[Closed] Dave Lee Travis to be tried again .

Its been discussed in the [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bill-roache-cleared ]Bill Roach case[/url]

I can't believe any of this has made it to court in the first place, in the absence of any evidence at all. Theres no way on earth they were ever going to secure a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'. and there still isn't.

If it wasn't so high profile defendant it'd never be anywhere near a courtroom. The fact that its going to a re-trial is an utter farce, and more importantly: a complete waste of taxpayers money. What on earth are the CPS playing at?

Celebrety Witch Hunt... IMO 😐

Celebrety Witch Hunt

Typo aside, I agree.

The fact that its going to a re-trial is an utter farce, and more importantly: a complete waste of taxpayers money. What on earth are the CPS playing at?

Justifying their budget by spending a lot? Spending a huge amount and then using that to complain about how much they need to spend in the face of any impending cuts? Who knows. Either way, this is getting silly. Again, not saying there's guilt or innocence either way, but the whole thing seems to be a witch hunt rather than any real following of judicial procedure.

Fanx FHC 😉

I think he has already suffered enough .

What if he's found guilty? Being pitied is no reason for a person to avoid investigation or justice.

At the risk of being accused of sticking up for the police, what the Commissioner recently said is true...

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met commissioner, summed up their dilemma yesterday: “If a victim comes to us and makes an allegation they deserve to have a thorough investigation – we can hardly turn them away. In fact, one of the criticisms of Yewtree is that in the past, over the last 20 to 30 years, victims have been turned away and not listened to.”

Sir Bernard went on: “We are caught both ways. If we take the victims seriously but there is no further action we could be criticised for being too aggressive. Yet if we ignore the victims and send them away, they would say this is a repeat of experiences as a child. So we have to try to do it carefully and sensitively, understanding all the complexities.”

I still don't know what the answer is though.

Here's the [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10638610/As-Dave-Lee-Travis-is-cleared-are-we-seeing-justice-or-a-witch-hunt.html ]link[/url]

"we have to try to do it carefully and sensitively, understanding all the complexities."

There is a man who does not spend much time on internet forums.

Theres no way on earth they were ever going to secure a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'. and there still isn't.

Only, the CPS take cases to trial if there's a more than 50% chance of succeeding, which is much lower than the level of certainty a jury needs to have to convict.

And the biggest challenge with sexual offences is that is rarely any corroborative evidence: it's all circumstantial. And, while there may be a slew of celebs in the dock right now, don't think they're the only ones going through the process. I know someone who's due in court in connection with alleged events from 20 years ago.

Call me naive, but even as a lawyer, I still believe in the blindness of justice.

Only, the CPS take cases to trial if there's a more than 50% chance of succeeding, which is much lower than the level of certainty a jury needs to have to convict.

Can't see how this retrial has more than a 50% chance of success though ?

Unless they have some new evidence.

Celebrety Witch Hunt... IMO

slightly off topic...but what a great idea for a reality tv show.

Call up Endemol now..

If anyone should be on trial it’s Piers Morgan, but I suppose that’s a completely different thread!

I can only see one point the CPS has and that is, in this case, the "latest" incident occured in 2008. In this instance the CPS could be right. (only just seen the BBC report on it)

I'm off to Endermol with my "Celeb Witch Hunt" idea 😀

Pitch forks will be the weapon of choice, theres a few on here we could borrow.. 😀

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met commissioner, summed up their dilemma yesterday: “If a victim comes to us and makes an allegation they deserve to have a thorough investigation

Well looking at his forces statistics on investigating and pursuing rape allegations (when not involving a sleb, of course), then its difficult to see how he can make that claim and keep a straight face, as thats clearly utter bollox!

Unless they have some new evidence.

Or the evidence that there is has been presented badly. I was on a jury that returned a not guilty verdict even though the majority of the people in the room were happy that the defendant had committed the crime he was charged with, and that there had been no evidence presented to the contrary. But the prosecution made such fist of delivering their case - delivered with all the thought and clarity of someone who had just been tipped out their bed in the middle of the night - that most of the people in the room felt it was unfair to convict.

