Dave Lee Travis
Jan 21st 2014, 8:28 pm
#46
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Dave Lee Travis
The Judge makes decisions prior to the trial starting, sometimes during the trial, about evidence. S/he does so on the basis of rules of evidence that are known to the lawyers for both sides. What you appear to be arguing for is that a conviction should be obtained at all costs. Thankfully, the law doesn't agree with you.
I am not arguing for a conviction at all costs, I am arguing that the jury should be presented with sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, either for or against. In my view its hard to have too much information about the players when having to decide on the facts in a case such as this, how else are you supposed to decide where the truth really lies.
Last edited by iaink; Jan 21st 2014 at 8:40 pm.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:29 pm
#47
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,348
Re: Dave Lee Travis
My whole thing was that it was seen differently in those days, who watched the chauvinistic portrayals in 'Life on Mars' with a grimace and remembered yes it was a bit like that.
What he did was wrong, I'm sure in this day and age it would be stamped down on very quickly, in those days it was not. With it not being stamped down on the perpetrator would imagine himself being a bit of fun and no doubt get worse.
Now the world has changed and this type of thing is recognized for what it is at all levels. Today it would be stopped early, the person would be dealt with, probably a sacking.
So as i said, I believe its a waste of money to get a pensioner up in front of a court today for something he was allowed to get away with 30-40 years ago. Goes without saying if it was pedophilia, rape or murder then those would be some of the exceptions.
What he did was wrong, I'm sure in this day and age it would be stamped down on very quickly, in those days it was not. With it not being stamped down on the perpetrator would imagine himself being a bit of fun and no doubt get worse.
Now the world has changed and this type of thing is recognized for what it is at all levels. Today it would be stopped early, the person would be dealt with, probably a sacking.
So as i said, I believe its a waste of money to get a pensioner up in front of a court today for something he was allowed to get away with 30-40 years ago. Goes without saying if it was pedophilia, rape or murder then those would be some of the exceptions.
Do you think that everyone who is molested now automatically feels able to speak out? That they would be believed, and action swiftly taken? That they wouldn't fear repercussions, that they wouldn't be made to feel like they did something wrong, something to deserve it, both in and out of court? Really?
A 'waste of money' to prosecute someone for a suspected crime just because it was 30-40 years ago? Who gets to decide if a crime is still a crime because it was in the past? That's 30-40 years these women have lived with what happened to them. Might not seem like a lot to you, but trust me, it really actually is.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:31 pm
#48
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Heritage Valley in Edmonton
Posts: 894
Re: Dave Lee Travis
[QUOTE=bats;11090002][QUOTE=PeterF;11089977]
Those quotes from you show how flippantly you are dismissing groping breasts, touching a woman's knickers. You don't think they are serious actions enough to hurt, to leave a lasting memory. You side with the groper when you say it's a witch hunt. That you can't even see this confirms my opinion.
I never sided with the groper and yes I do think its a witch hunt that has cost the British public millions.
Those quotes from you show how flippantly you are dismissing groping breasts, touching a woman's knickers. You don't think they are serious actions enough to hurt, to leave a lasting memory. You side with the groper when you say it's a witch hunt. That you can't even see this confirms my opinion.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:32 pm
#50
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Its not the physical damage, those scars heal relatively quickly. Mentally it can take years and years to come to terms with in even the most basic way, and even then i suspect that those memories never really go completely away, you just learn how to deal with them.
Last edited by iaink; Jan 21st 2014 at 8:36 pm.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:37 pm
#51
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: Dave Lee Travis
What is the statute of limitations in the UK on sexual assaults? I saw a piece in the news today about a woman in the States who is bringing a civil suit against a (female) teacher who molested her years ago; the DA won't take up the criminal case because it's too long ago - lots of "allegedly"s and "media reports say" flying around, so it's hard to sieve out the facts...
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920
Jan 21st 2014, 8:40 pm
#52
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,348
Re: Dave Lee Travis
None, scroll down a bit to 'higher courts' under criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitat...iods_in_the_UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitat...iods_in_the_UK
Jan 21st 2014, 8:48 pm
#54
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Re: Dave Lee Travis
If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers tread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe.
Last edited by Almost Canadian; Jan 21st 2014 at 9:03 pm.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:51 pm
#55
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Jan 21st 2014, 8:53 pm
#56
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Re: Dave Lee Travis
I am not arguing for a conviction at all costs, I am arguing that the jury should be presented with sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, either for or against. In my view its hard to have too much information about the players when having to decide on the facts in a case such as this, how else are you supposed to decide where the truth really lies.
That applies to both sides: the fact that the accuser has been promiscuous previously does not mean that s/he consented on this particular occasion.
Jan 21st 2014, 8:56 pm
#57
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Re: Dave Lee Travis
What is the statute of limitations in the UK on sexual assaults? I saw a piece in the news today about a woman in the States who is bringing a civil suit against a (female) teacher who molested her years ago; the DA won't take up the criminal case because it's too long ago - lots of "allegedly"s and "media reports say" flying around, so it's hard to sieve out the facts...
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920
Civil law and criminal law are very different. IIRC, even in civil law, the Limitations Act prevents a Court with discretion to waive the limitation period if a fair trial is still possible (witnesses haven't died, etc.)
Jan 21st 2014, 8:56 pm
#58
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Heritage Valley in Edmonton
Posts: 894
Jan 21st 2014, 9:00 pm
#59
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Dave Lee Travis
They clearly believed the testimony to be relevant and admissible and that they could make a legal case for its inclusion, but the judge, after due deliberation, did not. They screwed up.
Last edited by iaink; Jan 21st 2014 at 9:06 pm.
Jan 21st 2014, 9:03 pm
#60
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Eh? How are the accusers going about their day to day lives in the current cases?
That's fine, so long as you accept that it is fine for the reputation of one person to be trashed, without them being able to identify the person responsible for the trashing.
If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers dread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe.
That's fine, so long as you accept that it is fine for the reputation of one person to be trashed, without them being able to identify the person responsible for the trashing.
If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers dread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe.