Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[Worthy4England]

I'm not as convinced as your good self that you don't get a lowering of the standard when based only on witness statements. Legally I'm sure you're absolutely correct, but in a jury based system, I'm not sure psychologically it holds true (I have no evidence to support this, just my witness statement ). The prosecution clearly go for mass of evidence, to convince the jury that if it was one person saying it, then there could be doubt - but look at all these people saying the same things. Issue is, it's not one event, it's lots of events. It seems to me to be a bit like witch trials - even for someone like Saville. If asked, I would say it was true about Saville, but I've seen no evidence at all. If I was on a jury, based on what I currently know - I'd probably give a more measured opinion that I couldn't possibly tell.

[bobo the clown]

It's pretty clear from prosecution tactics that sheer weight of numbers, people claiming same similar incidents weighs heavy. Sort of "one person could be making it up but not 15 who've never met". The individual evidence may not add up to much but ....

That certainly 'worked' in the Stuart Hall case and, it seems, Harris. It's also what gave credence to the Savile crescendo.

The down side there is that it supports the idea that accused people must continue to be outed while the accusers are given anonymity.

The evidence is no more robust but the sheer weight of it condemns.

[Worthy4England]

It does on occasion feel a bit 21st Century "witch trial".

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not as convinced as your good self that you don't get a lowering of the standard when based only on witness statements. Legally I'm sure you're absolutely correct, but in a jury based system, I'm not sure psychologically it holds true (I have no evidence to support this, just my witness statement ). The prosecution clearly go for mass of evidence, to convince the jury that if it was one person saying it, then there could be doubt - but look at all these people saying the same things. Issue is, it's not one event, it's lots of events. It seems to me to be a bit like witch trials - even for someone like Saville. If asked, I would say it was true about Saville, but I've seen no evidence at all. If I was on a jury, based on what I currently know - I'd probably give a more measured opinion that I couldn't possibly tell.

Though on a jury, hearing the accounts and listening to the accused you get a different sense of things. Who gives the most reliable account who is more accurate and less inconsistent. There is also the emotional and believeable side to it.

People for example have decided Pistorius did it deliberately but there is no hard evidence to really say he did. His story whilst, unlikely isn't particularly contradictory to any nailed down facts. I suspect those who have decided his guilt (me included) have done so primarily because they don't believe his story and think he lacks credibility.

This is my point about "reasonable" it definitely has different interpretations. Pru is right in that the burden never (or should never change) but for me what counts as reasonable absolutely does have some wiggle room.

[Prufrock]

Witness statements *are* evidence, and always have been. We live in a world where there's CCTV and fingerprint technology but they're recent developments. For the vast majority of the history of any legal system, witness testimony (from the victim, others and especially the police) has been by far and away the most useful tool. If you didn't have convictions based only on witness testimony then there'd be scores of people getting away with stuff all the time. As technology gets better maybe we'll get to a time where you can't base a conviction only on witness evidence Minority Report stylee, but we're a long way from that.

It's an interesting debate, and one I don't think is clear cut. I certainly subscribe to the idea that it's worse to put an innocent man in jail than to let a guilty man go free, but that's not an absolute. Is it worse to put an innocent man in jail than let ten guilty men go free? A thousand? The insurmountable problem with any 'judging' system is that you have to find as 'fact' stuff you can often never 100% know. Sooner or later you have to make a call though, or everyone gets away with everything. 'Witness' evidence like all evidence has its flaws, but as long as you recognise them, and any lawyer even vaguely worth his salt would have been stressing that, then it's as valuable a tool as any other.

The domestic violence charity I volunteered for was set up because people kept being charged, and then acquitted. There were *some* convictions but also some acquittals where the people I spoke to were convinced they were guilty.

[bobo the clown]

.... & the jury system and our adversarial legal process makes it a lottery. Whether the defence barristers manage to strike a chord with the jury. Pure pot luck for the defendant.

From what I read there's little doubt Harris, Hull, Clifford and the untrialed Cyril Smith, Savile, were at it but the real undeniable evidence was thin. None of those managed to strike and note of sympathy. Somehow Ken Barlow, Kevin Webster and ... amazingly, Rebecca Brooks (different type of accusations I appreciate) did. I believe that was down to better, or luckier, legal teams tbh.

It also remains the case that "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".

[BWFC_Insane]

.... & the jury system and our adversarial legal process makes it a lottery. Whether the defence barristers manage to strike a chord with the jury. Pure pot luck for the defendant.

From what I read there's little doubt Harris, Hull, Clifford and the untrialed Cyril Smith, Savile, were at it but the real undeniable evidence was thin. None of those managed to strike and note of sympathy. Somehow Ken Barlow, Kevin Webster and ... amazingly, Rebecca Brooks (different type of accusations I appreciate) did. I believe that was down to better, or luckier, legal teams tbh.

