Dave Lee Travis NOT GUILTY

[*.*..lola..*.*]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dave-lee-travis-trial-verdict-3140440

Let's hope he can put all this behind him now and get on with his life!

[cee-dee]

Were Roache and Travis GUILTY but "got off" then?

There's only two verdicts here, we don't have "Not Proven", it's Guilty or Not Guilty, there's no in between but people seem to forget the bit which is tacked on to the choice of Guilty and that is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

If there's a doubt, the verdict must be Not Guilty and that's what's happened in the Le Vell, Roache and Travis (so far) cases.

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

Thank goodness his lawyer found some 'loopholes' that the Police and the CPS weren't bothered about, like one 'victim' not remembering whether the alleged offence had happened or not (so the judge dismissed that charge) and another 'victim' not remembering to within six years when Travis was alleged to have touched her.

But the CPS wasted several millions of pounds of our money pursuing Travis, just to appease a few feminists and some compo-chasing 'victims'.

[electric*mayhem*band]

Weren't Jimmy Tarbuck and Paul Gambaccini arrested last year on 'suspicion' of sex abuse ? These cases don't appear to have seen the light of day, or have I missed something ?

Maybe insufficient evidence was gathered, and both been let off with a caution.

[cee-dee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24779908

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-23494429

[tommy.irene]

I wish someone would sue the Public prositors office  .. when they get off as they have spent £100,000 proving they didnt do it..

[rose2008-2008]

There are going to be queues going to the courts of Paedos by the time this is over. Who next i wonder???. Whats the matter with them?. Something in the Genes??, or JEANS?. I think the whole world and the people in it are all getting messed up with the way we have to live today. Messes up your mind boy or girl, man or woman!.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Sorry, Sir A - but do you honestly, hand-on-heart think that a woman who has been sexually assaulted and then dares to complain is a "feminist" or a compo-chaser? Good grief!!!!!!!

Please remember that although a lot of you men think that because these are historic cases they are not now important, at the time, these now grown women were actually very young girls. Many young girls did complain at the time of these offences, but were poo-pooed, because it was all viewed as just a "bit of a laugh, no harm meant, luv" in a male-dominated world!. Do you honestly think this behaviour was acceptable? And now they have the chance to speak up they are just viewed as "feminists" or "compo-chasers".

I am truly astounded. Truly

[cee-dee]

But how'd you know they're telling the truth?

[kiss*my*pixel]

And how'd you know the men charged are telling the truth? Maybe in their tiny little minds it is the truth as they didn't then (and still don't) see anything wrong in what they did. They don't realise the havoc they caused to young girls' lives. I cannot think of any woman who would fabricate such a charge. These things did happen (they do now too) but more so years ago). I've been on the receiving end of it, and it is really unpleasant. No-one would do anything at the time, because the workplace at the time was very male-dominated and the "guys" all stuck together, thinking it was oh, so funny! I totally understand why women are now speaking up, they simply weren't believed before. Absolutely nothing to do with feminism or financial bandwagons, and those accusations are, quite frankly, insulting. Perceptions and behaviours have changed, thankfully. I would hate for my daughter to have to endure such appalling behaviour - opinions (official ones, anyway) nowadays are different, I'm pleased to say, and we no longer live in the dark ages. There is still a long way to go, though.

That is not a "feminist" view, just a view of a woman who sympathises with the awful treatment other women have had to endure.

I am sad that DLT and Rolf Harris are under suspicion, as I liked them both and feel let-down and disappointed, blah-de-blah-de-blah, and would be absolutely delighted if the claims are not true. But they may be. How do any of us know who is telling the truth? I know who I believe - there are too many accusations stacked up against them.

[cee-dee]

Let us say just for arguments sake (and keeping it simple) that in your area there's been a lot of car vandalism and after a time, someone said that they saw someone that looked like you doing it. After it was announced that you'd been arrested and accused, another half a dozen people came forward and said they saw someone who looked JUST like you doing it.

There's no physical evidence to connect you with the crimes but you admitted you were in the area around the days/times the events took place and that you do own a hooded coat similar to what your accusers say they saw.

