Dave Lee Travis NOT guilty

[Tubby Mondays]

Ultimately in the eyes of the law, their accusations are proved to be false given a not guilty verdict has been reached. Perhaps lying was the wrong word.

No their accusations havent been proved to be false.

The jury didnt beleive them/the prosecution case, but beleive the defence case. That is totally different to the allegations being proved as being false.

 

[Questions]

This case, I believe, is different to Stuart Hall & J S in that it was not young kids or actual intercourse (any sex act on kids is vial I should add and lock them away). I was a DJ and only a few years younger than DLT. I have never ever touched any child in any way but whilst DJing women come on to DJ's all the time. If a woman comes up to ask for a song it is normal to put your arm around her. In Spain we used to have stickers we put on all the girls, you can only imagine where we put them.

There is enough there for a trial I would think............ CPS you out there.

 

[ofco8]

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.

 

[BensGrandad]

So, do we keep putting him on trial until we get the verdict you want ?

I do not want any particular verdict as I have no idea of the evidence. What I am saying id that if the jury coukdnt agree on a verdict either way then surely the correct answer is a retrial on those 2 counts unless the CPS are sgreed that the evidence that came out shows a not guilty verdict is likely.

 

[Buzzer]

The jury didnt beleive them/the prosecution case, but beleive the defence case. That is totally different to the allegations being proved as being false.

I'm not quite sure it's even that although I do agree with the gist of what you're saying. Criminal case needs the jury to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. They could well have the vast majority of what the alleged victim said but decided that with the length of time between offence and trial that they couldn't be 100% sure.

Being 99% sure that he did it means there's an element of doubt and that's enough for the jury to have to give a not guilty plea.



(Apologies for sounding like I'm teaching you to suck eggs. The definition was for the benefit of those who think a not guilty plea means the prosecution fibbed.)

 

[WATFORD zero]

Still a **** though, just means he is an innocent ****, not a guilty ****.

*edit* I didn't know that **** was included in the swear filter, It's not as if i said ****

 

[penny's harmonica]

Can't see how this was ever in the public interest to prosecute.

He allegedly groped some women in the sixties and seventies who were so horrified it took them 30 odd years to get round to complaining about it.

 

[drew]

Just because he's been found not guilty, doesn't mean that they're lying. Whether it should have gone to trial is another issue unrelated to whether these women were lying.

This. Seems most people can't grasp the concept of beyond reasonable doubt. Just because a jury finds you not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it. It just means that you are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt which, when I was on a jury, the judge suggested that you were 85/90% sure he did it. The women could take him to a civil court for damages where they would have to prove 'on the balance of probabilities' which is more only more than 50% believing he is guilty. At the end of the day, only DLT and his victims know for sure what happened. He could be totally innocent or he could be guilty, it's just a question of what evidence the jury believe.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that some of the alleged victims in these celebrity trials have been lying. It is impossible to know which of them have been lying due to the law granting anonymity. The solution?

Ergo some of them were sexually assaulted and a court case was warranted!

 

[drew]

I'm not quite sure it's even that although I do agree with the gist of what you're saying. Criminal case needs the jury to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. They could well have the vast majority of what the alleged victim said but decided that with the length of time between offence and trial that they couldn't be 100% sure.

Being 99% sure that he did it means there's an element of doubt and that's enough for the jury to have to give a not guilty plea.



(Apologies for sounding like I'm teaching you to suck eggs. The definition was for the benefit of those who think a not guilty plea means the prosecution fibbed.)

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.

 

[DJ Leon]

Ultimately in the eyes of the law, their accusations are proved to be false given a not guilty verdict has been reached. Perhaps lying was the wrong word.

Their accusations have not proved to been false - there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Two very different things.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No their accusations havent been proved to be false.

The jury didnt beleive them/the prosecution case, but beleive the defence case. That is totally different to the allegations being proved as being false.

I think the only thing false here are my own posts....

[MENTION=922]DJ Leon[/MENTION] - yes, I am wrong here!

 

[DJ Leon]

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that some of the alleged victims in these celebrity trials have been lying. It is impossible to know which of them have been lying due to the law granting anonymity. The solution?

No doubt? How the hell do you have no doubt? By your own admission you don't even know who any of them are! Bizarre.

 

[drew]

Just because he's been found not guilty, doesn't mean that they're lying. Whether it should have gone to trial is another issue unrelated to whether these women were lying.

I think too many people can't grasp the concept!!

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.

He wasn't proved innocent, the jury just decided they weren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he had done it.

 

[Ernest]

I still think it was the Chuckle Brothers evidence that SWUNG it

 

[wellquickwoody]

No doubt? How the hell do you have no doubt? By your own admission you don't even know who any of them are! Bizarre.

How the hell? Because we have become a society looking for something for nothing, compo chasers, opportunists hoping to earn an easy buck. Some people could have completely invented their claims, or just exaggerated the reality, or maybe just said that they never gave their consent when in reality they did.

I make no accusations against particular individuals, or refer to any specific case. But when case upon case brought by the CPS has fallen over anyone who actually believes that all of the accusers are being entirely honest is plainly naive. Ring any bells?

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

always thought he was

d-d-d-dave lee travis

used to like the snooker quiz on the radio

 

[DJ Leon]

How the hell? Because we have become a society looking for something for nothing, compo chasers, opportunists hoping to earn an easy buck. Some people could have completely invented their claims, or just exaggerated the reality, or maybe just said that they never gave their consent when in reality they did.

I make no accusations against particular individuals, or refer to any specific case. But when case upon case brought by the CPS has fallen over anyone who actually believes that all of the accusers are being entirely honest is plainly naive. Ring any bells?

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.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

This.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just because he's been found not guilty, doesn't mean that they're lying. Whether it should have gone to trial is another issue unrelated to whether these women were lying.

sorry, but it does kinda suggest they could have been. in the absence of other evidence or witnesses, its one persons word against anothers, if you as a juror say one isnt telling the truth, then you are implying they are lying. i know its not cut and dry, hence soft wording ive used, but we have to accept the probability that some of the claims were false.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It only proves that on the balance of evidence the jury didn't find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". It doesn't imply that the victims were lying, only that they couldn't prove their case to the level required for a conviction.