BBC Jack Diamond cleared

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matnab said:
I don't get this bizarre misunderstanding with rape trials whereby people think a not guilty verdict is proof that the allegations were fabricated.
Click to expand...
I agree with you like but it seems like this case shouldn't have made it to trial. Makes a bit of a mockery of it if it was so obvious that the jury only needed 15 minutes. And it's probably ruined a lad's life, so that's canny.
 


I absolutely agree that not guilty doesn’t equal innocent, and it doesn’t mean the lass went to court and told a pack of lies.

But a 15 month process for JD which the jury throw out in fifteen minutes…

To me that suggests at the very least there was never a reasonable prospect of conviction and it probably shouldn’t have made it to court.
 
scott934 said:
I agree with you like but it seems like this case shouldn't have made it to trial. Makes a bit of a mockery of it if it was so obvious that the jury only needed 15 minutes. And it's probably ruined a lad's life, so that's canny.
Click to expand...
The case was not thrown out at the end of the Prosecution case ( aka half time) therefore the Judge believed there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial having been brought.

That is a different matter to whether the accused is guilty
 
Macho said:
Didn’t Jessica Ennis kick up a fuss?
Click to expand...

Rings a bell. Sheff Utd fan if I remember rightly and she didn't want Evans anywhere near the club. Could be thinking of something completely different here mind, but don't think I am
 
Ark said:
Must went through hell. Let's hear the girls name after his has been dragged through the mud.
Click to expand...
There are some horribly simplistic views in this thread.

If they start “naming and shaming” people who have made accusations or rape that weren’t successful in securing a guilty verdict, what do you think that will do to the amount of genuine rape victims who come forward and tell the authorities?

Often at best the evidence is one persons word against another. It takes a tremendous amount of bravery as it is to put yourself through a court case where you know you’re going to be called a liar, and you know you’re going to have to relive what was probably the worst thing to ever happen to you in front of hundreds of people, possibly with national press interest as well and lots of stranger who have never met you making judgements of you.

Okay there may be some horrible people out there who make false allegations, but unless you have explicit evidence to support that claim then you can’t assume “innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” for the defendant but “well I guess you must be guilty then love if he’s not” for the plaintiff and then tar and feather them.
 
Lucky1985 said:
There are some horribly simplistic views in this thread.

If they start “naming and shaming” people who have made accusations or rape that weren’t successful in securing a guilty verdict, what do you think that will do to the amount of genuine rape victims who come forward and tell the authorities?

Often at best the evidence is one persons word against another. It takes a tremendous amount of bravery as it is to put yourself through a court case where you know you’re going to be called a liar, and you know you’re going to have to relive what was probably the worst thing to ever happen to you in front of hundreds of people, possibly with national press interest as well and lots of stranger who have never met you making judgements of you.

Okay there may be some horrible people out there who make false allegations, but unless you have explicit evidence to support that claim then you can’t assume “innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” for the defendant but “well I guess you must be guilty then love if he’s not” for the plaintiff and then tar and feather them.
Click to expand...
Stop being sensible, there is no place for it on this thread
 
Lucky1985 said:
There are some horribly simplistic views in this thread.

If they start “naming and shaming” people who have made accusations or rape that weren’t successful in securing a guilty verdict, what do you think that will do to the amount of genuine rape victims who come forward and tell the authorities?

Often at best the evidence is one persons word against another. It takes a tremendous amount of bravery as it is to put yourself through a court case where you know you’re going to be called a liar, and you know you’re going to have to relive what was probably the worst thing to ever happen to you in front of hundreds of people, possibly with national press interest as well and lots of stranger who have never met you making judgements of you.

Okay there may be some horrible people out there who make false allegations, but unless you have explicit evidence to support that claim then you can’t assume “innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” for the defendant but “well I guess you must be guilty then love if he’s not” for the plaintiff and then tar and feather them.
Click to expand...
So are you in favour of the accused being named immediately before the court case, even though he/she could be found innocent. Celebrities are named as X or Y.
 
Ark said:
So are you in favour of the accused being named immediately before the court case, even though he/she could be found innocent. Celebrities are named as X or Y.
Click to expand...

Not sure, but would listen to arguments for yes, if the case is found for the defendant as in this case.
Too easy for a woman to cry rape for revenge or money and not suffer any consequences, thereby encouraging others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ark
scott934 said:
I agree with you like but it seems like this case shouldn't have made it to trial. Makes a bit of a mockery of it if it was so obvious that the jury only needed 15 minutes. And it's probably ruined a lad's life, so that's canny.
Click to expand...

Must admit I'm not too clued up on this one but it seems to be a stock reaction.
 
sunderpitt said:
Not sure, but would listen to arguments for yes, if the case is found for the defendant as in this case.
Too easy for a woman to cry rape for revenge or money and not suffer any consequences, thereby encouraging others.
Click to expand...

Not sure that’s a great idea. Many women don’t exactly like announcing to everybody they ever met that they’ve been raped. Making it a prerequisite to ever go to the police would see prosecutions plummet.
 
McGregor said:
Would imagine reputation will be tainted a bit. Shouldn't be but that's the way the world works
.
Click to expand...
Dont see why. It's not like Greenwood or Ched Evans where they may not have been found guilty but the evidence certainly doesn't suggest that they are "innocent," so he should just be able to get on his life without much scrutiny unless something else comes to light.
 
Disgusting. Feel for the lad. Will always have that tag around him now even if proved not guilty. Probably been in some dark places mentally these last few months, as for the woman absolute no consequences, Makes ya sick
 
Coeus said:
I wouldn't be keen on the female in question being named regardless, I watched a programme about over the pond where there had been horrible repercussions to people that had come forward about these things and then had the blame turned towards them when the defendant was found not guilty.

Only for the decision to be changed further down the line, but it was too late for many. World is a wicked place sometimes for those who frequent social media.
Click to expand...
Fair point, Coeus, la. Please note I did make provision for the exhaustion of the appeal process. However, maybe there's a case for blanket anonymity?

Either way, it seems to me to offend any principle of natural justice that an alleged rapist should be named until after a guilty verdict being brought in (and again, exhaustion of the appeal process if appropriate).

They are very difficult cases to handle no matter which way you look at it. A victim should be able to make a legitimate complaint without fear of repercussions. An accused should not be prejudiced in the future by an allegation that was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Such an acquittal is not a finding of the accused's innocence & so the victim in such circumstances should not be branded a liar unless in the highly unlikely event the judge found as a fact that the allegations had been fabricated. How to fairly balance these competing interests is difficult if not impossible to achieve, but I think that within the existing framework there's room for improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top