blonde poker forum

breaking news on sky...

charged of raping a 22yrd old in 1976 and 10 counts of indecent assualt on girls between 1967- 1986

shocking

He's already due to stand trial on 3 charges in April.

Is there not a statutory time limit to report a crime?

He used to come to our restaurant sometimes, think I might still have one of his comedy ties somewhere  :(

I don't think there's a time limit for the Crown to take action against someone for committing a crime. Some jurisdictions IIRC distinguish between small crimes (misdemeanours) and set a time limit for those and more serious ones (felonies), which don't have time limits.

The difficulty here must be for the jury. How do you convict after all these years on a charge of indecent assault/rape?

And there is either a middle-aged woman who has spent 30 years haunted by a terrible secret or an 80 year old man who could spend the rest of his life in prison for something he didn't do.

Statue of limitations is 12 years but don't think it applies to murder etc

The awful conviction rate this country has for rape in this modern era is simply shocking in itself, so yes, I agree, how the CPS has proof of this is a strange one.  one assumes they have a solid case to charge.

No statute of limitations in UK criminal law. It only applies to contract and tort law.

They don't have "proof", but there must be substantial evidence in order to press charges and to proceed with a case. If a crime has been committed, then a trial is absolutely necessary, and if he's innocent it will be an ordeal for him, but potentially a chance to show his innocence.

Checked to see what the conviction rate is - I didn't realize it is as low as it is - just 59% for rape, compared to 74% for sexual offences, 72% for domestic violence and 86% overall. I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that; maybe just that it is hard to prove that someone did it. I suppose there is a question about whether they should be bringing such a high number of cases that fail.

I believe the conviction rates differ substantially depending on the circumstances. A rape in an alley has a much higher conviction rate than a rape after a night at a club at a one night stand's house. I seem to remember having been told this before, but how true these things are I cannot say.

Aren't most rapes carried out at home by someone the victim knows, and is often in a relationship with?  Isn't the problem in these cases that it's often one person's word against another, and determining if there was sex isn't the problem - it's determining if it was consensual or not, and the jury have to find the defendant 'guilty, beyond reasonable doubt'?

If it is soon after the incident, there are some pretty reliable medical tests.

To show consent?

Evidence of it, yes.

Aren't they supposed to believe that there is a reasonable chance of conviction before they prosecute? 59% success rate sounds like they are taking too many cases that won't succeed. There may be a problem with the courts but, if that is so, should the CPS be filtering out more cases? I guess they would then be criticized for the percentage of complainants they were blocking. Perhaps they genuinely don't want to be the ones preventing possible victims from getting justice (or they don't want to be seen as such). Whatever it is, I don't think 59% would be tolerated for other types of crime.

You do realise how many of these rape allegations don't even make court, and the low reporting rate too?

A signed consent form, video evidence...?

Yes. And?

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

If he has done the crimes, and there are enough people who give evidence he might confess his guilt?  He might plead guilty?

Hmmm.. not much of a case ... hoping he admits it all because loads of people said he did it..unfortunately in a court of law you need something called evidence... i believe the phrase is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.... for better or for worse English law is very clear

Testimony counts as evidence.

Anecdotes are not data.

There will be great difficulty with securing a conviction given the time that's passed, but also huge difficulty in running a defence.
Given that he's 80-odd and he's charged with things alleged to have happened over 25 years ago it's going to be a bit tricky to defend himself properly. Be some hefty lawyers fees on both sides anyway, as usual.

Testimony is evidence, yes. The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is no longer used - juries are told they must be "sure" of the defendant's guilt. I think the change was intended to slightly lessen the burden of proof required in the minds of jurors, so they didn't think, "well this could have happened and that could have happened, anything could have happened, so there's always a doubt". Using the word "sure" has its problems too though, as it does have slightly different meanings (referring to slightly different levels of certainty) in common usage.

Reasons for low conviction rates are several, quite complex, and probably not fully understood. But if anything, you could certainly argue that the low conviction rates achieved probably mean that those cases that the CPS does manage to get to court are generally all the more worthy of prosecution.

One major reason why so few cases end in a conviction is possibly the jury system and the behaviour of jurors. Since a jury is pretty much a random assortment of people, some are inevitably pretty thick and can't be relied on to pay attention, some come in with their own prejudiced views and can't be reasoned with by barristers or fellow jurors, and so on. Probably an increasing number are reluctant to convict without, for example, CCTV or DNA evidence, as the advance of technology changes people's perceptions and expectations of what "proof" should be. And the more serious the crime, you would think, the more "proof" the jury will require in order to convict. Conviction rates for sexual offences, especially historical ones, perhaps suffer both because they are serious offences that carry hefty sentences, upping the "proof" required in the minds of juries to make them willing to convict, and because they often lack this "proof" in the form of scientific evidence that they've seen on CSI.

On top of that, I'd guess that there's something of a psychological issue at play with juries whereby some of those who are capable of thought end up trying to think too hard (again, in serious cases especially). While half of them probably spend their Friday nights merrily torching the home of their local paediatrician, once they're made a juror they might tend to start thinking like someone who's supposed to think about stuff, and don't come to the same guilty verdict of which their everyday non-thinking mind would have been sure. A bit like people who obviously know a certain piece of general knowledge, but who become unsure about it when put on a TV quiz show playing for money.