It also remains the case that "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".

It is dangerous though to proclaim a jury has it wrong unless you've seen all the evidence presented as they have.

A lot of trial by media these days and people decide on guilt without actually knowing or seeing the full extent of the evidence.

If a jury finds someone not guilty after a trial (assuming said trial is legitimate) then they are innocent. Otherwise you might as well just let the Daily Mail decide on innoncence and guilt.

[Prufrock]

Our system doesn't make it a lottery, the realities of the world we live in do. There is no legal system on earth that has existed, does exist or probably will ever exist that can answer these questions with 100% certainty. All any system can do is true to minimise the margin of error. Better lawyers certainly helps, but I don't know how you get around that. And the adversarial system is absolutely the best in this scenario. I've spoken to people with experience of Europe who have argued that in certain areas the inquisitorial system is better, but not one who thinks that criminal law is one of those areas. It is a lottery, but it's the best system we have.

I still think it's easy to say that a jury might be wrong from a few 5 minute news clips on TV. They've seen weeks of evidence and cross-examination and whilst I'm sure they're not always right, I still think they're in a better position to make that judgement.

I agree with your final line, Bobe's, in 'fact', but they should meant he same in law IMO. Not a fan of the Scottish 'not proven'.

[bobo the clown]

I can only go from my experience of being on a jury and if I was in the shite I'd want a jury trial. It IS pot luck, believe me. How you get 12, 11 or maybe 10 of 12 to agree to a "beyond reasonable doubt" on anything at all amazes me.

[Beefheart]

I can only go from my experience of being on a jury and if I was in the shite I'd want a jury trial. It IS pot luck, believe me. How you get 12, 11 or maybe 10 of 12 to agree to a "beyond reasonable doubt" on anything at all amazes me.

Did it start with 11 of them thinking they were guilty, and then you were the good guy in the white suit like in 12 Angry Men and you talked them all round?

[bobo the clown]

I can only go from my experience of being on a jury and if I was in the shite I'd want a jury trial. It IS pot luck, believe me. How you get 12, 11 or maybe 10 of 12 to agree to a "beyond reasonable doubt" on anything at all amazes me.

Did it start with 11 of them thinking they were guilty, and then you were the good guy in the white suit like in 12 Angry Men and you talked them all round?

I bloody wish.

Two "I don't trust the Police" women who actually stated they had little intention of finding anyone guilty, one "they wouldn't be here if they'd done nowt" who wanted everyone hanging, one who said not one word for the whole two weeks, one who changed her view to whatever the last thing that had been said was, two who had no fckg clue what was happening ... as if we had two village idiots in the room, two who spent the whole time flirting with each other, a businessman who moaned for two solid weeks about being there & how much money he was losing.

[Bruce Rioja]

I can only go from my experience of being on a jury and if I was in the shite I'd want a jury trial. It IS pot luck, believe me. How you get 12, 11 or maybe 10 of 12 to agree to a "beyond reasonable doubt" on anything at all amazes me.

Did it start with 11 of them thinking they were guilty, and then you were the good guy in the white suit like in 12 Angry Men and you talked them all round?

I bloody wish.

Two "I don't trust the Police" women who actually stated they had little intention of finding anyone guilty, one "they wouldn't be here if they'd done nowt" who wanted everyone hanging, one who said not one word for the whole two weeks, one who changed her view to whatever the last thing that had been said was, two who had no fckg clue what was happening ... as if we had two village idiots in the room, two who spent the whole time flirting with each other, a businessman who moaned for two solid weeks about being there & how much money he was losing.

I can just imagine the others describing their fellow jurors - "There was this Welsh bloke who thought he was Henry fecking Fonda........"

[bobo the clown]

I can just imagine the others describing their fellow jurors - "There was this Welsh bloke who thought he was Henry fecking Fonda........"

I was the English bloke, the Court was in Wales.

.... & who says I wasn't 'one of the above' ?

[Harry Genshaw]

....
From what I read there's little doubt Harris, Hull, Clifford and the untrialed Cyril Smith, Savile, were at it

[Bruce Rioja]

^ I saw that and just assumed it was a story that I'd missed.

[Harry Genshaw]

^ I saw that and just assumed it was a story that I'd missed.

Loved his work but now best remembered for Frank Skinner's football trivia question

"In what year did Hull go down as a result of Man Utd winning the Champions League"?

[bobo the clown]

Oh, go on .... Hall then.

[Worthy4England]

Witness statements *are* evidence, and always have been. We live in a world where there's CCTV and fingerprint technology but they're recent developments. For the vast majority of the history of any legal system, witness testimony (from the victim, others and especially the police) has been by far and away the most useful tool. If you didn't have convictions based only on witness testimony then there'd be scores of people getting away with stuff all the time. As technology gets better maybe we'll get to a time where you can't base a conviction only on witness evidence Minority Report stylee, but we're a long way from that.

