole system, not this case. All jurys work the same regardless of offence.

Well the logic of the system seems to be "beyond reasonable doubt" but many a case has fell apart for some technical reason or another in the past when its plainly obvious the accused was guilty as sin but due to some technicality or a slightly dodgy piece of evidence they have been acquitted. I remember a mate getting done for DD in the past, he got a top brief onto it and the brief found out that the blood sample had been left alone when it shouldn't have and the police couldn't prove it hadn't been tampered with at some stage. He got off even though he was driving when pissed as a newt. Yet for these type of offences someone's guilt seems to hinge on what a person said happened to them 20 or 30 years ago without any other evidence.

Lets say I went to the police and said a teacher stole £100 off me 30 years ago, I'd be told there's no hope of a conviction without any evidence but if I then said he messed with me it seems he could be slung in jail for many a year, how does that work?