This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The same could be, and often is, said about any trial that ends in a 'not guilty' verdict.

Better system though than declaring that someone is guilty of a crime without a trial - as some are suggesting the girl is in this case.

[cee-dee]

There has to be a more realistic view taken of cases where there's no physical and no corroborative evidence.

It's just not right to subject someone to the glare of publicity facing character assasination and possibly ruination all on the say-so of another person whoever they might be.

Now we appear to have reached the end.... (have we?) I'd like to ask fathers of daughters who've helped their wives (or partners) in bringing up the child within a normal family ebvironment what they'd do or say if, for whatever reason they "fell out" with their wife to the point where they parted and out of the Blue they were suddenly accused of historical offences of which they were entirely innocent.

It would be pointed out that they'd had many opportunities to commit offences where they were completely alone with the child both in the home and elsewhere and they'd be asked if, when the alleged offences were suposed to have occurred, was it true that no other person was anywhere near and the child was totally under their charge?

Faced with highly descriptive allegations, apart from denying any such thing ever took place, how would you defend yourself?

How would you feel if the cops just shrugged their shoulders and said "Oh, well, we'll put it to a jury to decide"?

Under those circumstances, no man who's ever been alone in the presence of a child is "safe" from the possiblity of being accused of such things and without proper evidence, such cases should never reach Court.

[upthecreekyetagain]

You can also look at a situation similar to the one you describe where a child has been abused over the years and warned that if they tell anyone what's been happening nobody will believe them.

Eventually they pluck up courage and ask to be believed and are then told that because it's just their word nothing can be done

[cee-dee]

Yes, but that's a different scenario so for now, what would you do if placed in the position I described?

To your scenario, even if what the child says is true, how can you ensure you get to the absolute truth of the matter? As with the accused what is being asked of the child is "CONVINCE ME".

The accused is being asked "Convince me you're innocent".

The accuser is being asked "Convince me that what you say is true".

The current thinking is "The child must be believed". That's completely wrong because that means that those listening have got a preconceived idea before they work through what little evidence there is.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The whole basis of the British judicial system is that you don't have to defend yourself - it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt.

Many people mistake law enforcement as being part of this judicial system which it really isn't - their job is to investigate whether a crime has been committed and to gather evidence to support this and identify the likely offender.  It is not their job to decide if there is enough evidence or if that evidence is strong enough to put someone before the courts - so your scenarion of the police "shrugging their shoulders" and saying we'll put it before the courts is not only factually incorrect but also misleading.

[cee-dee]

You're evading the questions asked now.

You're correct about how the judicial system should operate, but in practice in cases similar to that being discussed where it's one persons word against another and with either limited other evidence or none at all, the cops in association with the CPS do exactly that = shrug their shoulders and say they're going to "put it to a jury to decide". Sometimes.... (???) they do that in an effort to "persuade" the accused to admit some "limited" offences.....

In cases like we're discussing, putting your "Faith in the hands of British Justice" is only a form of gambling on how the jury reacts. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if three juries each followed such a trial, it would be interesting when the three juries came out with their verdicts.

Had the case revolved around an alledged street assault and it was one persons word against another, the accused would either never get charged due to "lack of corroborative evidence" or sometimes, if the accused sticks to his guns, the cops and CPS try to call his bluff taking it right up to the doors of the Court on the day of the trial before withdrawing.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

You're evading the questions asked now.

You're correct about how the judicial system should operate, but in practice in cases similar to that being discussed where it's one persons word against another and with either limited other evidence or none at all, the cops in association with the CPS do exactly that = shrug their shoulders and say they're going to "put it to a jury to decide". Sometimes.... (???) they do that in an effort to "persuade" the accused to admit some "limited" offences.....

You are assuming a lot - the "association" the police have with the CPS is that they put forward their evidence and it is the CPS who decide on prosecution or not - I am sure that many police officers would love to return to the "good old days" when they were the sole arbiter as to who appeared in court and actually carried out the prosecution in the Magistrates Court.

In cases like we're discussing, putting your "Faith in the hands of British Justice" is only a form of gambling on how the jury reacts. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if three juries each followed such a trial, it would be interesting when the three juries came out with their verdicts.

Until you can come up with a better method than twelve of the accused peers deciding, on the strength of evidence put before them, the guilt of the accused then that is what we have to live with.

On my part I think it works pretty well, there are I am certain far more guilty people acquitted than the other way around.  A much better system than some faceless body deciding in private the guilt or innocence of an individual.

Had the case revolved around an alledged street assault and it was one persons word against another, the accused would either never get charged due to "lack of corroborative evidence" or sometimes, if the accused sticks to his guns, the cops and CPS try to call his bluff taking it right up to the doors of the Court on the day of the trial before withdrawing.

That should read, "the cops and CPS try to call his bluff taking it right up to the doors of the Court on the day of the trial before withdrawing"

One of the parts of the Justice system in the UK I don't like, and I believe fits far more closely with your description, is the 'Police Caution'.  I don't believe it is the place of the police to despatch justice and there are far more opportunities for the system of Cautions to be abused than any other part I can think of.

---

[bankhaunter]

Many a young person has accepting a caution when they were in the company of others one of which has been caught shoplifting.

They accept the caution not fully realising it's implications and the fact that there is no evidence against them for committing any wrong and therefore should not receive one.

[cee-dee]

Creeky, the CPS don't have contact with the accused? They have contact with the cops. Who charges the accused? Not the CPS. OK, the CPS will continue like I said up to the doors of the Court on the day of a trial and try one last time to get some sort of admission before finally giving up because they realise the have no realistic chance of a prosecution with their current evidence.

Therefore, it's the cops who initially try to pressurise the accused in to admitting part or a lessor part of the accusation on the "promise" of a more lenient sentence.

After "investigating", in "doubtful" cases the cops submit a file to the CPS and the CPS decide if they consider "There's sufficient evidence to put before a jury".

The system is a fair one, it's the evidentiary guidelines which need some changes. Someone at the CPS thought it was in the Public interest to commit LeVell for trial and as in many other "doubtful" cases currently in the media spotlight, they're proceeding on the same old "no smoke without fire" basis and the words of doubtful accusers who may well have had their "memory" corrupted by means of manipulation by others.

[joe_bloggs*]

As well as the CPS supposedly cutting costs it looks as though incompetance is affecting court cases leading to judges actually dismissing cases

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/blog/2013/07/27/new-figures-reveal-the-cps-has-lost-more-than-2...

[lost.parrot]

Whereas others cannot comprehend the very basic premise, that if one person is telling the truth, then the other must be lying.

Probably because it's incorrect.

It appears to be derived from a need to abstract to the point of absurdity in order to try to manipulate a desired outcome, namely the emotional imperative of some, that the girl must be lying regardless.

The notion that a not guilty verdict means the accuser/s must be lying, is loony tunes stuff, and considerable effort has been expended in order to dispel this, and explain what the trial process is about.

The notion that the CPS wont prosecute an accuser because they fear it will make them look silly, is just that...silly!
If the CPS thought the evidence malicious, they would never have brought the case in the first instance. 

Talking early this year of similar cases, the outgoing head of the prosecution service Keir Starmer said malicious cases of this type were very very rare.
The notion of listening to child complaints isn't about giving them special status, it's about what HMIC reported of as a  culture of routinely dismissing such complaints regardless, because it was easier and convenient and the system helped reinforce this culture

There are numerous cases to illustrate
One publicised one was where one child and her sister were routinely abused by their stepfather from the age of about 4.They were also abused by his friends, and anyone he could rent his stepdaughters out to for money or cigarettes. When she was old enough the child ran away.She was caught, placed in a home, and abused again.Despite what must have been considerable so-called 'hard evidence' and complaints by the child over the years, those responsible were not prosecuted even when later she taped conversations about the abuse and took them to the police, no action was taken.It wasn't until Newsnight took up the story, that stepfather and several associates were finally charged and convicted.Many others involved escaped justice. One of the abusers is on camera talking about his abuse which he rationalises as 'love'. The stepfather is far more graphic and basic in his descriptions, and seems quite unmoved by it all, claiming in defence, many were doing the same.

[ronnybabes]

CD that is one thing we all agree on.

Unfortunately, the rest of the discussion that tries to beat me into submission, does not hold any water.