It's an interesting debate, and one I don't think is clear cut. I certainly subscribe to the idea that it's worse to put an innocent man in jail than to let a guilty man go free, but that's not an absolute. Is it worse to put an innocent man in jail than let ten guilty men go free? A thousand? The insurmountable problem with any 'judging' system is that you have to find as 'fact' stuff you can often never 100% know. Sooner or later you have to make a call though, or everyone gets away with everything. 'Witness' evidence like all evidence has its flaws, but as long as you recognise them, and any lawyer even vaguely worth his salt would have been stressing that, then it's as valuable a tool as any other.

The domestic violence charity I volunteered for was set up because people kept being charged, and then acquitted. There were *some* convictions but also some acquittals where the people I spoke to were convinced they were guilty.

I'm not so sure. I can see your point regarding the domestic violence problem - which isn't dissimilar to the cases against the glitterati currently running. There are only two people there when the incident took place.

I don't see how you can get to beyond reasonable doubt in those circumstances. As a juror, one of the two might have been way more convincing to me, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I was beyond reasonable doubt.

[Montreal Wanderer]

.

It also remains the case that "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent".

I agree with your final line, Bobe's, in 'fact', but they should meant he same in law IMO. Not a fan of the Scottish 'not proven'.

It seems to me self-evident that in law one is innocent until proven guilty (a key principle of common law) and that a 'not guilty' verdict means, therefore, that you are innocent. In Christian terms no one is innocent since we got nailed with original sin, but this should not be introduced when discussing the law.

[Prufrock]

Witness statements *are* evidence, and always have been. We live in a world where there's CCTV and fingerprint technology but they're recent developments. For the vast majority of the history of any legal system, witness testimony (from the victim, others and especially the police) has been by far and away the most useful tool. If you didn't have convictions based only on witness testimony then there'd be scores of people getting away with stuff all the time. As technology gets better maybe we'll get to a time where you can't base a conviction only on witness evidence Minority Report stylee, but we're a long way from that.

It's an interesting debate, and one I don't think is clear cut. I certainly subscribe to the idea that it's worse to put an innocent man in jail than to let a guilty man go free, but that's not an absolute. Is it worse to put an innocent man in jail than let ten guilty men go free? A thousand? The insurmountable problem with any 'judging' system is that you have to find as 'fact' stuff you can often never 100% know. Sooner or later you have to make a call though, or everyone gets away with everything. 'Witness' evidence like all evidence has its flaws, but as long as you recognise them, and any lawyer even vaguely worth his salt would have been stressing that, then it's as valuable a tool as any other.

The domestic violence charity I volunteered for was set up because people kept being charged, and then acquitted. There were *some* convictions but also some acquittals where the people I spoke to were convinced they were guilty.

I'm not so sure. I can see your point regarding the domestic violence problem - which isn't dissimilar to the cases against the glitterati currently running. There are only two people there when the incident took place.

I don't see how you can get to beyond reasonable doubt in those circumstances. As a juror, one of the two might have been way more convincing to me, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying I was beyond reasonable doubt.

I get that unease. I'm not 100% comfortable with verdicts based only on one person's word against another, and whilst I wouldn't say 'never' I think it's rare you'd ever discharge the burden with a 1v1. But these case aren't 1v1, they're several individually v1. Whilst some of the same drawbacks apply, consider the following example:

Person A is arrested and charged with abusing Person B. It is reported that Person A has been arrested and charged with sexual offences. Persons C, D, E, F, G and H hear about this and independently come forward to the police alleging that Person A abused them. No details of the allegations have been published, and the victims do not know each other, but each given statements which include the same very specific details, whether it's threats made by Person A, weird fetishes, specific ways to try to persuade them to do it, whatever, but details which are unique and they could not have guessed. When cross-examined all their statements hold up, yet Person A contradicts himself and does not seem reliable.

In those circumstances, with no other evidence, I can see how you'd get to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In domestic violence cases they have come up with a work around. The charity I was with helped victims apply for civil orders, where the burden is balance of probabilities, which would allow the victim to get a non-molestation order, or an occupation order. These were basically orders telling the other party either not to abuse the victim, or to not visit a specific address. Breach of the order would be contempt of court and so up to (I think) 2 years. The contempt would still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Breach of the non-molestation order would involve proving the abuse had occurred, but to a judge, and breach of the occupation order would simply mean proving the other party went where they shouldn't. I'm not sure in practice there were many occasions were someone was charged with the resulting contempt, but the orders gave the victim time and space to get free of the situation they were in.