DLT cleared of 12 charges

[David Johnson]

End of April apparently.

[cockneygeezer2009]

"The jury could not agree on two of the charges made against DLT. As a result, there will be a retrial. So it goes on and on for DLT without any break."

A prosecutor's job (in this case CPS) is to to prosecute. They have to justify their existence. They want a conviction even if it's on lesser charges. Even i'm surprised that he still has to face further charges seeing as he's already been found not guilty of all the others.

"Presumably he will not be able to work once again with these cases still hanging over him."

The CPS obviously think there is no smoke without fire and see DLT as fair game.

[cockneygeezer2009]

"CPS are desperate to nail the Hairy Cornflake, hence a retrial on the two remaining counts."

Not true. CPS will try to nail ANYBODY who they believe has broken the law (it's what they are paid to do) and believe they have enough evidence to get a conviction.

It's not personal as some people seem to think. Otherwise EVERY so called celeb would be up in court. In this particular case they believe the victims and still believe they can get a conviction from a jury. What you think and i think and the CPS think doesn't matter. The jury will decide (or they should do) on the evidence put before them.

[David Johnson]

"CPS will try to nail ANYBODY who they believe has broken the law (it's what they are paid to do) and believe they have enough evidence to get a conviction."

Mmm, not too sure about the validity of this statement. I think the Savile scandal has influenced the CPS in making a political decision to bring these cases so that when the individual gets off, at least the CPS can say that unlike Savile, the police and CPS tried their best.

For example, in one of the cases against Bill Roache, the woman concerned could not even remember what year the alleged offence took place. She wasn't sure whether it was 1968, 69 or 70.

Now firstly you would have thought that someone who had been sexually assaulted would have at least remembered which year it was. Secondly, from the point of view of the defendant, how on earth are you expected to put together a defence? If someone says I made a note in my diary when the offence took place or went to the local police station to make a complaint and it was Febraury 4th 1970, fair enough.

At least in that situation, it gives Bill Roache and his defence a chance to see where and with whom he was with on that day e.g. I was in Lanzarote that day etc. etc.

I find it hard to believe in other situations where it is Joe Bloggs that is being accused or some other offence involved, that the CPS would even bring this to court, let alone order a retrial.

[Peter]

Milk Tray Man wrote:

I still
> can't see how there can be any evidence beyond 'he said she
> said', particularly in the case of older allegations of this
> nature.

There was a picture of Sally Bercow appearing on Crackerjack in the 70's in the Sunday papers, my first thought was She could have Stu Francis dragged through the courts just by saying "He touched my bum".

Which, if Jim Davidsons lawyer is to be believed, is all it takes. Frightening.

[Milk Tray Man]

David Johnson wrote:

> Mmm, not too sure about the validity of this statement. I
> think the Savile scandal has influenced the CPS in making a
> political decision to bring these cases so that when the
> individual gets off, at least the CPS can say that unlike
> Savile, the police and CPS tried their best.

> I find it hard to believe in other situations where it is Joe
> Bloggs that is being accused or some other offence involved,
> that the CPS would even bring this to court, let alone order a
> retrial.


agree 100%

[Milk Tray Man]

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

What you think and i think and the CPS
> think doesn't matter. The jury will decide (or they should do)
> on the evidence put before them.


I'm intrigued to know what kind of 'evidence' (beyond "he said she said") you - or for that matter the CPS - think there could be of such alleged offences after 20, 30, 40 or more years.

it's not like murder cases involving DNA etc., or shootings in which there are forensics to match up the gun.

remember that DLT was even found not guilty on that charge for which TV footage actually existed of him with his arm round that girl who claimed he put his hand up her skirt on TOTP. Bill Roache was acquitted on all charges and to my mind this is another politically-motivated case for sure. The CPS and police desperate to be "seen to be doing something" after failing to act on Jimmy Savile when they had the chance. yes it is their job to prosecute as you say and they do have a job to do, but they also have their image and reputation to think of and those took a real battering in the wake of the savile affair.

[Milk Tray Man]

Peter wrote:

> There was a picture of Sally Bercow appearing on Crackerjack in
> the 70's in the Sunday papers, my first thought was She could
> have Stu Francis dragged through the courts just by saying "He
> touched my bum".
>
> Which, if Jim Davidsons lawyer is to be believed, is all it
> takes. Frightening.


it's very frightening Peter because it seems to me that in the current climate of hysteria about sexual offences we are heading for a society in which innocent people (men in particular) are in danger of being "denounced", hauled off by the police and having their lives ruined simply on someone else's say-so, no matter how spurious the claim. that's a very dangerous situation and very reminiscent of totalitatian regimes.

I've seen how damaging it can be first hand. A few years ago a male colleague of my wife who taught music as a sideline got the dreaded 6 o'clock knock at the door. two teenage sisters who were music pupils of his had gone to the police claiming he'd molested them. In the end they admitted that they were lying and had made the whole thing up. But not before this poor bastard had had his name and face splashed all over the local papers, his passport confiscated and was put on trial (my missus and other colleagues of his submitted character references to the court). Of course no action was taken against the girls making these totally false and unfounded claims because some do-gooder social worker decided that they had 'issues' and were 'troubled'. but ask yourself this: Who was the fucking "victim" there?

it may be true that in the past, real victims tended not to be believed so it was only right that situation had to change. But a situation in which the default position is simply to believe the claims of an alleged "victim" - no matter how long ago it was supposed to have happened and no mater how preposterous - is equally unjust and unacceptable in my view. I don't know what the solution to that dilemma is but there needs to be a proper balance struck sooner rather than later. Maybe some kind of statute of limitations for starters?

[David Johnson]

Maybe they need to look at time limitations for bringing cases. For example I think there are time limitations for bringing cases of physical assault.

If I went to a Blackpool police station in 2014 and said I had been physically assaulted in a taxi queue on a Friday night, but I couldn't remember whether it was 1968, 69 or 70 and there weren't any witnesses as far as I was aware, I know what would happen.

I would more than likely be told to piss off.

[Milk Tray Man]

I'm also of the belief that given the emotive nature of sexual cases and the kind of "burn-the-witch" vigilante mob mentality that they whip up among the Daily Mail and Sun brigade, people accused of such things should not be publically named until they have actually been convicted - or at very least charged.

This would prevent innocent men having their reputations and lives ruined.

I know that the counter-argument to that is that "by naming them we might encourage other victims to come forward". but to my mind, the possibility of completely innocent people becoming 'collateral damage' purely on the off-chance that there may even be other "victims" is not acceptable under a system in which sombody accused of ANY crime is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.