If Michael Turner is innocent ( note, that I have not referred to judicial outcomes here) then his accuser lied. FACT!!

If, however he is guilty then then he has lied. FACT!!

The Jury concluded .... Not Guilty.

Whatever you believe.... someone lied. FACT.

Please do not insult me by saying that false memory excuses that fact.

[upthecreekyetagain]

"If Michael Turner is innocent ( note, that I have not referred to judicial outcomes here) then his accuser lied. FACT!!

If, however he is guilty then then he has lied. FACT!!

The Jury concluded .... Not Guilty.

Whatever you believe.... someone lied. FACT."

I don't dispute the basic premise that someone lied - what I have disputed all along is the leap you have taken from the 'legal' verdict of "not guilty" to the 'non-legal' assumption" of "innocence", (i.e. he didn't do it) - they are NOT the same thing!

[lost.parrot]

The only thing you know with any degree of certainty is the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The rest is speculation.

One or both may have told less than the absolute truth, though it's possible neither did.Turner is a drunk, and his recollection may reflect that. Either way it's still speculation, though the idea that the accuser/s must be lying following a not guilty verdict is clearly false

Whether the cps should have brought the case is difficult to establish, because im assuming most aren't suitable qualified or experienced, and aren't aware of the evidence at the time the decision was made, but are basing their view with the benefit of hindsight...a wonderful thing.... same thing that fuels most pub debates after England lose, and qualifies the entire bar as England managers in an instant. Some choices may be marginal, but as various reports have suggested, there may be a feeling when prosecuting minor celebs, that it requires that extra bit of evidence, that extra witness, that extra bit of assurance in order to go forward, something that possibly helped the likes of Savile and Smith abuse freely during their life.

[ronnybabes]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's never ending.......?

The upshot is that here's a case which due to the lack of evidence should never have been brought to trial.

Well that is something that you, me and Creeky are in total agreement on. I hope I am not speaking out of turn when I say that.

As for answering all the rest of yours and Creeky's observations. I believe I've said it all now, and we are just going over the same ground, and around in circles

I was always open to change a point of view, if an alternative viewpoint was convincing enough, but I am more steadfast in my belief then ever, mainly, but not wholly, based on one single premise.

One of them was lying. Fact.

[lost.parrot]

It's not 'fact' it's speculation

Fact is for example, the known verdict reached. Pondering over the veracity of one or more participants in the trial, with nothing to support it bar a bit of false 'logic' , is speculation

[ronnybabes]

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

It's not 'fact' it's speculation

Fact is for example, the known verdict reached. Pondering over the veracity of one or more participants in the trial, with nothing to support it bar a bit of false 'logic' , is speculation

It's not speculation.

They both cannot be telling the truth. 

"He did it." says she.

"No I didn't" says he.

---

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

It's not 'fact' it's speculation

Fact is for example, the known verdict reached. Pondering over the veracity of one or more participants in the trial, with nothing to support it bar a bit of false 'logic' , is speculation

It's not speculation.

They both cannot be telling the truth. 

"He did it." says she.

"No I didn't" says he.

---

---

Yes but what you can't seem to grasp is that we still don't know which one of them is the liar - the 'not guilty' verdict in the case of LeVell doesn't prove that he was telling the truth just that there wasn't proof that he was lying.

[lost.parrot]

Abstracting to the point of absurdity in order to try to grind out a last ditch face saver, doesn't really do much

As I said above, one or both could be telling less than the whole truth, or even both giving evidence of what they believe to be the truth from their individual recollections.

Turner is a self proclaimed alcoholic with a serious drink problem, amongst other things. Not exactly helpful when it comes to recollection of past events.
You abstract to a cartoon two-state scenario and project in a shared reality of events and recollection. One or both may not be telling the full truth in an objective sense, assuming that could be established, or both may be giving what they consider a truthful account from their own recollection of a differing individual reality.

It's still just speculation with nothing to support it, and simply not fact

[upthecreekyetagain]

". . . . or even both giving evidence of what they believe to be the truth from their individual recollections."

I have to say that this unlikely in this case - it's hard to imagine that you could fail to recollect if you had abused a child or if you had been abused as a child.