On the basis of the say-so of a handful of people, you are charged with a number of offences. It's your word that you didn't do it and the word of others that they "saw" you. How're you going to PROVE it wasn't you?

[kiss*my*pixel]

Surely you'd have an alibi if it wasn't you??

Also, in a sexual offence claim, you would know who it was (in the workplace, which these claims relate to, and someone they actually knew).

I'd be rather worried if half a dozen people came forward to say they thought they say someone who might have been assualting a person (rather than an inanimate object, ie, car) who may or may not have looked like someone.

Strange comparison.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Also, "keeping it simple" - is that purely for my benefit???

I hope not, otherwise, am mortally offended

[i-am-legion-too]

This article by Keir Starmer, the DPP until Nov.'13, moreorless sums up my views on the subject and may address some of the points raised on this thread.

Imo, the main omission is that he doesn't really touch on the inequalities and benefits between being able to afford to engage a top flight legal team against a run of the mill CPS barrister, but 'though related, suppose that is a whole different topic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/dave-lee-travis-william-roache-sex-cases?CMP=tw...

[cee-dee]

No, keeping it "simple" was not to think of an over-complicated "offence".

I already covered your question by saying (in the hypothetical scenario) you'd admitted you were in the area around the relevant days/times.

So, how would you PROVE it wasn't you the accusers thought they saw?

[kiss*my*pixel]

Sorry, Cee-Dee, but the scenario you are putting forward has nothing to do with the case in question.

An unknown hooded person making an attack on a car is entirely different from a well-known recognised person making an assault on another human being.

If I saw an unknown hooded person making an attack on a car, I would find it difficult to identify him/her. However, if I saw a person I knew and recognised committing an assault on a work colleague or friend, then I would be able to identify him/her.

When I was a young girl in an office, the person making sexual affrontaries (is that a word?)  to all of us (young girls) was well known. Any one of us could have picked him out in an identity parade because we knew who he was.

Had we seen him wearing a hood making an attack on a car, then clearly no, we would not have been definitely able to identify him.

Again, strange comparison. 

[saasher2012]

I understand what you are saying CD, if a man cannot prove his innocence because of lack of evidence , does that mean he is automatically guilty. Of course he isn't! Just because you don't like the the man & he has never hidden the fact he flirts.doesn't make him guilty, he may have lied but the fact remains he was cleared by a jury of equal numbers of male & female .
The accusers have the same problem but in fairness they can also lie, & the reasons for it have been covered on this thread & on the WR thread.

[kiss*my*pixel]

That is a good article, Legion, and I agree with you (as I have previously mentioned in other threads of a similar nature) ie - if you have a brilliant lawyer who can find a loophole, then you're on a home run. And the "not so innocent" run free

[kiss*my*pixel]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
I understand what you are saying CD, if a man cannot prove his innocence because of lack of evidence , does that mean he is automatically guilty. Of course he isn't! Just because you don't like the the man & he has never hidden the fact he flirts.doesn't make him guilty, he may have lied but the fact remains he was cleared by a jury of equal numbers of male & female .
The accusers have the same problem but in fairness they can also lie, & the reasons for it have been covered on this thread & on the WR thread.

---

I really do think there is quite a difference between "flirting" and sexual assault - quite a big difference. "He may have lied"  - ??????

If he felt the need to lie, then he is quite clearly guilty

[cee-dee]

I never said it had anything to do with the cases in question. I thought that would be put forward because you can't reconcile the similarity of accusations (ie, no physical evidence and just the say-so of a handful of people).

In the hypothetical scenario I put forward, you might be a well-known feminist activist in your area so doesn't that also add to the unfairness of the accusations?

In your real-life personal circumstances, did you all complain and if not, why not?

I said at the beginning I was keeping it simple and just offering a similar situation (no physical evidence). Why is it strange?

[saasher2012]

But the fact remains , he was cleared of these charges apart from two which will be dealt with at a later date, & do we then make the assumption the jury are so stupid they cannot make up their own mind?