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

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm surprised at the Harris verdict.

When you look at what he was charged with, it does seem amazing that they have proved this stuff beyond reasonable doubt:

- Count One: A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s

- Count two: Harris was accused of groping a teenage waitress's bottom at a charity event in Cambridge in the 1970s

- Counts three to nine: A childhood friend of Mr Harris' daughter said he repeatedly indecently assaulted her between the ages of 13 and 19, including once when his daughter was asleep in the same room. He admitted a relationship with the woman, but said it began after she turned 18

- Counts 10 to 12: Australian woman Tonya Lee, who has waived her right to anonymity, said he fondled her three times on one day while she was on a theatre group trip to the UK at the age of 15.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean BWFC-i, but I'd hesitate a 'no'. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' means what it says and is, rightly, a very high standard. The word 'reasonable' is important though, it's not '100%, absolutely, couldn't possibly not be, got him on camera, with forensic evidence and a confession'. It means that the jury found there were no doubts, or any doubts there were were so unlikely as to be discounted. That kind of verdict is hard to get when it's just one person's word against another, hence the problem the criminal law has dealing with domestic violence (where there are often no witnesses). In this case though, from a quick BBC summary, it sounds like there were several people all saying he'd abused them, and him saying he hadn't. Bearing in mind all will have been thoroughly examined and cross-examined, it's far from impossible that you could listen to the consistent, cogent testimony of several 'victims', and the shambolic, inconsistent testimony of one 'perpetrator' and find that you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crimes had been committed.

Brucie, I wouldn't hold you breath on that front, you might get a bit of insight into the evidence produced, but these sentencing remarks can't explain the reasons a jury finds X, and rarely speculate as to what they might be. What they may do is set out in more detail the accusations against him which will be presented now as 'fact'.

I guess what I mean is what can be reasonably proven in some cases is different to others. No way in this case as you allude can anyone 100% prove he did the things he is accused of. And as you say it presumably came down to believability and consistency.

[Bruce Rioja]

No way in this case as you allude can anyone 100% prove he did the things he is accused of.

And therefore shouldn't be on his way to prison. What you're saying is it's OK to hold a courtroom popularity contest and convict the loser.

[Prufrock]

Bruce, it's not '100%' but it's close. You're asking people to find as 'fact' what happened when they weren't there. Without CCTV or a several witnesses you can never be 100% sure, and even then some might argue you're not. You seem happy enough that Pistorius is guilty but there's no-way anyone (except him I suppose) can say with 100% certainty that he did it. Those 'nah that's bollocks, no chance' reactions you have to his claims are what is meant by a doubt not being 'reasonable'.

Without having seen the evidence of both sides I have no idea whether it's surprising or not.

Where someone is found guilty of all counts I don't necessarily find it that surprising, the one's I'm never really convinced about are where all evidence is testimony, and they're found guilty of 1 out 10 or so.

[LeverEnd]

Does the sheer weight of testimony not make the doubt less reasonable? And if the women in these cases all presented cogent and believable testimony and there were specific common elements throughout it, it seems highly unlikely that they are all making it up or exaggerating it and that he is telling the truth. I suppose he'd have been more likely to be acquitted if it were just one accuser.

[BWFC_Insane]

No way in this case as you allude can anyone 100% prove he did the things he is accused of.

And therefore shouldn't be on his way to prison. What you're saying is it's OK to hold a courtroom popularity contest and convict the loser.

How many cases we provable 100%?

Where the act is caught on video camera I guess. Where there are a vast number of witnesses. Where there is irrefutable DNA evidence.

But the rest I'd argue rely on two sides presenting witnesses and a judgement on the reliability, consistency and accuracy of said witnesses?

[Bruce Rioja]

Bruce, it's not '100%' but it's close. You're asking people to find as 'fact' what happened when they weren't there. Without CCTV or a several witnesses you can never be 100% sure, and even then some might argue you're not. You seem happy enough that Pistorius is guilty but there's no-way anyone (except him I suppose) can say with 100% certainty that he did it. Those 'nah that's bollocks, no chance' reactions you have to his claims are what is meant by a doubt not being 'reasonable'.

Without having seen the evidence of both sides I have no idea whether it's surprising or not.

Where someone is found guilty of all counts I don't necessarily find it that surprising, the one's I'm never really convinced about are where all evidence is testimony, and they're found guilty of 1 out 10 or so.

