RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


Darth Marenghi -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 9:33:28 PM)

Well, innocent until proven guilty guys.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (3/9/2013 10:47:14 AM)

[image]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1471/rjgl.jpg[/image]




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:34:28 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24032449

Michael Le Vell found not guilty.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:38:03 PM)

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 5:40:40 PM)

Well let's have the accusers mug on the front page of every newspaper for a few days then. What a fucking bitch.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 7:03:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 8:23:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.


Equally, though, childhood abuse and blocked memory go hand in hand to the extent it's almost commonplace. Had I read that comment before the verdict it would obviously have been worse - but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/9/2013 10:00:57 PM)

I have no idea if the Coronation Street bloke did what he was accused of... if he did that awful shit, then he belongs in a deep dark cell... but if there is no solid proof, could any rational jury convict him?

I hear that the young girl behind the curtain was crying her eyes out a lot of the time... it must have been awful for the jury to hear.  But a court trial has to go by solid facts... and there were none in this case.  And if you're putting someone on trial who puts on a performance for a living, how can you judge him against someone else who may or may not be putting on a performance?  Are we going to put some acting coaches on the stand to judge who is more realistic?

I truly hope that Mr Le Vell is innocent.  And, if not, that the 'victim', if thats what she is, makes a decent life for herself.

What a grubby, awful case.  I'd have hated to be on that jury. 




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/9/2013 1:23:00 PM)

quote:

but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.


No it's not... I would tell my brief to use everything in his arsenal to prove what a lying little cow she is! [:@]





Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/9/2013 1:25:02 PM)


quote:


I truly hope that Mr Le Vell is innocent. 



He is innocent, he's the victim here... and her identity is to remain secret forever.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 11:13:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.


Equally, though, childhood abuse and blocked memory go hand in hand to the extent it's almost commonplace. Had I read that comment before the verdict it would obviously have been worse - but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.


True, but her lack of recollection wasn't the only reason he was found innocent - and lest we forget, we're talking about someone who wasn't abused here (by Le Vell, anyway).
And as Sinatra said, if it was me being wrongly accused of raping a child and I knew for a fact the girl was lying I'm pretty sure I'd want my lawyer to expose the 'agonising lack of detail' in her claims too.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 11:24:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

His lawyer sounds awful - there's a quote in there about him saying someone who claimed to be abused at 6 had an 'agonising lack of detail'. Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused? [&:]


She also claimed he'd abused her as recently as three years ago though. Perhaps the lawyer's choice of words wasn't great but it may have just been a polite way of saying she was clearly lying (which she was).
I've read quite a lot about the case and I reckon it was pretty clear from the off that the accusations were pure fantasy. While I don't particularly have muchsympathy for the girl at the minute, I reckon it's her idiot mother who should be taking a long hard look at herself.


Equally, though, childhood abuse and blocked memory go hand in hand to the extent it's almost commonplace. Had I read that comment before the verdict it would obviously have been worse - but fighting for your client or not. it's IMO a bit off.


True, but her lack of recollection wasn't the only reason he was found innocent - and lest we forget, we're talking about someone who wasn't abused here (by Le Vell, anyway).
And as Sinatra said, if it was me being wrongly accused of raping a child and I knew for a fact the girl was lying I'm pretty sure I'd want my lawyer to expose the 'agonising lack of detail' in her claims too.


Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused?

My initial query. Because this seems to be symptomatic of the approach used by defence lawyers against people the court do decide are telling the truth as well. We know this because it's one of the key concerns with the way rape victims are treated in court, and considered to be one of reasons it's difficult to even get the cases to court.

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 12:38:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.


I imagine having to defend some monster that's 100% guilty of a heinous crime and you know it, you'd develop some sort of emotional detachment mechanism.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 2:14:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Could you imagine him using that against someone a court felt had been abused?

My initial query. Because this seems to be symptomatic of the approach used by defence lawyers against people the court do decide are telling the truth as well. We know this because it's one of the key concerns with the way rape victims are treated in court, and considered to be one of reasons it's difficult to even get the cases to court.

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.


Well, I don't profess to know much about the law but isn't this just what they do? The prosecuter's tone and strategy in accusing Le Vell of being a paedophile was pretty brutal too.
In answer to your initial query - I'd hazard a guess that yes, he probably would.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 2:47:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.


I imagine having to defend some monster that's 100% guilty of a heinous crime and you know it, you'd develop some sort of emotional detachment mechanism.

I used to work in a solicitors office a few years back, and one of the solicitors told me about one of his first murder cases where his client was the accused.

He was found innocent, and as they left the courtroom and said all the congratulatory messages to each other etc, my colleague jokingly asked the guy "So, did you do it?"

A nod of the head, a sly grin, and he disappears into the crowd. My colleague made a mental note never to ask that question again.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 3:11:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.


I imagine having to defend some monster that's 100% guilty of a heinous crime and you know it, you'd develop some sort of emotional detachment mechanism.

