Dave Lee Travis NOT guilty

[Bold Seagull]

He has not been found guilty of those charges, he remains innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly. There are some posters on here happily treading a fine line of libel law.

 

[keaton]

He has not been found guilty of those charges, he remains innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, but being found not guilty does not mean he has been proved to be innocent.

 

[keaton]

The guy was discharged but you would not think it reading this.

I would be dismayed to find a lot of these posters on the jury if I ever had to go to court.

I would get life imprisonment because they would find me guilty when the majority of the evidence proved otherwise.

Exactly. There are some posters on here happily treading a fine line of libel law.

The only people who are would be the ones stating that the alleged victims were lying

 

[Nibble]

There are no grey areas in being found not guilty. You are in the eyes of the law completely innocent. Any statement contrary to that is subject to libel laws and could be considered a defamation.

That's not quite the point I was making. I agree with what you say though.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The only people who are would be the ones stating that the alleged victims were lying

Anyone questioning either the defendants innocence when found not guilty, or the validity of the allegations from the witnesses would be equally subject to libel. Why are you drawing a distinction?

 

[drew]

Of course it does. You walk into a court as a completely innocent person until found guilty. A not guilty verdict confirms you leave a completely innocent person the same as you arrived.

Absolute rubbish.

edit. Just to clarify that, you are innocent if you didn't commit a crime and guilty if you did. The perpetrator will be the only one who knows 100% if they are guilty or not (possibly the victim if they saw a face). You may have witnesses you may not. What you are referring to is relating to burden of proof upon the state and whether they can show beyond reasonably doubt that you committed teh crime. If you committed a crime but the state can't prove it, you are still guilty of committing that crime but 'in they eyes of the law' you remain a free person.

If it helps, I assume you have heard of miscarriages of justice. That is when innocent people are convicted and subsequently found to have been innocent. Equally, do you think there are guilty people who have 'got away with it'? If you steal something from a shop and don't get caught, you are still guilty of a crime. If you drive at 40 in a 30 limit, you are guilty of breaking the law even though you haven't been caught.

 

[keaton]

Anyone questioning either the defendants innocence when found not guilty, or the validity of the allegations from the witnesses would be equally subject to libel. Why are you drawing a distinction?

Who has said he's not innocent?

 

[Nibble]

Found Not Guilty but he lost quite a lot in the process by the sounds of it.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Just to correct you slightly, there is no verdict that states you are found innocent. It's either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean completely innocent. You could be but equally it could mean that the case wasn't proven. In Scotland you can have a 'not proven' verdict which, if introduced here, would add a bit of clarity to the deliberations of the jury

That's just semantics, though really isn't it. If you are innocent until proven guilty, if you're not found guilty, it essentially means you are technically innocent regardless of whether you actually did it

 

[wellquickwoody]

Absolute rubbish.

You don't understand the law, do you?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Absolute rubbish.

Don't get confused with legal status and the accuracy of the justice system. Of course innocent people are occasionally found guilty, and guilty persons walk free found not guilty. No justice system is perfect. However in the eyes of the law, which is the foundation of our society, if you walk out of a court being found not guilty, then you retain your complete innocence the same as anyone else.

You can personally doubt that persons innocence all you like, but it doesn't change their legal status.

 

[Nibble]

He still may have to answer to a couple of outstanding issues but he has been cleared of most of them. For those he has been cleared of he will quite rightly walk out an innocent man. That is his legal status, whatever doubts anyone has.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Who has said he's not innocent?

You quoted 3 separate people saying the only people subject to libel would be those saying the witnesses were lying. I was answering that post in general terms.

 

[drew]

You don't understand the law, do you?

Don't get confused with legal status and the accuracy of the justice system. Of course innocent people are occasionally found guilty, and guilty persons walk free found not guilty. No justice system is perfect. However in the eyes of the law, which is the foundation of our society, if you walk out of a court being found not guilty, then you retain your complete innocence the same as anyone else.

You can personally doubt that persons innocence all you like, but it doesn't change their legal status.

I'm not getting confused. Perhaps my edited post will clarify that for you. I believe it was you that stated he was completely innocent which I would repeat is absolute rubbish. Unless of course you were there at each alleged incident or can provide him with an alibi for each alleged incident.

 

[Creaky]

I'm not getting confused. Perhaps my edited post will clarify that for you. I believe it was you that stated he was completely innocent which I would repeat is absolute rubbish. Unless of course you were there at each alleged incident or can provide him with an alibi for each alleged incident.

There are no degrees of 'innocence' under the eyes of the law - in law everyone is innocent of any wrong doing unless found guilty of or admitted guilt to an offence.

This is another example of the confusion that can occur between the use of words in a colloquial sense and the same word being used in a specific sense. We have seen in another thread how the word 'theory' can have almost opposite meanings when used in a scientific or everyday context. Whilst the two uses of the word 'innocent' may not be diametrically opposed they are very different in meanings.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm not getting confused. Perhaps my edited post will clarify that for you. I believe it was you that stated he was completely innocent which I would repeat is absolute rubbish. Unless of course you were there at each alleged incident or can provide him with an alibi for each alleged incident.

I made it quite clear my point was 'in the eyes of the law' in regard to their legal status. I don't see that we are in disagreement on this at all.

 

[ken tiler]

Is it over conspiratorial to suspect that some of these celebraty prosecutions may be part of an establishment cover up to discredit prosecutions against more powerful people? Alledgedly saville helped supply young people to very powerful members of the establisment.

 

[Buzzer]

There are no degrees of 'innocence' under the eyes of the law - in law everyone is innocent of any wrong doing unless found guilty of or admitted guilt to an offence.

I think what Drew is getting at is that there is a presumption of innocence throughout - until a guilty verdict but a not guilty verdict does not necessarily PROVE the innocence, it maintains the presumption of innocence. It may sound like semantics but I think the distinction is an important one.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think what Drew is getting at is that there is a presumption of innocence throughout - until a guilty verdict but a not guilty verdict does not necessarily PROVE the innocence, it maintains the presumption of innocence. It may sound like semantics but I think the distinction is an important one.

Are you only 'presumed innocent' at the point of accusation? i.e. prior to being accused we are 'innocent', this is not presumed, this is a legal fact. Only at the point of accusation is our 'innocence presumed' until it is proven not to be the case. Once you leave court you are no longer presumed innocent, you are innocent 'Ei incumbit probatio qui'.

It is semantics and it is an interesting topic.

 

[drew]

I think what Drew is getting at is that there is a presumption of innocence throughout - until a guilty verdict but a not guilty verdict does not necessarily PROVE the innocence, it maintains the presumption of innocence. It may sound like semantics but I think the distinction is an important one.

Thanks.