Innocent man who was jailed charged for board and lodging

[Stewart]

Regardless of what was presented and how it was presented, there can still have been nothing more than one persons word against another, and no DNA evidence.

And yet he was convicted.

This doesn't worry anyone?

[Saracen]

.....

This doesn't worry anyone?

Yes, of course it does. But you haven't answered the other side of the issue. If you load things too heavily in favour of not convicting the innocent, the direct inference is that a lot more guilty go free too. And that, in cases like this, implies a lot more women getting raped for real.

I have no illusions that the system is perfect. My comments were that you were hard on the jury. You asked "So how can the Jury find him guilty?", and "ship the jury to some island somewhere. We have no need for these sort of people". I told you how they can have found him guilty.

Is the system perfect? No, not by a long shot. But suggest a better system, rather than blaming the jury for doing what, for all we know, may have been a conscientious job in poor circumstances.


As for what's happening to her, well that's a completely separate issue. She ought to be facing severe consequences, if it can be proven that her account is fictitious. What those might be depend on her medical status, and bear in mind that she does have a fairly lengthy psychiatric history. But she either needs serious medical attention, or jailing, depending on that status. And the fact that her background and 'track record' didn't come out at the trial is a travesty. I seriously doubt that if it had, and if the jury had known of it, that they would have reached the verdict they did.

And without a doubt, the system needs amending such that her history now follows her around, and any more such allegations are treated in the light of that history.

But Stewart, you said

As there was no attack, there was no witness to the attack.

As there was no attack, there can have been no DNA evidence.

How do you know there was no attack?

The court transcripts for the appeal do NOT say that. What they say is that evidence has come to light that casts "very real doubt" that the attack actually took place, but they don't say that it categorically did not.

The accused had no previous convictions.

True, but every rapist has a first time. His previous character is certainly a factor that the jury ought to, and probably did, consider, but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. Also, would the jury have known that?

This woman has a long history of accusing men of rape.

So it seems. But again, that doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't raped this time. Even had the jury known that, they still have to judge the current facts. For instance, if a rapist is looking for a victim, who better than someone with a history of false allegations? It probably would have affected their assessment of her credibility as a witness, and personally, it would have made me even more uncomfortable in accepting uncorroborated evidence than I otherwise would have been. What it should have done, of course, was ring major alarm bells with the prosecutors before this farce got anywhere near a courtroom or a jury.

[stytagm]

the Daily Mail...

Absolutely sickening.

nuff said.

[YorkieBen]

The court transcripts for the appeal do NOT say that. What they say is that evidence has come to light that casts "very real doubt" that the attack actually took place, but they don't say that it categorically did not.

as the prosecution are supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt then that is that is required. The man in question does not have to prove his innocence.

And what happened to the accuser? Why has she not been named and prosecuted

[usxhe190]

has anyone read the transcript to ascertain the facts to this case? if so, where is the link?

[Saracen]

as the prosecution are supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt then that is that is required. The man in question does not have to prove his innocence.

And what happened to the accuser? Why has she not been named and prosecuted

That the attack took place was not, at the trial, disputed. The trial wasn't about "if" she was attacked, but who attacked her.

And yes, the standard of proof is, essentially, "reasonable doubt", but that in itself is the subject of quite extensive argument over a very long (several decades at least) period, because it's proven VERY difficult over the years to explain to juries exactly what "reasonable" doubt is. How much doubt do you need for it to be "reasonable"? These days, it's more commonly phrased rather differently, along the lines of being "sure of guilt", which actually isn't much more helpful because it comes down to how people interpret or define "sure" instead of how they interpret "reasonable".

But, when the prosecution state that an attack took place, where there is physical evidence of injury and where the defence don't challenge that an attack took place, it would have to be a very sceptical jury to doubt that part of the evidence, or that they at least weren't "sure" of that bit. Which is precisely why it was about identity and not whether the attack actually occurred or not.

[Saracen]

has anyone read the transcript to ascertain the facts to this case? if so, where is the link?

Yes - or rather, the transcript of the appeal.

I don't remember where it was (as I saved a copy), but it was a copy from the work of the stenography company Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, and was ref: 200600628 B2 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, at the RCJ in the Strand), before Justices Hallett, Silber and Tugendhat. You ought to be able to find it from that.

[Blitzen]

Am I the only one who thinks he should be able to rape her now as disturbing as it sounds it does make some sort of sense
And how come people that are guilty dont have to pay and he does!?

I think she should go to prison for a very long time.

As for your comment.....i think you should seek psychiatric help as surely you can see your comment is that of someone clearly disturbed.

Im suprised that MODS havent slapped you for making such idiotic comments.

[usxhe190]

Yes - or rather, the transcript of the appeal.

