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

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst of course some people do lie, it is not as simple as saying that every time a man is found not guilty of rape the woman (or man) 'accusing' him is a liar.

But that's exactly ( whilst not so stated) what the law says must be done by declaring him not guilty. If he's not guilty then he's innocent of the crime. The rest of his (speaking of anyone) history, is irrelevant. The law makes her a liar if anyone does.

[thebish]

What Monty said.

He hasn't been 'found' innocent, he's been found not guilty. That's not a distinction without a difference. The question the jury was asked was whether they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Now they may have thought she was lying, or they have simply decided they couldn't tell.

I do a bit of volunteering for a domestic violence charity. They help people get civil injunctions because in so many cases there is no point going down the criminal route because the nature of domestic violence means there often aren't witnesses and so it's one person's word against another. That doesn't mean that those women are all liars.

Whilst of course some people do lie, it is not as simple as saying that every time a man is found not guilty of rape the woman (or man) 'accusing' him is a liar.

^ this is true - and it is possible to say this without saying this particular bloke is therefore, guilty. The most that can be said, sadly, is that legally he has been found not guilty - but as with so many situations - what ACTUALLY happened - only the two parties involved can be sure...

that said - having been found not guilty - he, of course, should be allowed to continue a normal life... tragically - this will be very difficult for him to achieve... mud sticks, as they say..

i, for one, not knowing what happened, would not be rushing to accuse the woman of lying and prosecute her for perjury...

I may be wrong - but doesn't the scottish system have another verdict in between guilty and not guilty - summat like "not proven"??

[Prufrock]

I don't know, but I don't like the idea of a middle ground. He's not guilty, and as such rightly deemed innocent (but not 'found' innocent). He ought to be able to get on with his life (but probably won't be able to).

I think my point is better illustrated. We (rightly) don't know the workings of the jury's vote, but imagine they went 6-6 on a case like this. Now the defendant is rightly found 'not guilty', but the jury have no more found the 'victim' guilty of lying than they have the defendant of rape.

[thebish]

I don't know, but I don't like the idea of a middle ground. He's not guilty, and as such rightly deemed innocent (but not 'found' innocent). He ought to be able to get on with his life (but probably won't be able to).

I think my point is better illustrated. We (rightly) don't know the workings of the jury's vote, but imagine they went 6-6 on a case like this. Now the defendant is rightly found 'not guilty', but the jury have no more found the 'victim' guilty of lying than they have the defendant of rape.

i wasn't advocating a "not proven" verdict - merely asking aloud if i had remembered that right! to me "not proven" is just a state of limbo - which can't be good for either party...

for those loudly proclaiming that being found not guilty is necessarily the same as being found innocent - have a wee look back at the harry redknapp thread... he was found not guilty... it doesn't appear to stop people making the same allusions to those allegations!

Pru is right - we don't find people Innocent - we find them not guilty - and by that we mean that the jury considers that the necessary burden of proof has not been achieved.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

My problem is that there was no other evidence apart from the woman's word. No forensic evidence or even third party evidence, and no other corroborating evidence. As I said, to me, that loudly shouts 'Innocent' rather than merely not guilty.
My secondary concern is that now her anonymity is guaranteed, and if she did fabricate the entire story (which is quite possible), what is to stop her carrying out the same exercise on another innocent party - even the law wouldn't know she's done it a second, or third, or [etc.], time.

[thebish]

i've always had a problem with the anonymity logic... if the accuser is given anonymity then so should the accusee... ther accusee has every bit as much to lose, if not more... the logic is often explained as giving the opportunity for other accusees to come forward and thus make the case stronger... to me - this sounds like - someone reckons this person is guilty of summat - anyone else want to jump on board and try to help us make it stick?

(and - to some extent I can also see the logic in this - lots of cases have needed one woman to break cover before others have the courage to think that they might be listened to - that there might be strength in numbers - but it DOES seem like a huge opportunity for a bloke to be abused by false allegation...)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

i've always had a problem with the anonymity logic... if the accuser is given anonymity then so should the accusee... ther accusee has every bit as much to lose, if not more... the logic is often explained as giving the opportunity for other accusees to come forward and thus make the case stronger... to me - this sounds like - someone reckons this person is guilty of summat - anyone else want to jump on board and try to help us make it stick?

