Not guilty - but pay up!

[Lloyd90]

On 17/10/2018 at 09:33, Gordon R said:

Better to be exact than post something dumb.

I will bow out on this one, as no-one can be 100% certain either way. That said, it would be nice if people stopped making nasty remarks about the girl, whilst no-one seems to dish out the same to the lad, who was found guilty.

You appear to be 100% certain that he is a rapist. Despite this being not found in criminal court. 

Although I’m sure you can say he must be because the sheriff in the civil court has decided he is. 

Some of us might not want to be rude about the lad, as he wasnt found guilty in a criminal court. 

I just truly believe in innocent until proven guilty. It’s not innocent until proven not found, it’s until proven guilty - and that means in a criminal court equipped and experienced to investigate that level of seriousness. 

 

Whats next? Shall we have murder trials on Judge Rinder? 

[figgy]

Nah Judge Judy

[Lloyd90]

5 minutes ago, figgy said:

Nah Judge Judy

She’s American ... 

her award for damages would have been $80,000,000. 

[Gordon R]

Lloyd90 - I have never said I was 100% convinced - please point me to that statement, before you start posting further inaccuracies.

The lad has been found guilty in a court of law. You seem to imply that this has no legal status.

Quote

Some of us might not want to be rude about the lad, as he wasnt found guilty in a criminal court. 

I see you don't extend the same courtesy to the girl, who hasn't been found guilty, unlike the lad. Bizarre doesn't hack it.

[Lloyd90]

33 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Lloyd90 - I have never said I was 100% convinced - please point me to that statement, before you start posting further inaccuracies.

The lad has been found guilty in a court of law. You seem to imply that this has no legal status.

I see you don't extend the same courtesy to the girl, who hasn't been found guilty, unlike the lad. Bizarre doesn't hack it.

You stated several times - she HAS been raped. That’s a definitive statement. Would you like me to go back through the posts? 

Re the Legal status - I just don’t believe the status is the same. 

If the civil court can decide he’s guilty of rape then why don’t they have all rape trials in civil courts? 

Thats not how we do things because of the seriousness of the cases.

 

Ive also never accused the girl of being a rapist. 

[Gordon R]

Lloyd90 - I said she has been raped because the Sherriff judged that to be the case. Are you 100% convinced of his innocence? If you are - on the basis of what?

You are content that people slag her off whilst treating the lad with respect - deserved or not. Hypocrite is the word.

Quote

Re the Legal status - I just don’t believe the status is the same. 

Is one an illegal court? Is it an amateur court? They are both courts of law.

Quote

Ive also never accused the girl of being a rapist. 

Is that your best?

[Lloyd90]

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Lloyd90 - I said she has been raped because the Sherriff judged that to be the case. Are you 100% convinced of his innocence? If you are - on the basis of what?

You are content that people slag her off whilst treating the lad with respect - deserved or not. Hypocrite is the word.

Is one an illegal court? Is it an amateur court? They are both courts of law.

Is that your best?

When have I slagged the girl off? How does that make me a hypocrite? 

Am I 100% convinced of his innocence? No. I’m 100% convinced that he was not found guilty in a court that deals with crimes of this nature. 

 

They may both be courts of law but they aren’t the same, otherwise why have separate courts? Why have very serious cases in courts like the Old Bailey if a local sheriff can do the job just fine? 

May as well get him on Jeremy Kyle on the old lie detector - we can all boo and cheer as the results come out and put the matter to bed. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

When have I slagged the girl off? How does that make me a hypocrite? 

Am I 100% convinced of his innocence? No. I’m 100% convinced that he was not found guilty in a court that deals with crimes of this nature. 

 

Read what I wrote, if you can read. Did I say you had slagged the girl off? You highlight what is wrong with the jury system - people don't listen or understand.

Despite your 100% assurance that he was found not guilty - the charge was "not proven".

Mungler has raised the only sensible argument in the lad's favour - he understands the system. I said I would bow out and I will, as I really can't waste time on people with closed minds and little knowledge.

Feel free to respond with a withering put down. I expect nothing less than your ego would demand.

 

[Retsdon]

19 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I’m 100% convinced that he was not found guilty in a court that deals with crimes of this nature. 

But he wasn't found 'not guilty' or that's what the verdict would have been. A 'not guilty' verdict was available to the criminal court and it was rejected. Rather the case was judged  to be 'not proven'' which, as others have pointed out, is an option available to Scottish courts when they they think the accused did the crime but the necessary bar of proof for a full 'guilty' verdict hasn't been reached. In other words, on the balance of probabilities they think he's guilty.  And that, one would suspect, is a very similar sort of balance of probabilities that the civil court would base its own finding on. Ergo, no court is in conflict with the other. They both thought he did it but the civil court wasn't obliged to prove it beyond doubt. Nothing to be fussed about...

