Stuart Hall...Its a lockup.

Started by T Fearon, December 05, 2012, 10:29:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Milltown Row2

Quote from: AQMP on February 14, 2014, 11:54:03 AM
The decision on whether to prosecute a case or not is usually based on whether there is a "reasonable prospect of a conviction".  According to my contacts in the legal fraternity this means more than a 50/50 chance.  Maybe with the Roache and DLT cases as precedents prosecutors might re-assess, with alleged offences happening a long time in the past and with no forensic, physical or witness  evidence (bar the alleged victim), whether the chances of a conviction are reasonable or not.

On a related note I see Freddie Starr was arrested again a few days ago.

By the animal police for eating hamsters?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Gaffer

Is Rolf Harris next up for the circus?
"Well ! Well ! Well !  If it ain't the Smoker !!!"

under the bar

QuoteThe decision on whether to prosecute a case or not is usually based on whether there is a "reasonable prospect of a conviction". According to my contacts in the legal fraternity this means more than a 50/50 chance. 

Your contacts are probably referring to someone taking a civil case.  For a criminal prosecution the bar is a bit higher.. 80% at least.

Main Street

#123
The thing is though, on the scale of sexual assaults, the allegations against DLT were mild compared to  say those that were made against Savile. Even if a jury could believe that DLT groped a woman's breasts 30 years ago,  I think it's past its court sell time date.



Here's one viewpoint from a qc and former director of public prosecutions, on the decision made to prosecute  --> that there's "a reasonable prospect of a conviction"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/dave-lee-travis-william-roache-sex-cases

"The fact that some people are convicted and others acquitted reminds us that the test for a prosecutor in determining whether to bring a case and the test for a jury in deciding whether to convict are fundamentally different. A prosecutor has the unenviable task of trying to assess without the benefit of testing the evidence whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. The jury, with the benefit of testing the evidence and, often, of hearing from the defendant, has to be "sure" that the defendant is guilty. Applying these tests, it is inevitable in our legal system that some individuals may be quite properly charged and equally quite properly acquitted."

orangeman

Max Clifford is in court this week.

It looks like they've made a very wee lad out of him.

All of a Sludden

Quote from: orangeman on March 19, 2014, 10:27:18 AM
Max Clifford is in court this week.

It looks like they've made a very wee lad out of him.

PUBLICIST MAX CLIFFORD has been sentenced to eight years in prison after being found guilty of indecent assault.
The judge said that Clifford had shown no remorse at all for the crimes against the women and young girls he had assaulted, and said he held him largely responsible for the delay in victims coming forward.
The sentence was judged to be appropriate to the times when the crimes were carried out. Judge Anthony Leonard told the court that some of the assaults would be classified as rape under current legislation in England.
The judge ruled that the sentences are to be served consecutively. Clifford will serve a minimum of 4 years.
A jury at Southwark Crown Court in London found Clifford guilty on Monday of eight charges against women and girls as young as 15 between 1977 and 1984.
Arriving at the court today, Clifford refused to apologise to his victims. When asked if he had anything to say to them, he responded: "I stand by everything I've said in the past. Everything". Clifford had repeatedly claimed he was innocent.
Clifford was found guilty of four indecent assaults on one 15-year-old girl in 1977; two assaults on a 16/17-year-old girl between 1981 and 1983; one indecent assault on a 19-year-old woman between 1981 and 1982; and one indecent assault on an 18-year-old woman in 1984.
He was found not guilty of two further charges, while the jury was unable to reach a decision on a final charge involving a 14-year-old girl.
He had told the court that the claims were "a load of lies", describing his victims as "fantasists and opportunists".
The police investigation was launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.
I'm gonna show you as gently as I can how much you don't know.

orangeman


seafoid

Rolf Harris is on quite a shaky scraw


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/rolf-harris-letter-alleged-sexual-assault-victims-father

Dear [the father],

Please forgive me for not writing sooner. You said in your letter to me that you never wanted to see me or hear from me again, but now [the alleged victim] says it's all right to write to you.

Since that trip up to Norfolk, I have been in a state of abject self loathing. How we delude ourselves.

I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship – there was no rape, no physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place.

When I came to Norfolk, [the alleged victim] told me that she had always been terrified of me and went along with everything that I did out of fear of me.

I said 'Why did you never just say no?'. And [the alleged victim] said how could she say no to the great television star Rolf Harris.

Until she told me that, I had no idea that she was scared of me.

"She laughs in a bitter way and says I must have known that she has always been scared of me. I honestly didn't know.

[The alleged victim] keeps saying that this has all been going on since she was 13. She's told you that and you were justly horrified, and she keeps reiterating that to me, no matter what I said to the contrary.

She says admiring her and telling her she looked lovely in her bathing suit was just the same as physically molesting her. I didn't know. Nothing took place in a physical way until we had moved to Highlands. I think about 1983 or 84 was the first time.

I can pinpoint a date, 1986, because I remember I was in pantomime at Richmond.

When I see the misery I have caused [the alleged victim], I am sickened by myself. You can't go back and change things that you have done in this life – I wish to god I could.

When I came to Norfolk, spent that time with [the alleged victim] and realised the enormity of what I had done to [the alleged victim], and how I had affected her whole life, I begged her for forgiveness and she said 'I forgive you'.

Whether she really meant it or not, I don't know. I hope she did, but I fear she can never forgive me.

I find it hard to like myself in any way, shape or form. And as I do these Animal programmes, I see the unconditional love that dogs give to their owners and I wish I could start to love myself again.

If there is any way that I could atone for what I have done, I would willingly do it. If there is a way I can start to help [the alleged victim] to heal herself, I would willingly do it.

With your permission I'll phone you in a week to talk to you. If you hang up, I will understand, but I would like to talk to you to apologise for betraying your trust and for unwittingly so harming your darling [the alleged victim].

I know that what I did was wrong but we are, all of us, fallible and oh how I deluded myself. Please forgive me, love Rolf.

Please forgive me for what must have been the most insensitive thing in your eyes – sending the book for Christmas. Alwen [Harris's wife] knows nothing about all this – at the time – and rather than tell her I signed the book and wrote the platitudes with sinking heart.

Forgive me.


Gaffer

Looks like the father has not forgiven him !!!!
"Well ! Well ! Well !  If it ain't the Smoker !!!"

Main Street

God help the father that had to read that about his daughter when she was a young teenager, it's nauseating.


orangeman

Guilty as charged. Plenty of time to paint now for a while.

seafoid

Quote from: orangeman on June 30, 2014, 03:01:40 PM
Guilty as charged. Plenty of time to paint now for a while.
Guilty on 12/12. That's his reputation destroyed.

All of a Sludden

Quote from: orangeman on June 30, 2014, 03:01:40 PM
Guilty as charged. Plenty of time to paint now for a while.

Don't think this one is worth quite as much now.

I'm gonna show you as gently as I can how much you don't know.


quit yo jibbajabba

was thinking it weren't overly bad. until that last paragraph of the original interview. sick boyo