(and - to some extent I can also see the logic in this - lots of cases have needed one woman to break cover before others have the courage to think that they might be listened to - that there might be strength in numbers - but it DOES seem like a huge opportunity for a bloke to be abused by false allegation...)

and yet another reason why I'm uncomfortable with this approach. F'instance, when prosecuting a burglar, the jury cannot be told about all the other unsavoury stuff a particular individual on trial gets up to, and yet, in the cases where the accusers are basically anonymous to the outside world, the more the merrier. There seems to be fundamental contradiction here- almost like the law is schizophrenic!

[bobo the clown]

i've always had a problem with the anonymity logic... if the accuser is given anonymity then so should the accusee... ther accusee has every bit as much to lose, if not more... the logic is often explained as giving the opportunity for other accusees to come forward and thus make the case stronger... to me - this sounds like - someone reckons this person is guilty of summat - anyone else want to jump on board and try to help us make it stick?

(and - to some extent I can also see the logic in this - lots of cases have needed one woman to break cover before others have the courage to think that they might be listened to - that there might be strength in numbers - but it DOES seem like a huge opportunity for a bloke to be abused by false allegation...)

Indeed. The Stuart Hall case was given strength by the fact that many more came forward once it hit the press and the claims were very, very similar .... surely only a major option for 'famous people' cases.

The same applies to the myriad of claims against Savile.

Interestingly in the Kevin Webster (sic) case was that no other claimants came forward. Not a one. There seemed to be nothing other than the girl's word against his. The jury, for interest, was 8 women, 4 men and ... had he been found guilty the sentence would have been very significant indeed.

I suppose it's in his hands whether to bring a private claim for damages against her, but as said, she probably has nothing. I do think that the anonymity variation is weighted too heavily against (typically) the man and that it continues even after a not-guilty verdict.

I did find it interesting that, even in evidence by the guy himself, he had to more or less describe himself as a pretty unsavoury character. Loved that after all that the first thing he said on the Court steps was "I'm off for a pint".

[TANGODANCER]

for those loudly proclaiming that being found not guilty is necessarily the same as being found innocent - have a wee look back at the harry redknapp thread... he was found not guilty... it doesn't appear to stop people making the same allusions to those allegations!

Don't exagerate Bish. Nobody's "loudly proclaiming" anything, just passing views based on the fact that we don't know one way or the other. If someone isn't guilty of a charge then they shouldn't have to carry any baggage from it. Why have law and trials if they leave doubt? Are there really scales of justice? One goes up, one goes down, but equally? If the verdict had gone the other way the penalty would indeed be serious. As it is it will just die the death probably.

[bobo the clown]

for those loudly proclaiming that being found not guilty is necessarily the same as being found innocent - have a wee look back at the harry redknapp thread... he was found not guilty...

Cor .... so I'm OK to say Harry Rednapp isn't innocent, just wasn't guilty ??

[thebish]

for those loudly proclaiming that being found not guilty is necessarily the same as being found innocent - have a wee look back at the harry redknapp thread... he was found not guilty...

Cor .... so I'm OK to say Harry Rednapp isn't innocent, just wasn't guilty ??

harry redknapp was found not guilty - that meaning that the jury found the weight of evidence insufficient to convict him - and that would cover everything from ZERO evidence right up to just below whatever the weight of evidence (in some cases it is "beyond all reasonable doubt") is deemed necessary to convict.


it's not really a matter of opinion, it's just how it is! the way our justice system works - we find people guilty or not guilty.

"not guilty" means that the standard of proof required for that particular kind of trial/case has not been met - that's it - and it is is just not the same as declaring someone innocent!

like it or not - that' just the way our legal system works - there is always room for doubt in a not guilty verdict..

I'm not arguing for or against it - just saying that's how it is! he hasn't been found innocent, it has been judged that the weight of evidence is not sufficient for a guilty verdict - so he is not guilty.

whether or not he did it - I don't know any more than you do - but I shall proceed on the assumption that he didn't because that seems like the most obvious and natural and "just" response to make.

[bobo the clown]

Nope ... I shall always wrinkle my nose and, with careful intonation say "well, he wasn't actually found guilty !!

[thebish]

Nope ... I shall always wrinkle my nose and, with careful intonation say "well, he wasn't actually found guilty !!

careful - you'll have tango after you with his scales of justice...

[Bruce Rioja]

Where does the presumption that a person remains innocent until proven guilty come into this then? Not guilty - Ergo - Innocent. Easy.