The two cases aren't comparable at all, Pru. One, we hear, is packed to the rafters with forensic evidence, not least of which is a dead body, whereas in the other one a woman is saying that a bloke touched her inappropriately some 40 years ago and has absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever beyond her version of events. If we are to live by the maxim that we are innocent until proven guilty then personally I'd need more by way of yer actual evidence, way beyond a hazy recollection, before convicting someone. Now, of course, I wasn't at the trial but I fail to see how anything beyond the balance of possibilities could possibly have been established here.

[thebish]

well - except in the pistorius case - the trial is not about whether he killed her - but about whether he MEANT to kill her.. the existence of a dead body isn't then such clearcut evidence!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Bruce, it's not '100%' but it's close. You're asking people to find as 'fact' what happened when they weren't there. Without CCTV or a several witnesses you can never be 100% sure, and even then some might argue you're not. You seem happy enough that Pistorius is guilty but there's no-way anyone (except him I suppose) can say with 100% certainty that he did it. Those 'nah that's bollocks, no chance' reactions you have to his claims are what is meant by a doubt not being 'reasonable'.

Without having seen the evidence of both sides I have no idea whether it's surprising or not.

Where someone is found guilty of all counts I don't necessarily find it that surprising, the one's I'm never really convinced about are where all evidence is testimony, and they're found guilty of 1 out 10 or so.

The two cases aren't comparable at all, Pru. One, we hear, is packed to the rafters with forensic evidence, not least of which is a dead body, whereas in the other one a woman is saying that a bloke touched her inappropriately some 40 years ago and has absolutely no corroborating evidence whatsoever beyond her version of events. If we are to live by the maxim that we are innocent until proven guilty then personally I'd need more by way of yer actual evidence, way beyond a hazy recollection, before convicting someone. Now, of course, I wasn't at the trial but I fail to see how anything beyond the balance of possibilities could possibly have been established here.

I guess because it wasn't one woman. I would have doubts about a forty year-old memory when the girl was 8. There were, however, four women over whom he was accused, and several others who recounted incidents from other jurisdictions as 'corroboration'. I guess the jury felt this tipped the balance, though they were out a long time so clearly thought long and hard.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Pistorius is claiming not guilty to murder - there is evidence to be weighed outside of a simple one person says one thing and one person another.
Harris is all about one person saying one thing and another person another.
Justice, also, needs to be seen to be done... it won't be in this case... never would be whatever the outcome, which is why it was piss poor justice before the trial even started.

[Bijou Bob]

Apparently 23 other victims of Harris both in the UK and Oz have come forward recently. I presume that anyone who has any doubts about his guilt will have a rapid change of mindset once he pleads guilty to the outstanding charges of possessing indecent images of children.

[BWFC_Insane]

Pistorius is claiming not guilty to murder - there is evidence to be weighed outside of a simple one person says one thing and one person another.
Harris is all about one person saying one thing and another person another.
Justice, also, needs to be seen to be done... it won't be in this case... never would be whatever the outcome, which is why it was piss poor justice before the trial even started.

How is that any different to Pistorius? There is not one piece if evidence that can prove whether he meant to kill her or thought it was an intruder conclusively.

That trial comes down to whether Pistorius is believed or not, pure and simple.

[Bruce Rioja]

That trial comes down to whether Pistorius is believed or not, pure and simple.

Bollocks. There are a whole sequence of events leading up to it, along with the testimonies of others, which will either support or fly in the face of Pistorius's version.

[BWFC_Insane]

That trial comes down to whether Pistorius is believed or not, pure and simple.

Bollocks. There are a whole sequence of events leading up to it, along with the testimonies of others, which will either support or fly in the face of Pistorius's version.

Not conclusively though. Not even close. Even the prosecution are saying it comes down to probabilities. His story is less probable you'd argue. But it isn't impossible and isn't contradictory to any definitive evidence.

As far as I can tell his story may be improbable, but certainly the states case is far from ever possibly going to be 100% provable...

[bobo the clown]

Not conclusively though. Not even close. Even the prosecution are saying it comes down to probabilities. His story is less probable you'd argue. But it isn't impossible and isn't contradictory to any definitive evidence.

As far as I can tell his story may be improbable, but certainly the states case is far from ever possibly going to be 100% provable...

In which case there is absolutely no point, ever, of taking something not palpably self evident and proven by sheer fact to a trial.

[BWFC_Insane]

Not conclusively though. Not even close. Even the prosecution are saying it comes down to probabilities. His story is less probable you'd argue. But it isn't impossible and isn't contradictory to any definitive evidence.

