iaink

You surprise me as someone with experience in the legal field. The pressure on the victims when they do have the courage to confront their attackers is immense, and the legal requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that in a situation like this, where there are often only 2 people present at the event in question, the accused is acquitted anyway unless there is some physical evidence to back up the accuser (little chance of that after 20-30 years). Thats one reason its extraordinary that these cases have made it to trial, the prosecution usually prefers to put its resources on what it considers to be near certain convictions.

An example of how the court is weighted from a case near and dear to me. The Crown prosecutor had managed to collect a lot of evidence from multiple witnesses against a pedophile. However, the judge rejected the potential testimony of 2 witnesses who were prepared to testify that the accused had full on raped them because the case that the crown actually brought to trial was only for a "groping" type of assault. The end result was it was one witnesses word against the accused and he walked, probably to offend again as he had numerous grandchildren, not one of whom could be pursuaded to attend the bastards funeral.

Its reasonable to say that the accused should be able to remain anonymous, although with the nature of news and celebrity its going to be hard to maintain that blackout, especially in an internet age, however, to suggest that the accusers should be named in the case of a not guilty verdict shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what they have already gone through just to get to the point that charges have been laid.

bats

Droit de seigneur eh?

I never found them to be very funny and nor did one groper once i hit him. I was worried sick what might happen if he reported me for that thwack, instead the slimeball bought me flowers. That made it all ok didn't it.

Seriously, your views are strange.

Tirytory

All these celebrities exploited their fame and position of relative power for their own needs but now expect a degree of annominity...well too bad. These case are all too close to home. The law as it stands is all too weighted against the victims.

Almost Canadian

Not so. The jury will convict or acquit depending upon what they decide the "facts" were. They are the sole decision makers in that respect

If they were prepared to give such evidence, why was he not tried for rape? If he walked, it was because the fact finder did not accept her version of events. You may not like the decision but that is the system we have.

In any event, just because the accused has previously committed 100 burglaries, it does not automatically follow that he committed the 101st one. Each one has to be proven.

Thank you for the dressing down.

I have been in Court enough to know that some people make accusations based upon malice and little else. If it is OK that the allegations made against the accused are reported, it seems only fair that, if acquitted, the name of the accuser should also be released. As I said above, my preferred procedure would be that there is no reporting until a verdict is rendered. Character assassination by media is no picnic for those acquitted either.

Jingsamichty

This thread reminds me, I think I'll watch Canadian TV tonight to see Mrs Slocombe getting her pussy stroked and John Inman measuring mens' inside legs with a smutty smirk.

Ah, the 70s... just made it to Canada.

Tangram

Allegedly ( my lawyer asked me to post on your behalf ).

Almost Canadian

Does this apply to those such as Craig Charles too?

Almost Canadian

One wonders if you would wish to have your husband "exposed" and whether you would protect the identity of the accuser if he was acquitted.

Tirytory

Well the convicted celebrities, don't think I mentioned names

Tirytory

Too close to home read first hand experience....

Tirytory

I'm always aware of what a possible malicious statement could do to my husbands career, as is he, and in his job I always hope that he works to not putting himself in any kind of compromising situation so he could be boyond reproach.

iaink

Because they had seen the way their sister had been ostracized by the family for daring to raise the elephant in the room, and also because they were appalled at the way the legal system had treated her.

Basically they were not prepared to be the lightening rod in the middle so were not prepared to press charges. They were however prepared to testify in support of their sisters case, but the judge spiked that.

If you ask me the crown screwed up royally, and to be fair he did apologize, but he was at a complete loss to explain why the judge would make such a ruling.

Strangely enough the old bastards will made no mention of one of his kids eh... Oh yes, and it turns out he bought the silence of another daughter who is now the executor of his will and who seemingly managed to buy a 60 acre chunk of land for $1 that was originally intended for someone else

Almost Canadian

OK, so please explain to me the logic for not exposing the accuser if acquitted, if they is to be no reporting ban until the verdict?

As can be seen from the posts above, lots of people believe that, if taken to Trial, the accused is guilty.

PeterF

I never once said I thought it was all OK, what I am saying was the general perception in the day was not as it is today.

I agree that someone who had their bottom pinched etc in those days would have been as welcoming to it as they would today, but it was 'almost' acceptable at the time (the 70's).

In my mind there is a vast difference between a Jimmy Saville, who it appears was a predatory pedophile and Travis who it appears was a bit of a male chauvinist who took advantage of his position to slap an arse or grope a breast.

Both are wrong but to my mind one is worth picking up 30-40 years later and the other is not.

I can't believe someone would be traumatized for 40 years after having her underwear felt by a perv, but a child assaulted, yes I could.

Almost Canadian

Do you believe, for example, that juries should be informed of all of the other offences for which each accused has been convicted during the course of each new trial?