Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

by Guest Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:30 pm

16th January 2014

Now, if you have taken a bit of interest in any of these cases you will realise that there is no evidence at all.

If the three defendants deny everything put to them, can a jury truly say that they committed these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't believe they could.

Please discuss.

by Guest Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:28 pm

Hmm...difficult innit

I am uncomfortable with the idea of people being judged on what amounts to merely hearsay evidence, but at the same time I would be equally uncomfortable if they got away with something they HAVE done? bit of a cleft stick really.....

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:23 pm

I haven’t followed the cases closely enough to make a call, but I would generally be on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

Because of the nature of the alleged crimes, If there is enough cooperating evidence to support the hearsay I think guilt need to be considered.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:07 am

grumpy old git wrote:Hmm...difficult innit

I am uncomfortable with the idea of people being judged on what amounts to merely hearsay evidence, but at the same time I would be equally uncomfortable if they got away with something they HAVE done? bit of a cleft stick really.....

Spot on git.

If there is an allegation I believe it must be taken seriously and investigated.

Now, the CPS are the people who decide whether a guilty verdict is possible - how can they say yes to these allegations from 40 years ago?

But, the ultimate question has to be how can a person on a jury deliver a guilty verdict if the only "evidence" is a person's word against another, and be sure about it beyond a reasonable doubt?

They really can't - that is a fact.

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:08 am

veya_victaous wrote:I haven’t followed the cases closely enough to make a call, but I would generally be on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

Because of the nature of the alleged crimes, If there is enough cooperating evidence to support the hearsay I think guilt need to be considered.

Cooperating or corroborating?

by Guest Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:54 am

CPS must think they have enough for a guilty verdict.

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:13 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I haven’t followed the cases closely enough to make a call, but I would generally be on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

Because of the nature of the alleged crimes, If there is enough cooperating evidence to support the hearsay I think guilt need to be considered.

Cooperating or corroborating?

the second one Embarassed

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:39 pm

COCK ROACHE is what he is.

by Sponsored content

Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf

Re: Ken Barlow, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf