What a huge waste of public money

[TTwiggy]

Oakey said:

I get where Twiggy is coming from, a person can be found 'not guilty' but that doesn't mean they didn't do it, it just means their guilt couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. I think most people would accept the verdict of a jury but if say, you're close to the accused, or have further knowledge then you personally don't have to accept that verdict if you know it's bullst. For example, a guy I know of was found not guilty of fraud (basically raising money in the name of Help for Heroes and he and his accomplices pocketed huge amounts whilst giving peanuts to the charity) but I know he was guilty as sin because I saw all the coke and hookers the money went on whilst he often boasted about how much they were raking in.

The thing is, I'm not even suggesting anything like that. I fully believe the bloke didn't do it. I also fully believe there's no way he could have done it. All I said was his not guilty verdict doesn't prove anything.

But it's not about that. It's about posters like Winston who have personal reasons to twist what I did say and make up things I didn't say.

[Oakey]

Well I didn't say you thought he did it, I don't think he did it either. It's an absurd claim from what we know of the CCTV footage.

[bitchstewie]

I think what all of us here are struggling with is the simple obvious question of "What is not being reported that the CPS knew?".

You'd assume someone at the CPS watched the CCTV.

You'd assume they can count and keep basic track of time.

You'd also kind of assume they wouldn't go to trial with something they thought they couldn't win simply because nobody likes to look stupid or lose, so what is the missing link that hasn't been reported that made them think they had a case?

[TTmonkey]

Surely there is another end point to a trial? There is 'no case to answer', as directed by a judge. This should have been thrown out.

If something simply didn't happen, then no one should be either Guilty or presumed innocent of the thing that didn't happen.

[Oakey]

bhstewie said:

I think what all of us here are struggling with is the simple obvious question of "What is not being reported that the CPS knew?".

You'd assume someone at the CPS watched the CCTV.

You'd assume they can count and keep basic track of time.

You'd also kind of assume they wouldn't go to trial with something they thought they couldn't win simply because nobody likes to look stupid or lose, so what is the missing link that hasn't been reported that made them think they had a case?

Stupidity?

[JagLover]

Oakey said:

bhstewie said:

I think what all of us here are struggling with is the simple obvious question of "What is not being reported that the CPS knew?".

You'd assume someone at the CPS watched the CCTV.

You'd assume they can count and keep basic track of time.

You'd also kind of assume they wouldn't go to trial with something they thought they couldn't win simply because nobody likes to look stupid or lose, so what is the missing link that hasn't been reported that made them think they had a case?

Stupidity?

I think people are looking for a missing link in the evidence when the missing link may be political/media pressure over whether to prosecute these cases in general.

Unfortunately if cases like this start cropping up more regularly the true victims will be both the men falsely accused and the those who have genuinely been assaulted.

[Moonhawk]

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?

You analogy is flawed though, as it starts with the assumption that a crime has been comitted.

In this case - it appears that no crime was comitted to start with (i.e. For your analogy to work - person A was not murdered - they just claimed they were)

[everyeggabird]

I am not defending the CPS in any way but are they not contacted at short notice just after someone has been arrested?

Do they not just go through the bare facts without looking at evidence etc?

[Digger]

WinstonWolf said:

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

Because. . . . some beardy foreign chap on the Internet? To be honest that appears to be all anyone has to go on, for the time being.


Just playing devil's advocate.

[PurpleMoonlight]

TTwiggy said:

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.

Your attitude is illustrates perfectly why anonymity should prevail for anyone accused unless they are found guilty.

[anonymous-user]

williamp said:

Go on then, oh great one. Explain...

I type and reply very quickly. I am not the one pointing out the mistakes of others (unless they point out mine and are not perfect themselves), as I accept people are typing quickly and will be incorrectly auto-corrected / make mistakes etc. What you find with posters who like to point out mistakes like that is they do it as a substitute for any substance / ability to argue against the points being made.

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'.

Your obvious point isn't lost on everyone. Most aren't blessed with the ability to see beyond one case (wide vs narrow frame), consider the bigger picture, and why the legislation were introduced in the first place.

Trax said:

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.

The CCTV was disclosed to the defence and there is nothing to suggest this wasn't done according to the rules and laws of disclosure.

[everyeggabird]

///ajd said:

I have no idea BUT, looking at the CCTV, looking at the way she turns around, it looks like he bumped into her, perhaps a bit heavily (a risk of commuting, likely an accident), which p*ssed off her highly strung ego, especially as he did not stop or apologise.

Then perhaps she decided she wanted revenge, to teach him a lesson. The police interview quoted seems to suggests she made more of her shoulder being hurt than anything else to begin with.

Is this is the case she should be in a fair bit of trouble - after all without the CCTV she could have wrecked his life on a lie. Given this potential outcome, this is way more serious than a whole load of crimes. Maybe the bloke can sue her publically - this would remove the anonymity allow justice to be done.

100% agree with you. I bet she is one of the 'don't you know who I am' brigade.

[TTwiggy]

PurpleMoonlight said:

TTwiggy said:

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.

Your attitude is illustrates perfectly why anonymity should prevail for anyone accused unless they are found guilty.

What attitude? Good grief, I've consistently said that this case shocks me and that I am happy the bloke was found not guilty. I'd also favour anonymity, unless, perhaps in unusual circumstances where there is a strong suggestion that it might be part of a pattern and where other victims coming forward might seal a difficult case.

[andy_s]

Not guilty = innocent.
Alleged offence could have taken place, but not by him.
'Victim' still has anonymity, alleged crime unsolved.

Simples.

[elanfan]

Couple of things:

There is a you tube video which expands fairly graphically verbally on the nature of the assault claim and proves unequivocally it could not have happened as she claimed. At the end it names the actress concerned (and no you wouldn't want to).

1) am I allowed to post the link to the video?

2) Is there some way of starting a petition or similar to have this awful excuse for a woman prosecuted by the CPS or if not to start a fund for Mark Pearson to bring about a private prosecution?

[anonymous-user]

everyeggabird said:

I am not defending the CPS in any way but are they not contacted at short notice just after someone has been arrested?

Do they not just go through the bare facts without looking at evidence etc?

It depends. It can a relatively short period of time to consider if advice on the phone, but a file is reviewed a fair few times prior to a trial, especially if it's a Crown Court trial. It's not unusual for people to be charged and the case discontinued upon one of the later review.


Sexual offences have specialist prosecutors who know the law and procedures to a greater degree, even when providing phone advice (at the earliest stage). It's daily business for them to discontinue cases. The 'logic' here to weave around that fact is that she's a 'celebrity' and must have had some weight. Well, lots to make them prosecute the case, influence the defence / judge / aliens etc etc.

[saaby93]

elanfan said:

2) Is there some way of starting a petition or similar to have this awful excuse for a woman prosecuted by the CPS or if not to start a fund for Mark Pearson to bring about a private prosecution?

No no no no no



People make mistakes or are mistaken
You only have to look at the number of people stopped for using their mobile phones when they were scratching their ear.

Just because one crime hasn't been founded doesn't mean that another crime has taken place.
It's why we have a the system of justice we have

[elanfan]

saaby93 said:

o no no no no



People make mistakes or are mistaken
You only have to look at the number of people stopped for using their mobile phones when they were scratching their ear.

Just because one crime hasn't been founded doesn't mean that another crime has taken place.
It's why we have a the system of justice we have

But clearly it isn't a mistake if is a malicious accusation designed to give an innocent guy a criminal conviction that would have (or possibly already has) ruined his life. She should pay for what she's done.

[saaby93]

woowahwoo said:

Just imagine if there was no CCTV, and there were no other members of the public to fail to witness the assault alleged by a false victim?

I said that a few pages back
The idea is in a court you have to prove someone guilty
You dont go to court on the assumption someone is guilty then have to prove them innocent
That's how a number of miscarriages arrive.

If one person makes an allegation - another says not me guv
Do you throw it out straightaway as there's no corobatory evidence?

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

Just because one crime hasn't been founded doesn't mean that another crime has taken place.
It's why we have a the system of justice we have

Lying under oath, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice - they are all crimes are they not?