I don't remember where it was (as I saved a copy), but it was a copy from the work of the stenography company Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, and was ref: 200600628 B2 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, at the RCJ in the Strand), before Justices Hallett, Silber and Tugendhat. You ought to be able to find it from that.

cool - seems like you are the only person here that is at least qualified to talk about the facts of case.

[Saracen]

cool - seems like you are the only person here that is at least qualified to talk about the facts of case.

Maybe, and to some degree. But it's entirely plausible others have read it too. It wasn't hard to find. And, of course, I suppose it wasn't strictly a transcript, but the appeal judgement. It does summarise the evidence and the case, and the reasons for the appeal, but it isn't actually a transcript as such - just the appeal court judges decision. It's not as comprehensive as a case transcript - nowhere near. But at least I feel comfortable in accepting that the judges actually had a detailed understanding of the evidence and did a decent job of representing it in that judgement, whereas I'm far from convinced that media reports necessarily do.

But it also has to be recognised that an appeal isn't a retrial, and operates within a fairly limited scope of what the appeal judges actually look at.

And, of course, I'm not a lawyer.

So "qualified" might be pushing it a bit. But I'm certainly not just relying on press reports. Of course, it may well be that others aren't either.

[Jimmy.H]

Maybe, and to some degree. But it's entirely plausible other have read it too. It wasn't hard to find. And, of course, I suppose it wasn't strictly a transcript, but the appeal judgement. It does summarise the evidence and the case, and the reasons for the appeal, but it isn't actually a transcript as such - just the appeal court judges decision. It's not as comprehensive as a case transcript - nowhere near. But at least I feel comfortably in accepting that the judges actually had a detailed understanding of the evidence and did a decent job of representing it in that judgement, whereas I'm far from convinced that media reports necessarily do.

But it also has to be recognised that an appeal isn't a retrial, and operates within a fairly limited scope of what the appeal judges actually look at.

And, of course, I'm not a lawyer.

So "qualified" might be pushing it a bit. But I'm certainly not just relying on press reports. Of course, it may well be that others aren't either.

----------------------------------------------------------
Re: "Innocent man who was jailed charged for board and lodging."

Hope this thread title is a premonition of the McCann case, concerning Gerry McCann in particular. Innocent being the operative word.

[Funkstar]

What is your obsession with this Jimmy?

You made your views on the subject clear in a thread you started. There really isn't any need bump this thread with a pointless comment like that.

[Jimmy.H]

What is your obsession with this Jimmy?

You made your views on the subject clear in a thread you started. There really isn't any need bump this thread with a pointless comment like that.

---------------------
I might equally state that yours is the "pointless comment"...Snap!

[Jimmy.H]

Regardless of what was presented and how it was presented, there can still have been nothing more than one persons word against another, and no DNA evidence.

And yet he was convicted.

This doesn't worry anyone?

-----------------------------------------------


DNA is not the be all and end all of Crown prosecutions. If it were, how did we get any convictions before it was discovered ? It's just an additional tool for the forensic boys.

[malfunction]

What it should have done, of course, was ring major alarm bells with the prosecutors before this farce got anywhere near a courtroom or a jury.

I've never had the slightest impression that the CPS care about justice - only whether or not they think they can win a case.

[Saracen]

I've never had the slightest impression that the CPS care about justice - only whether or not they think they can win a case.

But what is that impression based on?

A rational assessment of the chances of winning a case is a reasonable factor to consider. Courts have plenty of caseload as it is, and every prosecution uses public money. So if prosecutors consider that despite feeling sure they have the right suspect, they know (or are convinced) that there's no credible chance of conviction, why would they proceed? And, of course, if they do proceed with an inadequate case, double jeopardy will cost them their chance of going later on.

On the other side of the coin, do you think the prosecutors bring cases against people they believe aren't guilty? If so, on what grounds do you believe that? If it happens (and I've no idea one way or the other), how would, or could, you know?

But I'll also make the point I made in another thread - it isn't the prosecutor's job to seek justice in an adversarial system. It's their job to prosecute. The defence lawyers are also not there to "care about justice" - they're there to defend. But the system, with the two sides arguing their side, and with the judge referring and providing enforcement of the legal framework and interpretation of laws, should ensure balance.

I've seen no evidence that prosecutors proceed with a case that they know or even believe is against an innocent party. But if sufficient evidence for a prosecution exists, it's not their job to act as judge or jury. In the case in point, maybe alarm bells were rung with prosecutors, but they still had to look at the individual case. It seemed that an attack actually took place. Neither side disputed it initially, and her injuries appeared to confirm it. So the prosecutors had a decision to make .... is there sufficient evidence to put before a jury? If so, and despite alarm bells, a prosecution was called for. We don't know what bells may have rung, or what steps prosecutors took.