If the jury are unable to reach a verdict then that means different people in the room have come to very different conclusions from the information presented to them - so that might mean that the information presented was either incomplete, or not stated clearly enough.

If a [b]male[/b] victim comes to us and makes an allegation they deserve to have a thorough investigation

FIFY

Help us out with those stats then binners

I was on a jury that returned a not guilty verdict even though the majority of the people in the room were happy that the defendant had committed the crime he was charged with

you found a guilty person innocent because of the prosecution.....I am not following your logic here

Feel sorry for CPS as it is one of those - let them go and they turn a blind eye re trial and they persecute folk

IIRC the jury gave no verdict on some of his offences so they were not sure...perhaps having those tried in isolation of ones he did not do will bring clarity

[url= http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/11/19/hundreds-of-rapes-are-not-being-recorded-as-crimes-by-the-met-police-claims-whistleblower/ ]There you go greatape[/url]

Will that do for starters? If your record on rape and sexual abuse is so appalling, what do you do? Address the problem? Of course not. This is the Met we're talking about here. We'll just change the way we collect the stats instead 🙄

Cheers, I'll have a read

I think the point maccruiskeen is trying to make is that if the evidence was dumped in a pile on the table, the jury would choose to convict. However, based on what they were given by the prosecution, they didn't feel convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

Everything MUST rely on the case put forward by the prosecution otherwise we're into "he must be guilty, his eyes are too close together" territory.

I can't believe any of this has made it to court in the first place, in the absence of any evidence at all.

The evidence was such that a jury couldn't decide whether he was guilty or not, on two serious charges.

Thanks binners - hadn't heard of TBIJ before. There are evidently some changes required down there.

I was on a jury that returned a not guilty verdict even though the [b]majority of the people in the room were happy that the defendant had committed the crime he was charged with[/b], and that there had been no evidence presented to the contrary.

Guilty verdict then ?

Sounds like the jury screwed up worse than anyone else from what you've said.

Quack quack oops.

LOL @ ATPs

The financial cost to folk in these circumstances must be gutting.

I thought you can't be tried for the same thing twice, what's changed?

I thought you can't be tried for the same thing twice, [b]what's changed?[/b]

The law.

It's been allowed for about 10 years in the UK.

Plus it wouldn't have applied in this case anyway, because the jury "Failed to Reach a Verdict" so they could still apply for a retrial even under the old system.

Jury unable to reach a verdict on a couple of charges. Double jeopardy - what you're talking about- is retrial after acquittal on the same charge, and only allowed in certain circumstances.

I thought you can't be tried for the same thing twice, what's changed?

He hasn't been acquitted on two serious charges. Look at it this way: the judge said he would accept a 10-2 majority verdict, which means that up to 9 jurors thought he was guilty. Do we set someone free on that basis? Do we not owe it to the victims to try and establish his innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Do we not owe it to the victims to try and establish his innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Or, to look at it another way.

Isn't 2 Jurors thinking you are innocent, after hearing and considering all the evidence, considered "reasonable doubt"

Isn't 2 Jurors thinking you are innocent, after hearing and considering all the evidence, considered "reasonable doubt"

The judge doesn't think so.

I thought it ws called a majority verdict tbh IANAL

they didn't feel convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

Except for that part where they said they thought they were guilty

I am not understanding what the reasonable doubt was here.

ransos - Member
Isn't 2 Jurors thinking you are innocent, after hearing and considering all the evidence, considered "reasonable doubt"
The judge doesn't think so.

The judge isn't the one who ordered a re-trial, that's the job of the CPS .

The judge isn't the one who ordered a re-trial, that's the job of the CPS .

The judge is the person who would accept "beyond reasonable doubt" on the basis of a 10-2 majority. Which is what I said.