[thebish]

Where does the presumption that a person remains innocent until proven guilty come into this then? Not guilty - Ergo - Innocent. Easy.

you might say he is innocent - but that's not that same as saying the court has declared you innocent.

and i suspect that phrase only really means "legally innocent" until legally proven guilty - ie.

nobody actually believes that everyone is actually innocent until a court finds them guilty - do they?

[Bruce Rioja]

nobody actually believes that everyone is actually innocent until a court finds them guilty - do they?

If a jury of 12 people, having had all the evidence presented before them find a fellow innocent, who are the rest of the population that know nothing of the facts, nor the evidence provided by either side to stand by saying that there's no smoke without fire. You simply do not know.

[thebish]

nobody actually believes that everyone is actually innocent until a court finds them guilty - do they?

If a jury of 12 people, having had all the evidence presented before them find a fellow innocent, who are the rest of the population that know nothing of the facts, nor the evidence provided by either side to stand by saying that there's no smoke without fire. You simply do not know.

exactly - we don't...

[Worthy4England]

nobody actually believes that everyone is actually innocent until a court finds them guilty - do they?

If a jury of 12 people, having had all the evidence presented before them find a fellow innocent, who are the rest of the population that know nothing of the facts, nor the evidence provided by either side to stand by saying that there's no smoke without fire. You simply do not know.

exactly - we don't...

Aye, but there's no smoke without fire...

[Prufrock]

nobody actually believes that everyone is actually innocent until a court finds them guilty - do they?

If a jury of 12 people, having had all the evidence presented before them find a fellow innocent, who are the rest of the population that know nothing of the facts, nor the evidence provided by either side to stand by saying that there's no smoke without fire. You simply do not know.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I haven't seen anybody suggest or even hint that Michael Le Vell is not, in fact, innocent.

I think its important to separate the two strands to this.

The first is whether or not you are in fact guilty or innocent, which is not determined by a trial, but by what actually happened. Obviously, if I murder someone, but get found not guilty, it doesn't mean I didn't murder them.

The second is the legal position. It's a fundamental principle of the constitution of this country, and all civilised ones, that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The point I'm making is simply that a jury did not decide that, on the evidence before them, they were positively satisfied that he is innocent, and that the girl lied. They answered the only question put before them: is there sufficient evidence for you to say that beyond reasonable doubt he did it? They said no. That makes him innocent to you or me, but doesn't affect whether or not he (or anyone else tried for a crime) did it (and so his actual innocence); as thebish says, it's likely only he and the girl know this. I wholeheartedly agree with your point that for the rest of us, this ought to be enough to say 'he is innocent'. It wont be for some cretins, but there you go.

My issue is with those who have turned on the girl. To return to my point above, when asked the question 'is he guilty beyond reasonable doubt?' 6 may have thought he definitely did it, and said 'yes he is' and 6 thought she definitely lied and so said 'no he isn't'. Quite correctly the verdict would have been 'not guilty'; however, had the same jury instead been asked the question 'are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she lied?' 6 would have said 'yes she did' and 6 'no she didn't'. And that's without factoring in the likelihood of some saying 'I just don't know'.

I know you haven't said it, but my point generally is that people cannot say a jury has found that she lied or made it up. They have not.

I understand the concern people have regarding anonymity, I just think it would be the lesser of two bad options. I have a friend who was raped at Uni who couldn't face going to the police about it. Later, acting in a student advisory role, she persuaded another girl who had been raped, of which there was CCTV of her walking home drunk and being dragged down an alley, to go to the police. The girl had samples taken, was interviewed, and went through an ordeal that is awful to think about, and then the CPS said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. There are people who get away with awful crimes of this nature because victims don't come forward. If keeping their anonymity means more victims come forward, and more rapists get convicted, then I think it's worth serious consideration. I take the view that it makes it easier for malicious liars, but I think it's the lesser evil. I also think that given mud sticks in particular with these cases, that defendants should be granted anonymity too. I know it can sometimes lead to others coming forward, but I don't think that is a fair price.

[TANGODANCER]

I also think that given mud sticks in particular with these cases, that defendants should be granted anonymity too. I know it can sometimes lead to others coming forward, but I don't think that is a fair price.

In this day and age, Pru, what chance anonymity for anyone? The press, paparazzi or CCTV cameras will get you somewhere along the line. Even 1984 is almost thirty years in the past.