Wonder what next for other prosecutions. Did they get lucky with Hall, him admitting it? Davidson cleared. Hairy Badger soon to come...and Rolf's two little boys?
The hairy cornflake must be feeling a bit happier tonight and Stuart Hall regretting admitting anything. whoever agreed to bringing it to court will hopefully be paying Kens legal costs
I have to say I think the compensation culture has a lot to answer for. Especially as some of those that are claiming such misdemeanours were adults and could have stopped it, if indeed they did not consent.
It is extremely difficult to bring prosecutions for these historic cases successfully. The only evidence is typically the allegation of the victim(s). No fingerprints, bloodstains, DNA, CCTV images, eye witnesses, or any evidence of that sort, just the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim based on decades-old memories. If the defendant denies everything, how could a jury ever be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Until recently, prosecutors would have usually decided not to bring charges in such cases because of the weakness of the evidence. Nowadays the prosecutor may just give it a whirl regardless, and see what happens.
Not much the police can do about historic cases, except take a witness statement from the alleged victim and pass it to the CPS. I was expecting a pompous condescending rant at some point, but I am still waiting; now would be a good time, so off you go then.
It's the CPS at fault if anyone. I want my police force to investigate and report based on the evidence available. Although, and I don't know, could the police have stopped it by not charging him if they believed the evidence wasn't enough?
I had to laugh when I heard about the latest DLT witnesses. 'Hey Dave, we got you some top witness's, The Chuckle Brothers......'
Charging decision would be made on a 'similar fact evidence basis' eg; that the modus operandi of each offence corroborates the statements of fact supplied by the 'victims'. The police gather the evidence present the case to the cps who then make a charging decision. There has to be more than a reasonable chance of conviction for them to charge due to cps budgetary constraints.
probably a lot of pressure to try and prosecute considering the constant allegations that the law dont prosecute enough on these cases.
so this could be the way similar cases proceed now as long as accused pleads innocent and one thing they probably all have in common is a total lack of physical evidence. Can't imagine the costs involved if Rolf is 'innocent'.
We need to make a distinction between not guilty and innocent . If you are found not guilty that does not necessarily mean that you are innocent only that you have been found not guilty by your 'peers'. conversely mis carriages of just found 'innocent' people guilty only for convictions to be over turned at the court of appeal.
As far as I am concerned if you are found not guilty by your peers then you are 'innocent' until proven otherwise. To assume otherwise is to make a mockery of justice. Else we are all not guilty as nothing has been proven against us, yet it still taints us all with the stain that is 'guilt'. No Mr Barlow is innocent. When he has been proven guilty then he is guilty. There is no inbetween. This just feeds gossip and slander merchants. No I dont like Mr Barlow or Coronation St. But a verdict is a verdict.
I'm struggling with the distinction. Surely just about the only person who knows if they are innocent or not is the accused and maybe not even then if its god knows how many years ago. The best we can hope for is Not Guilty and that should be taken as an innocent. I think the reverse is probably the case even after a Not Guilty verdict. Frequently those in the public eye have their careers irreparably damaged by this sort of accusation. In effect trial by media and pressure on CPS to prosecute high profile figures so as us Johnny Public type sit up and take notice that fingering members of the opposite sex without permission is probably not a good move. There is also, like it or not, people likely to "give it a go" and say they were abused because of the likelihood of making a nice little earner out of it. Either via the press or the courts (if said star gets found guilty and probably opens the way to nice little civil case for compensation, Pete correct me if I've got that all wrong) Angers me the way I am talked down to and treated like a 5 year old by those in Public office who are directing this kind of policy and the people who get wrongly accused but still end up effectively black balled. John Damm Bootsam beat me to it
