Dave Lee Travis NOT guilty

[Buzzer]

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.

You say probatio, I say probatio. That joke doesn't work so well written down, does it?


EDIT - on a serious note, I'm not so sure that innocence is a legal fact but I'm no lawyer so can't help in that regard. With the trial the onus is always on the prosecution to prove guilt. Take the Russell Bishop Babes in the Woods trial or Stephen Lawrence 1st trial. Did the not guilty verdicts prove innocence? It doesn't feel like it did to me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You say probatio, I say probatio.


That joke doesn't work so well written down, does it?

Don't give up the day job.

 

[keaton]

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.

I was only trying to quote you (there seems to be something wrong with my multi-qoute).
It is libellous to suggest that the witnesses were lying - people on this thread did so (or came pretty close)
Saying he has not been proved innocent is not libellous

 

[Goldstone1976]

So, DLT is to face a re-trial on the two counts where the original jury couldn't reach a verdict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26322552

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

You say probatio, I say probatio. That joke doesn't work so well written down, does it?


EDIT - on a serious note, I'm not so sure that innocence is a legal fact but I'm no lawyer so can't help in that regard. With the trial the onus is always on the prosecution to prove guilt. Take the Russell Bishop Babes in the Woods trial or Stephen Lawrence 1st trial. Did the not guilty verdicts prove innocence? It doesn't feel like it did to me.

Agree. You are supposed to be sure in order to find someone guilty. If you are not sure, then it is "not Guilty", even if you think they probably did do it.

Do we need a "not proven" verdict, as they do, I believe, in Scotland. That I guess is "we think he or she did it, but the case is not strong enough to find them guilty".

 

[glasfryn]

Agree. You are supposed to be sure in order to find someone guilty. If you are not sure, then it is "not Guilty", even if you think they probably did do it.

Do we need a "not proven" verdict, as they do, I believe, in Scotland. That I guess is "we think he or she did it, but the case is not strong enough to find them guilty".

depends on who is having to pay for the court case and as DPP are not paying out of their own pockets it will go ahead and if he wins the case they will find some very plausible excuse for bringing the case AGAIN

 

[severnside gull]

Waste of public money from CPS to try to prove a point that they are on the side of the angels in persecuting (sorry prosecuting) cases against celebrities when there is no realistic probability of success......and all because our legal system royally ****ed up over Saville.