I used to work in a solicitors office a few years back, and one of the solicitors told me about one of his first murder cases where his client was the accused.

He was found innocent, and as they left the courtroom and said all the congratulatory messages to each other etc, my colleague jokingly asked the guy "So, did you do it?"

A nod of the head, a sly grin, and he disappears into the crowd. My colleague made a mental note never to ask that question again.


That's just reminded me of the ending to the classic Porridge episode Pardon Me.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 3:37:17 PM)

O/T definitely on the short list of best bits of Porridge [:)]




jcthefirst -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 3:40:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I know they need to defend their clients to the best of their ability, but sometimes the tone and strategy they use takes my breath away.


I imagine having to defend some monster that's 100% guilty of a heinous crime and you know it, you'd develop some sort of emotional detachment mechanism.

I used to work in a solicitors office a few years back, and one of the solicitors told me about one of his first murder cases where his client was the accused.

He was found innocent, and as they left the courtroom and said all the congratulatory messages to each other etc, my colleague jokingly asked the guy "So, did you do it?"

A nod of the head, a sly grin, and he disappears into the crowd. My colleague made a mental note never to ask that question again.


That sort of thing chills my blood.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 3:42:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T definitely on the short list of best bits of Porridge [:)]


After making that post I realised I had nothing much to do for the next couple of hours so I've dug out the DVD.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 3:45:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

O/T definitely on the short list of best bits of Porridge [:)]


After making that post I realised I had nothing much to do for the next couple of hours so I've dug out the DVD.


The constant repeats on the satellite channels ensure it's rare for a week to go by without me seeing at least 2-3 episodes.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 4:27:37 PM)

quote:

A nod of the head, a sly grin, and he disappears into the crowd. My colleague made a mental note never to ask that question again.


Creepy...




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 4:31:53 PM)

quote:

The prosecuter's tone and strategy in accusing Le Vell of being a paedophile was pretty brutal too.


Exactly...




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 4:33:42 PM)

Regarding the whole anonymity side of things.... that's a tough one, because as we saw with Stuart Hall, the publicity can flush out other victims...




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 9:10:06 PM)

So, to sum all it up... 'no evidence' does not mean 'not guilty'...

I truly hope that the case of the Coronation Street bloke is not one of these...




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (12/9/2013 11:41:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinatra

Regarding the whole anonymity side of things.... that's a tough one, because as we saw with Stuart Hall, the publicity can flush out other victims...


Yeah, I was reading the Manchester Evening News at lunch and they had two solicitor give opposing opinions on anonymity and the Hall case has put me on the side of non-anonymity. The "against" solicitor had represented many of Hall's victims and most of them thought it was just them it happened to.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (13/9/2013 10:21:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

So, to sum all it up... 'no evidence' does not mean 'not guilty'...

I truly hope that the case of the Coronation Street bloke is not one of these...



He is not guilty.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (13/9/2013 11:46:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

So, to sum all it up... 'no evidence' does not mean 'not guilty'...

I truly hope that the case of the Coronation Street bloke is not one of these...


I think it's blatantly obvious he's not guilty. You should read up on the case, in particular the decision made by the CPS to re-investigate the claims after the Savile scandal broke, despite being originally dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence, and also the character and reliability of not only the girl but her mother who was instrumental in pursuing the accusations and clearly something of a fantasist herself (unless her house really was haunted and all the exorcisms and blessings had no negative impact on her young daughter whatsoever...)




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (13/9/2013 12:09:16 PM)

If I was this LeVell guy, I would be seriously considering dragging the idiot mother into a libel case. I would be furious with her.

This is something that's going to stick with him despite the fact that he didn't do the things of which he was accused.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (13/9/2013 5:48:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

If I was this LeVell guy, I would be seriously considering dragging the idiot mother into a libel case. I would be furious with her.

This is something that's going to stick with him despite the fact that he didn't do the things of which he was accused.



I would imagine he just wants to move and rather than spend more time in court. There is also the problem that there are differing laws relating to libel which could result in a different result which could be more damaging than cathartic.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (13/9/2013 9:14:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

So, to sum all it up... 'no evidence' does not mean 'not guilty'...

I truly hope that the case of the Coronation Street bloke is not one of these...


I think it's blatantly obvious he's not guilty. You should read up on the case, in particular the decision made by the CPS to re-investigate the claims after the Savile scandal broke, despite being originally dismissed due to a complete lack of evidence, and also the character and reliability of not only the girl but her mother who was instrumental in pursuing the accusations and clearly something of a fantasist herself (unless her house really was haunted and all the exorcisms and blessings had no negative impact on her young daughter whatsoever...)


Woah, guys...

I wasn't saying that Mr Le Vell was guilty.  And I HAVE read up on the case...

I do believe that the whole thing is a total joke of a case... it looks like he's gonna get his job back and good luck to him.  I mean that sincerely.

I was just saying that just because there is no physical evidence, it doesn't mean that some awful shit didn't happen.  That's all.





Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.109375