[Lloyd90]

5 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

But he wasn't found 'not guilty' or that's what the verdict would have been. 

I didn’t say he was found not guilty. 

I said “he was not found guilty”. 

You have confused the order of my words in my last post. 

36 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Read what I wrote, if you can read. 

Despite your 100% assurance that he was found not guilty - the charge was "not proven".

Feel free to respond with a withering put down. I expect nothing less than your ego would demand.

 

First your first point I have responded above. 

For your second, a withering put down... was it not just yourself who suggested I can’t read sarcastically? 

And I believe you just suggested I was a hypocrite... 

I also believe this is the second time you have proclaimed to be leaving this thread? Perhaps that’s for the best. 

No need for insults to be thrown around by anyone. 

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

You have confused the order of my words in my last post. 

You're correct, my mistake. Nonetheless, I still think my point  - that there isn't a conflict between the judgments - still stands. As you say, he was not found guilty, but he wasn't viewed as innocent enough to be found 'not guilty' either. 

[Lloyd90]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

You're correct, my mistake. Nonetheless, I still think my point  - that there isn't a conflict between the judgments - still stands. As you say, he was not found guilty, but he wasn't viewed as innocent enough to be found 'not guilty' either. 

Bit of a lose lose situation for all involved. 

The woman doesn’t get justice if he did do it. 

The bloke doesn’t get to clear his name if he didn’t. 

[hambone]

Did he do it?

Did he have consent?

Did she consent?

Did the butler do it?

Was the criminal court right?

Was the civil court right?

Was the pied piper from Hamblin?

All answers available on tonight's episode of PW soap 

[henry d]

problem is peoples perception of guilt and innocence, he was found neither guilty nor innocent, the accusation was unproven. This is due, in my opinion, to the system in Scotland and it being left to people who are not experienced in law and more likely to be influenced by emotions and not being able to understand fully ideas concerning evidence. In the second trial the sheriff was the right person to give a better verdict than members of the public, as well intended as they were.

I've been to a few different courts in Scotland and my wife has been part of a jury and both of our experiences have been reflected on along with other people who were part of the system adding to our thoughts and I would be happy to see the end of the not proven verdict.

[12gauge82]

18 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

I didn’t say he was found not guilty. 

I said “he was not found guilty”. 

You have confused the order of my words in my last post. 

First your first point I have responded above. 

For your second, a withering put down... was it not just yourself who suggested I can’t read sarcastically? 

And I believe you just suggested I was a hypocrite... 

I also believe this is the second time you have proclaimed to be leaving this thread? Perhaps that’s for the best. 

No need for insults to be thrown around by anyone. 

By the very nature of our legal system, the fact he wasn't given a not guilty verdict means it is likely he was, they just couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which is actually a very high level of certainty, the civil court not bound by that level of proof has reached a guilty verdict which means he is very likely to have done it.

Edited October 19, 2018 by 12gauge82

[ehb102]

I am heartened to see so many men being reasonable about this case. I think anyone desperate to believe that the man involved has been unfairly treated, that he didn't do it, should be asking themselves why they think like that and how it looks to other people. 
 

 

 

[Lloyd90]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

By the very nature of our legal system, the fact he wasn't given a not guilty verdict means it is likely he was, they just couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which is actually a very high level of certainty, the civil court not bound by that level of proof has reached a guilty verdict which means he is very likely to have done it.

But the inverse is, by the very nature of the legal system, the fact that he was not convicted at criminal court stands that it’s not proven he did anything wrong. 

I could understand if the Sheriff had some information or evidence that was new and gave them insight that was never before seen, but they haven’t. 

They’ve basically just listened to both stories and decided “I like that persons story more than the other one.” 

Its also worrying that the woman’s legal fees were paid by someone else during the case. I don’t imagine the man had anyone paying for fancy lawyers in the civil case? 

Is It surprising to anyone that a person with expensive lawyers can present well at court? Especially after having a ‘trial run’ at another court before hand to see what works and what doesn’t. 

[andrewluke]

16 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

But the inverse is, by the very nature of the legal system, the fact that he was not convicted at criminal court stands that it’s not proven he did anything wrong. 

I could understand if the Sheriff had some information or evidence that was new and gave them insight that was never before seen, but they haven’t. 

They’ve basically just listened to both stories and decided “I like that persons story more than the other one.” 

Its also worrying that the woman’s legal fees were paid by someone else during the case. I don’t imagine the man had anyone paying for fancy lawyers in the civil case? 

Is It surprising to anyone that a person with expensive lawyers can present well at court? Especially after having a ‘trial run’ at another court before hand to see what works and what doesn’t. 

