We've arrived at the summing up in the Clifford trial:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27025297

It's going to be interesting to see what the jury come up with this time?

The Judge has told them that they should "Come to your verdicts based fully on the evidence in court."

Hmmmmmmm, as with all the other cases, it's all based on what someone says, not on hard evidence and that's what some commentators here have lost sight of.

But how do you produce "hard" evidence - unless there was a child - after alleged offences took place between 1966 and 1984?

There wasn't DNA at that time so it's his word against the women. Again he's in a position to pay for a good lawyer who will far outsmart a CPS legal aid lawyer. I'm not saying he's guilty but  you have to wonder why all these other cases have all come up with an "not guilty" result. I can't believe that all these women are making up stories in order to benefit financially.

In the end it's his/her word against each other, because men don't generally **bleep** or molest with an audience... 

The reason the juries found those people "Not Guilty" was because there wasn't any evidence.

I don't know why people just cannot grasp that the word of someone is not evidence.

Why didn't people complain years ago and if it's the old excuse "they didn't think they'd be believed", why should they think that their complaint 20, 30, 40 or 50 years later would be any more believable?

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The reason the juries found those people "Not Guilty" was because there wasn't any evidence.

 

I don't know why people just cannot grasp that the word of someone is not evidence.

 

Why didn't people complain years ago and if it's the old excuse "they didn't think they'd be believed", why should they think that their complaint 20, 30, 40 or 50 years later would be any more believable?

---

Because there is big money to be made now from newspapers and caims against the rich... He kissed me 50 years ago and i havent slept since, but £50,000 will take the pain away..

---

@cee-dee wrote:

 Why didn't people complain years ago and if it's the old excuse "they didn't think they'd be believed", why should they think that their complaint 20, 30, 40 or 50 years later would be any more believable?

---

Because attitudes are different to now, certain people would get less support from sycophants and are much less likely to be able to shout down or brush off a complaint.

It is still far from easy to make a complaint even today, the 14 year old being abused by a gang reported it to both social services and the police but was ignored.

Perhaps we should move to a non adversarial system when trying such cases, that at least would avoid such as the 14 year old facing hostile questioning by a number of barristers over several days.

It might also be an idea if more people accepted the court's verdict but that might be asking too much, so many decide the verdict before it's even got to court and nothing changes their mind.

The Clifford jury is now out. We'll see how long they take to reach a verdict now?

I was watching a report about an American investigation and the investigator said "Witness evidence, what people say they saw is notoriously unreliable. It proves nothing until you've proved it yourself, then you've proved what they said they saw was correct."

Get out of that?

Historic sex abuse allegations will be subject to stricter tests before prosecutions, says Scotland Yard chief after rash of embarrassing celebrity acquittals

• Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said officers will more rigorously test evidence
• It comes after high profile celebrities were cleared of historic abuse claims
• But he said police had duty to investigate in wake of Jimmy Savile scandal
  

PUBLISHED: 14:51 GMT, 16 April 2014 | UPDATED: 17:39 GMT, 1

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606080/Historic-sex-abuse-allegations-subject-stricter-test... 

A juror has been discharged in the Clifford trial. The jury is down to six men and four women because earlier a juror was discharged because they knew one of the witnesses.

They're getting nowhere with the Clifford trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27131112

They got there in the end, jury found Clifford guilty on 8 counts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10769861/Max-Clifford-trial-public-relations-guru-guilt...

Verdict. Clifford  GUILTY of 8 counts out of 11:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600

Ha..ha ..A lot of people didnt like him.. Now he,s found GUILTY 6 years should be given to him..

Some people on here will say the Jurys wrong that they found him Guilty as if you read the posts the Jurys been wrong in all the cases..

I don't like the man or his attitude and he probably did most of what he was accused of but on verbal "evidence" alone the case should never have come to Court given the time span and lack of supporting evidence.

---

@cee-dee wrote:

We've arrived at the summing up in the Clifford trial:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27025297

 

It's going to be interesting to see what the jury come up with this time?

 

The Judge has told them that they should "Come to your verdicts based fully on the evidence in court."

 

Hmmmmmmm, as with all the other cases, it's all based on what someone says, not on hard evidence and that's what some commentators here have lost sight of.

---

They must have had hard evidence to find him Guilty.. or as i said they didnt like him.. the Lawyers are the winners..

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

No

Only guity people have alibis

Innocent people don't have a clue

I'd say

The 'cuddly & likeable' TV stars & DJs = Not guilty

The 'obnoxious & arrogant' PR guru = Guilty