Dave Lee Travis NOT guilty

[severnside gull]

The pop culture attitude adopted by CPS in these cases rather than their normal generally conservative, not to say dogmatic, approach of only prosecuting when their is a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution is proving extremely hard on the public purse and reflects badly on their adoption of overtly political values.

 

[Nibble]

I did Jury duty a few years ago. The accused was up on money laundering charges. Some very sketchy evidence from the Police. Stuff about carrier bags full of money and phone calls to some dodgy bloke.

The accused was clearly guilty of something. Dodgy as all hell and his excuses stank of lies. BUT, the police just didn't produce enough evidence for us to find him guilty and we had no choice but to find him Not Guilty.

The point being he clearly had been money laundering but not enough evidence was produced.

 

[BLOCK F]

They could have gone to the press long before he was charged if that was their motive but they didn't.



You seem to be implying that the evidence proved he was innocent. What evidence was that then? The evidence you heard in court or just the evidence reported in the press?



Not sure on what basis your wife can say that. Does your wife have a positive experience with Travis then?

She has nothing negative to say about DLT......unlike the 'unrandom and unscientific ' example put forward by Cheshire Cat about a female who was at a roadshow circa 1973.

For what it is worth,I do believe that views on this kind of matter may depend more on age than gender.
What I find really surprising is the lack of accusations and charges brought against the pop groups(as they were called then) and their entourages in the 1960's and 70's.No angels to be sure.....sex drugs ,rock and roll ,booze and opportunity.I am sure a lot more went on than groping!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I did Jury duty a few years ago. The accused was up on money laundering charges. Some very sketchy evidence from the Police. Stuff about carrier bags full of money and phone calls to some dodgy bloke.

The accused was clearly guilty of something. Dodgy as all hell and his excuses stank of lies. BUT, the police just didn't produce enough evidence for us to find him guilty and we had no choice but to find him Not Guilty.

The point being he clearly had been money laundering but not enough evidence was produced.

Well, the onus is on the police to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If they didn't/couldn't then he should absolutely have been found innocent, regardless of what you suspect he may have been up to.

 

[Nibble]

Well, the onus is on the police to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If they didn't/couldn't then he should absolutely have been found innocent, regardless of what you suspect he may have been up to.

This is EXACTLY the point I'm making in my post.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

This is EXACTLY the point I'm making in my post.

Yup, I know. I was agreeing with you.

 

[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.

I can't see anyone on this thread saying he's guilty. The ones you seem to be disagreeing with a stating that just because he was found Not Guilty does not mean the alleged victims were lying or that it means he is definetely innocent.

 

[Randsta]

I can't see anyone on this thread saying he's guilty. The ones you seem to be disagreeing with a stating that just because he was found Not Guilty does not mean the alleged victims were lying or that it means he is definetely innocent.

Just means there is doubts in the jurors minds...

 

[Nibble]

Yup, I know. I was agreeing with you.

Apologies.

 

[Buzzer]

I think you will find that 99% would mean you are guilty beyond reasonably doubt. The burden of proof is not to be 100% certain but, like I said in my post above, 85/90% and above.

I cede to your better knowledge on this but it does genuinely surprise me. The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' was, so I was taught (albeit as a law module in an accountancy degree) that 'reasonable' meant 'what you could imagine as a possible alternative' rather than an idea of 'fair' doubt. To my non-legal mind a 1% doubt suggests there wasn't certainty and so a doubt.

Cheers for the clarification, you learn something new every day.

 

[drew]

Well, the onus is on the police to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If they didn't/couldn't then he should absolutely have been found innocent, regardless of what you suspect he may have been up to.

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

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can't see anyone on this thread saying he's guilty. The ones you seem to be disagreeing with a stating that just because he was found Not Guilty does not mean the alleged victims were lying or that it means he is definetely innocent.

He is definitely innocent in the eyes of the law for the charges he was found not guilty.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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

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.

 

[Nibble]

In cases where there is even the smallest amount of doubt you can never say the person is innocent of the crime. You can pass a Not Guilty verdict but that doesn't prove innocence. To reverse the situation, one only has to look at cases where the accused is wrongly convicted and later found to be Not Guilty to illustrate this point. Or cases where a technicality or shortcomings in court or Police procedure have allowed a clearly guilty person to walk free.

I'm not saying DLT isn't innocent of the crimes he has been cleared of or even really commenting on his case as I have obviously had no access to the information provided to the court but more a general comment on how many grey areas there are in the outcome of court cases.

 

[keaton]

He is definitely innocent in the eyes of the law for the charges he was found not guilty.

Well no, not in this because two of the charges still remain undecided.

 

[wellquickwoody]

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

The law states that you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, as DLT was not found guilty, the law dictates that he must be innocent. There, wasn't that difficult now was it?

 

[marshy68]

DLT said that the loss of earnings over these allegations has meant he has had to sell his home. Just seems wrong to me that these women make accusations, have their anonymity maintained and the bloke loses his reputation, is stigmatised, gets cleared and loses lots of money in the process. Should be some redress.

I cant disagree with this post. I posted on the Bill Roache thread that i think the accused should be afforded anonimity as the accuser is. It seems that the CPS/Police use the accusers identity to try to get more "victims" to come forward. This seems wrong to me - surely the job of the CPS and Police is to build a case they think will hold up in court and not rely on the media to bring forward more "victims". All of this needs reveiw in my opinion and is very sad for all involved. Needs a bigger brain than mine to come up with a fairer system.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Well no, not in this because two of the charges still remain undecided.

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

 

[marshy68]

Nope, none whatsoever.

Just because someone has been found not guilty, it doesn't mean that the accuser is lying. You get that, right?

And regardless, accusing someone of sexual assault is not a very good way to make money. If you want to make some money you could sell your story (if anyone would buy it), but these anonymous women haven't done that, have they?
If you want to talk about the likelihood of guilt, let's talk about the chances that these 11 women would independently complain about DLT, all with a similar story. Seriously - about 6 months ago there was barely 11 people in the UK who knew who DLT was.

Yet....

 

[Bold Seagull]

In cases where there is even the smallest amount of doubt you can never say the person is innocent of the crime. You can pass a Not Guilty verdict but that doesn't prove innocence. To reverse the situation, one only has to look at cases where the accused is wrongly convicted and later found to be Not Guilty to illustrate this point. Or cases where a technicality or shortcomings in court or Police procedure have allowed a clearly guilty person to walk free.

I'm not saying DLT isn't innocent of the crimes he has been cleared of or even really commenting on his case as I have obviously had no access to the information provided to the court but more a general comment on how many grey areas there are in the outcome of court cases.

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.