[Lloyd90]

2 hours ago, ehb102 said:

I am heartened to see so many men being reasonable about this case. I think anyone desperate to believe that the man involved has been unfairly treated, that he didn't do it, should be asking themselves why they think like that and how it looks to other people. 
 

 

 

Well I personally know someone, as well as worked (not as colleagues but as their care managers etc) with a few young men who have been falsely accused of rape. 

In all of the cases I have known, not only was it proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was proven 100% that it did not happen. Despite that, these young men’s lives were totally ruined, and will never be the same despite them being proven 100% innocent. 

So the reason some of us think the way we do, is because we think it’s quite important to you know, actually have evidence, rather than someone be able to accuse you of something, ruin your life and then in this case demand you pay them £80,000. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

But the inverse is, by the very nature of the legal system, the fact that he was not convicted at criminal court stands that it’s not proven he did anything wrong. 

I could understand if the Sheriff had some information or evidence that was new and gave them insight that was never before seen, but they haven’t. 

They’ve basically just listened to both stories and decided “I like that persons story more than the other one.” 

Its also worrying that the woman’s legal fees were paid by someone else during the case. I don’t imagine the man had anyone paying for fancy lawyers in the civil case? 

Is It surprising to anyone that a person with expensive lawyers can present well at court? Especially after having a ‘trial run’ at another court before hand to see what works and what doesn’t. 

Our legal system is complicated but it has led the way since magna-carta was first signed in 1215, although not perfect by any means, it's as fair a system as we will ever get and the only way to get a system where an innocent man never went to jail would be to never punish anyone, common law like rape has existed since the dawn of time and to my knowledge pre dates any type of criminal justice system even. I think if you want to highlight miscarriage of justice within our legal system you've chosen the wrong crime with rape, it has one of the lowest conviction rates, nearly everyone ever convicted of it denies it and never owns up to it, the biggest injustice with it is how many people get away with it, although I admit, it has to be that way or we'd risk sending many innocent people to prison for it, something that is very very rare at present. I obviously don't know the specific details of the case you've highlighted but to my knowledge he could be brought back in front of a criminal court at a later date due to the fact they were not happy he was innocent. It really is a tricky one but our legal system is like it is for very good reason.

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Our legal system is complicated but it has led the way since magna-carta was first signed in 1215, although not perfect by any means, it's as fair a system as we will ever get and the only way to get a system where an innocent man never went to jail would be to never punish anyone, common law like rape has existed since the dawn of time and to my knowledge pre dates any type of criminal justice system even. I think if you want to highlight miscarriage of justice within our legal system you've chosen the wrong crime with rape, it has one of the lowest conviction rates, nearly everyone ever convicted of it denies it and never owns up to it, the biggest injustice with it is how many people get away with it, although I admit, it has to be that way or we'd risk sending many innocent people to prison for it, something that is very very rare at present. I obviously don't know the specific details of the case you've highlighted but to my knowledge he could be brought back in front of a criminal court at a later date due to the fact they were not happy he was innocent. It really is a tricky one but our legal system is like it is for very good reason.

I’ve personally always thought of our legal system working as - “justice for those that can afford it”. 

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

I’ve personally always thought of our legal system working as - “justice for those that can afford it”. 

I'd say that was more relevant in civil law than the criminal courts, although your right it's not perfect, though again I'd say the balance allows too many guilty people to walk free, but I've no solution on how to fix that without risking punishing innocent men, I do believe while not perfect we have the best legal system in the world.

[henry d]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

But the inverse is, by the very nature of the legal system, the fact that he was not convicted at criminal court stands that it’s not proven he did anything wrong.

You still don`t seem to have a handle on the Scottish system the allegation was not proven and it was also not "disproven", there simply was not enough evidence ACCORDING TO THE JURY of people drawn from all walks of life and the not proven verdict is an indicator that the person probably is guilty just that the evidence to convict was at that time insufficient to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

You still don`t seem to have a handle on the Scottish system the allegation was not proven and it was also not "disproven", there simply was not enough evidence ACCORDING TO THE JURY of people drawn from all walks of life and the not proven verdict is an indicator that the person probably is guilty just that the evidence to convict was at that time insufficient to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said previously, if she said she didn’t consent and he said she did how can he possibly prove his innocence? 

It’s impossible unless he got a consent form signed by witnesses.  

I have a perfect understanding of the proposed system. There’s probably a reason it’s only used in Scotland and not the rest of the U.K. 

[Gordon R]

Against my better judgement - hard not to comment. Please don't get clever and have another pop - it makes you look silly.

Based on your premise, how could he ever be found guilty? You don't have an understanding - perfect or even basic. It isn't proposed - it's been there for a long, long time. Many English Laws are based in Scottish Law, which is considered to be superior.