Operation Yewtree - Page 18

**Damien** · 05-10-2012, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

20 or so people saying "i was abused" hardly counts as any kind as proof

Well I am pretty sure it does. Normally a jury would decide if they believe the testimony of the accusers. 20 people, most of not all unrelated, would be pretty damning unless the defence managed to discredit their testimony.

A lot of sexual abuses cases have testimony from the alleged victims as evidence. It's hard to obtain any other form of evidence really, especially for historical allegations but people still get convicted.

Gary L · 05-10-2012, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

20 or so people saying "i was abused" hardly counts as any kind as proof

I don't want to believe it either Marty. but there are times in ones life when accepting something instead of coming up with excuses to distract from the truth is just too painful to bare

And if your daughter was number 11. would you want proof?

06-10-2012, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Well I am pretty sure it does. Normally a jury would decide if they believe the testimony of the accusers. 20 people, most of not all unrelated, would be pretty damning unless the defence managed to discredit their testimony.

A lot of sexual abuses cases have testimony from the alleged victims as evidence. It's hard to obtain any other form of evidence really, especially for historical allegations but people still get convicted.

could someone tell me when our justice system relied on hearsay and rumor please

I am perfectly willing to accept that he did it when their is proof but the unverifiable accusations of 20 people is no where near enough for me or any jury

---------- Post added at 00:15 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't want to believe it either Marty. but there are times in ones life when accepting something instead of coming up with excuses to distract from the truth is just too painful to bare

And if your daughter was number 11. would you want proof?

no i wouldn't want it ,however i would need it .

Gary L · 06-10-2012, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

no i wouldn't want it ,however i would need it .

And if she couldn't give it?

nomadking · 06-10-2012, 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

could someone tell me when our justice system relied on hearsay and rumor please

I am perfectly willing to accept that he did it when their is proof but the unverifiable accusations of 20 people is no where near enough for me or any jury

---------- Post added at 00:15 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

no i wouldn't want it ,however i would need it .

First hand accounts are NOT rumour and hearsay. Almost all abuse and rape and even many other types of crimes are based on 'unverifiable accusations'. What do you expect? Hidden camera footage? If I report a burglary, how can I prove I haven't done it myself for the insurance?

06-10-2012, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

First hand accounts are NOT rumour and hearsay. Almost all abuse and rape and even many other types of crimes are based on 'unverifiable accusations'. What do you expect? Hidden camera footage? If I report a burglary, how can I prove I haven't done it myself for the insurance?

My god are you lot taking the pee , have you not ever heard of evidence we do not and never have relied only on "i say he raped me" we insist on verifiable evidence .In this case it would rely on dates and times that could be verified or witness evidence from someone not connected that saw him do what he is accused of .In your example the police would want fingerprints or other physical evidence they would not rely on your word the same as they do not rely on the word of a rape victim

Thank god you lot aren't in charge of justice in this country

nomadking · 06-10-2012, 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

My god are you lot taking the pee , have you not ever heard of evidence we do not and never have relied only on "i say he raped me" we insist on verifiable evidence .In this case it would rely on dates and times that could be verified or witness evidence from someone not connected that saw him do what he is accused of .In your example the police would want fingerprints or other physical evidence they would not rely on your word the same as they do not rely on the word of a rape victim

Thank god you lot aren't in charge of justice in this country

How would dates and times being verified, prove anything one way or another. Even DNA evidence is not definitive proof because it doesn't show context. If a criminal wore gloves and left behind no DNA, would that mean that no crime had taken place?

How many abuse and rape convictions have(and could have) verifiable evidence?

TheDaddy · 06-10-2012, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

What we're starting to see now is just another good old fashioned British paedophille witch hunt, this time conducted by proxy because the apparent perpetrator isn't available to be run out of town in person.

Paediatricians had better board up their windows.

Not only paediatricians, just heard Jimmy somerviles had the snot kicked out of him...

Jimmy-J · 06-10-2012, 05:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Not only paediatricians, just heard Jimmy somerviles had the snot kicked out of him...

Ermm.. will a mod change my user name please!

**Damien** · 06-10-2012, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

My god are you lot taking the pee , have you not ever heard of evidence we do not and never have relied only on "i say he raped me" we insist on verifiable evidence .In this case it would rely on dates and times that could be verified or witness evidence from someone not connected that saw him do what he is accused of .In your example the police would want fingerprints or other physical evidence they would not rely on your word the same as they do not rely on the word of a rape victim.

How can you effectively prosecute abuse cases then? DNA doesn't last a long time and fingerprints don't really prove anything. Witnesses are rare since the abuser is unlikely to do it in such circumstances.

This is the justice system anyway. The victim's testimony is evidence and the question is if it's reliable or not, if there are many of them and they are dependable then that can be used in court and the jury can decide.

Russ · 06-10-2012, 08:53

If I understand the law correctly (and I usually don't...) then one person making an allegation is not, in itself, classed as 'evidence'. If gets reported to the authorities then the police will decide if it's evidence worth investigating.

Obviously if a number of people (preferably unconnected) come forward to make similar allegations then that can strengthen the potential of this 'evidence'.

Although what defines as 'evidence' is subjective. Are we talking in the eyes of the law, morally or what the public calls 'evidence'?

**Damien** · 06-10-2012, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

If I understand the law correctly (and I usually don't...) then one person making an allegation is not, in itself, classed as 'evidence'. If gets reported to the authorities then the police will decide if it's evidence worth investigating.

Obviously if a number of people (preferably unconnected) come forward to make similar allegations then that can strengthen the potential of this 'evidence'.

Although what defines as 'evidence' is subjective. Are we talking in the eyes of the law, morally or what the public calls 'evidence'?

The law.

Russ · 06-10-2012, 09:08

In which case if the police/CPS don't class it as evidence (or 'strong enough' evidence) then that's how I'd view it but again, it's subjective to the individual.

**Damien** · 06-10-2012, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

In which case if the police/CPS don't class it as evidence (or 'strong enough' evidence) then that's how I'd view it but again, it's subjective to the individual.

It is evidence, when people testify they are giving evidence. It's up to the defence to cast doubt upon the evidence and the Jury to decide if it's enough. The Jury might decide they are a unreliable witness or not.

Russ · 06-10-2012, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

It is evidence, when people testify they are giving evidence. It's up to the defence to cast doubt upon the evidence and the Jury to decide if it's enough. The Jury might decide they are a unreliable witness or not.

OK granted but if I went to my local police station and claimed I witnessed a BBC presenter hoovering up some showbiz sherbet but couldn't prove I was ever anywhere near where I claimed it happened then the police are unlikely to consider it worthy or usable evidence.