As far as I can tell his story may be improbable, but certainly the states case is far from ever possibly going to be 100% provable...

In which case there is absolutely no point, ever, of taking something not palpably self evident and proven by sheer fact to a trial.

That's the point I'm making. I'm saying that beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean taking away anything that isn't totally provable.

Reasonable is the key word and I would argue will mean different things in different contexts. For example a murder trial where it is a question of 'who' might have a different set of reasonable doubts to one that is a question of 'did ya mean to'.

In the Harris case it comes down to witnesses and victims against Harris and his defence witnesses. There really is no other evidence. But if you argue that can never be beyond reasonable doubt you could probably chuck out a significant proportion of rape cases, which essentially rely on one person's word against another. Or as Pru says domestic violence......

[Bruce Rioja]

In the Harris case it comes down to witnesses and victims against Harris and his defence witnesses. There really is no other evidence. But if you argue that can never be beyond reasonable doubt you could probably chuck out a significant proportion of rape cases, which essentially rely on one person's word against another. Or as Pru says domestic violence......

In your last post you mentioned (the balance of) probability. What I said earlier, and quite clearly, is that I fail to see how the jury got any further than the balance of possibility with Harris's case.

[BWFC_Insane]

In the Harris case it comes down to witnesses and victims against Harris and his defence witnesses. There really is no other evidence. But if you argue that can never be beyond reasonable doubt you could probably chuck out a significant proportion of rape cases, which essentially rely on one person's word against another. Or as Pru says domestic violence......

In your last post you mentioned (the balance of) probability. What I said earlier, and quite clearly, is that I fail to see how the jury got any further than the balance of possibility with Harris's case.

Be interesting to see for sure. Though testimony can be quite revealing I think. I know you don't like the idea of it coming down to who is more believable but I suspect that is what many trials boil down to. My suspicion is multiple victims giving credible testimony is hard to ignore especially if additionally the accused is far from credible.

On this subject there was a documentary series on the BBC a while ago about death row. It showed in a on hour program details of a trial about a murder of several people. Long and short was as the details were relayed it seemed there was barely any evidence. Of course the jury found him guilty after consulting with God. You really never want to be in a trial in the Deep South was the message I took away from it......

[Montreal Wanderer]

In the Harris case it comes down to witnesses and victims against Harris and his defence witnesses. There really is no other evidence. But if you argue that can never be beyond reasonable doubt you could probably chuck out a significant proportion of rape cases, which essentially rely on one person's word against another. Or as Pru says domestic violence......

In your last post you mentioned (the balance of) probability. What I said earlier, and quite clearly, is that I fail to see how the jury got any further than the balance of possibility with Harris's case.

Be interesting to see for sure. Though testimony can be quite revealing I think. I know you don't like the idea of it coming down to who is more believable but I suspect that is what many trials boil down to. My suspicion is multiple victims giving credible testimony is hard to ignore especially if additionally the accused is far from credible.

On this subject there was a documentary series on the BBC a while ago about death row. It showed in a on hour program details of a trial about a murder of several people. Long and short was as the details were relayed it seemed there was barely any evidence. Of course the jury found him guilty after consulting with God. You really never want to be in a trial in the Deep South was the message I took away from it......

Not if you are black and poor....

[Prufrock]

It's worth stressing that the burden is the same in both cases. If your case is based only on witness statements from victims you don't don't get a pass, or a lowering of the standard. That's why guilty verdicts are much rarer in those sort of cases, but not impossible. Anyone who has seen a bunch of kids where one has done something stupid and they're arguing over what has happened may realise that you can be certain beyond reasonable doubt with only witness statements. Equally there are cases where you've an inkling but you can't know. In those cases you don't get guilty verdicts.

The only issue with Pistorius is whether he knew it was his missus or an intruder. The evidence isn't only his statement, but equally there is no 'conclusive' evidence and there is no way you can ever answer that question 100%. I'm not comparing the likelihood that the claims are truthful, just that they both involve making findings of 'fact' that you can never know for certain. It's not the same as 'knowing' that someone was shot with a particular gun.

I get the hesitation btw, and don't think it's a clear-cut thing; there is an argument that convictions shouldn't be possible on the basis of a confession alone without any corroboration because there is a history of people admitting to things they haven't done. Personally, I think the most important thing is maintaining the level of the burden regardless of the evidence.