So as a juror they might say, "Well it's just one person's word against another's - how can I be sure?" Whereas a week earlier they would probably have said: "Well, why on earth would the victim(s) put themselves through all this, and how can they spend hours giving evidence that sounds and feels like it's the truth, if not for the reason that it's true?"

With a persons future and in halls case pretty much the rest of his life I would want to be a couple of steps past sure... People do and say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons... Notoriety, publicity, attention seeking, making money from the story...of course he could be as guilty as sin.... But that unfortunately is irrelevant ..you have to prove it and after all this time I think a decent defence barrister will rip it to shreds...Halls a much loved broadcaster whose fondly remembered by many and on the face of it an upstanding member of societY...who is his accuser...she had better be whiter than white as the defence rightly or wrongly will look to tear her character apart with anything from her past...perhaps not fair but it is the way these things play out..Even if convicted I can see 3 appeal judges turning it over on lack of evidence....

Lack of evidence won't be enough to overturn on appeal. The jury made its decision based on the evidence presented. The reason the jury did so is irrelevant.

It has to be a mistake of law, a mistake of fact or compelling new evidence.

The right wingers would say Hall isn't a much-loved broadcaster; it was only the image he portrayed that we loved, but was this all a façade. It's far too early to be making such assertions but that won't stop the press from discussing it.

The three strands of Operation Yewtree have asked questions we never imagined could have existed and i dont suppose that is likely to stop anytime soon.

Not sure why it has to be the right wingers who say this?

Regardless, the passage of time since the alleged offence has so much impact on any consideration of guilt and innocence. Not just the potential for mis-remembered circumstance, but also the fact that the world was so very different at the time these events took place.
It's pretty likely, for instance, that at some stage in the life of most rock bands there were females who found themselves stoned/drunk/besotted and in bed with a hero. Did they give informed consent?
Will Pamela Des Barres be giving evidence in a trial soon?

One thing which surprises me about all this Yewtree stuff is the absence of the major rock bands, the Stadium Tour groups.

Perhaps they all behaved.

Prob had enough people throwing themselves

I was going to say, pretty sure they get what they want + 10 other peoples launched at them!

Nowadays they probably get the girls to sign a disclaimer first.

and sadly, rightly so

A rock band lead singer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20874141

I was referring to the golden age of "supergroups" & the like, in the 60's, 70's & 80's.

Pics of Tikay in a Bon Jovi T-shirt please

Not at all similar to the charge against Stuart Hall though

There was a famous musician arrested as part of Operation Yewtree. Gary Glitter.

It is probably better to wait to see what the evidence is before saying it isn't enough.  There appear to be 10 victims which may be more compelling than just relying on a couple of bad memories.  

Pure speculation bit.  Is it possible there has been a previous investigation with evidence collected and charges dropped?  

No matter what happens now innocent or guilty we will never see its a knockout on our screens, no more repeats on challenge, no celebrity specials, for that I am sad, if Stuart hall commited these crimes I hope they throw away the keys

I'm pretty sure he did do It's a Knockout.

lol vinnyalike quote !

already has form and was convicted with physical evidence..

why do the women not get named ?

"...Mr Watkins appeared along with two other female defendants who cannot be named for legal reasons."

Doesn't say what those legal reasons are.  I'm guessing that there could be lots of reasons, such as they're witnesses in another case (or possibly something to do with Watkins) and by not releasing their names they're protecting the other case and not jeopardising the potential conviction :dontask:

Legal reasons will be because of a relationship with victum that will jeopardize the anonymity

Ah, good point.  Protection of the victim.

ah..gotcha..which makes it even worse as they are a party to their own kids getting abused...beautiful world we live in

He wasn't well-loved in our house. Couldn't stand his stupid endless laughing at nothing funny. Anyone who is too young to remember it is very lucky.

Fascinating posts so far, have enjoyed reading all the responses.

So what I find interesting here is, where were these victims up until this point? Did they actually go into the police and respected authorities with these claims in Hall's heyday and get laughed away? Would imagine that happened at least once or twice with the Jimmy Saville case.

If they have kept quiet for so long then I really don't see why they would come forward now. Being prodded by people coming out against Saville, shouldn't have been the inspiration to come out now with these things. I think their own sense of right and wrong should have as soon as this happened.

 

I think Yew Tree must involve investigating old cases that were reported, but never properly followed up at the time?

pretty sure Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville were even more popular. Who can hand on heart say they never sang "wanna be in my gang"? . Shudder at the thought now

Lol.

On form today.

i sung it on xmas eve with my dad and his mates

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65508000/jpg/_65508947_63173679.jpg)

its not beyound possibility that we...the public will start getting text messages from ...abuse claims are us....rape claims are us ...,,,,,,no win no fee

our records show you may be entitled to 60,000 for your outstanding claim....call free phone666  6666 6666 

pleaded guilty, speechless really.

Don't think he'll make the court date!

This

That

He clearly turned up - shame, but then he may have known the derisory sentence he'd get would be one more final insult he could indirectly inflict.

Insult to his victims, their feelings, and an insult to the so called justice system that we hold in high regarded most of the time.

32.5 days for each crime he committed.  Embarrassing.  1 poor girl was 9 years old.  He got 32 days for what he did to her.  32days.