Bill Roach latest 'star'to be arrested. - Page 11

DAV007 · 11-02-2014, 18:23

Relying on forensics and forensics alone is nearly always a bad position to prosecute from.
Not everyone's DNA is different.
Forensic based prosecution s make the police lazy

Less · 11-02-2014, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

Relying on forensics and forensics alone is nearly always a bad position to prosecute from.
Not everyone's DNA is different.
Forensic based prosecution s make the police lazy

Where did that come from?

This case can hardly have been built on forensics?

DAV007 · 11-02-2014, 18:51

Another post mentioned the lack of forensics,
I was making the point forensics are not all they are made out to be.

Less · 11-02-2014, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAV007

Another post mentioned the lack of forensics,
I was making the point forensics are not all they are made out to be.

Ah, right...

...Or should that be...

Ah, wrong?

Margaret Pilkington · 11-02-2014, 19:19

The chance of DNA evidence being wrong is remote, but there is always the chance that DNA samples can be mixed up...which is when DNA evidence is unreliable.
What I was trying to say was, that if there had been some DNA evidence as well as other evidence it would be easier to convince a jury.One persons word against that of another is never going to do it.

DAV007 · 11-02-2014, 21:32

DNA math: If police find a genetic ?match,? that doesn?t mean they have the right suspect.

Margaret Pilkington · 12-02-2014, 14:25

It is a very convoluted argument...and I really am sceptical of it.
Our DNA is our unique blueprint...and the chances of someone having the same DNA and being in the vicinty of a crime is pretty remote, so if you are going to convict purely on DNA evidence then the conviction is flawed, but if, along with other evidence there is DNA evidence a conviction would be more likely to succeed.

And before anyone tells me that identical twins(not fraternal twins) share the same DNA - I know!

davebtelford · 13-02-2014, 19:15

In view of the fact that DLT, Cock-Roache ( & probably Rolf) are not guilty can we now absolve Jimmy Savile ?

Studio25 · 13-02-2014, 20:15

DLT isn't in the clear yet...

What happens if he's cleared of all charges? Does he have any comeback against the police or the people who made the accusations? Apparently he had to sell his home to pay his legal fees. Does that mean we should all live in fear of losing our hard-earned possessions because of a frivolous accusation?

Bill Roache said "there are no winners" - he's wrong. There's a certain bunch of bewigged learned people who are smirking all the way to the bank.

Margaret Pilkington · 13-02-2014, 21:12

whichever side a legal team work for they NEVER lose.

accyman · 14-02-2014, 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Studio25

DLT isn't in the clear yet...

What happens if he's cleared of all charges? Does he have any comeback against the police or the people who made the accusations? Apparently he had to sell his home to pay his legal fees. Does that mean we should all live in fear of losing our hard-earned possessions because of a frivolous accusation?

Bill Roache said "there are no winners" - he's wrong. There's a certain bunch of bewigged learned people who are smirking all the way to the bank.

i heard today DLT was cleared

best google it to be sure

yup cleared yesterday

Quote:

Former BBC DJ Dave Lee Travis said he had been through "a year and a half of hell", after he was cleared of 12 counts of indecent assault.

davebtelford · 14-02-2014, 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Studio25

DLT isn't in the clear yet...

What happens if he's cleared of all charges? Does he have any comeback against the police or the people who made the accusations? Apparently he had to sell his home to pay his legal fees. Does that mean we should all live in fear of losing our hard-earned possessions because of a frivolous accusation?

Bill Roache said "there are no winners" - he's wrong. There's a certain bunch of bewigged learned people who are smirking all the way to the bank.

Agree about the lawyers. DLT said - "I have had 2 trials, one by the media and another by the Crown Court". Savile has only had the former. What would have been the outcome in court defended by expensive barristers in front of a gullible jury with colleagues, charity recipients & maybe royalty as character witnesses?

Margaret Pilkington · 14-02-2014, 06:54

The fact that this man has been cleared is down to there being nothing in the way of physical forensic evidence.....another court case based on his word (and memory of events) against that of his accusers.
This type of case is harmful for future cases of sexual harassment/abuse.
It will prevent those who are subjected to this from coming forward and reporting it.
Having to tell, in court, and be interrogated by hostile barristers will be like living the event all over again.

My advice to women is if you are in this situation, don't think twice, give the perp a swift kick in the gonads......it is better than having to go through all this, and then being branded as a liar.Just because these men have been cleared does not make them innocent, but that there hasn't been enough reliable evidence put forward by the CPS.

Studio25 · 14-02-2014, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by accyman

i heard today DLT was cleared

best google it to be sure

yup cleared yesterday

From BBC News - Dave Lee Travis trial: DJ cleared of indecent assault

Quote:

The jury at Southwark Crown Court failed to reach a decision on a further indecent assault count and one of sexual assault.

Quote:

Mr Travis was released on bail until a further hearing, to be held at the crown court on 24 February, to decide if there should be a retrial on the two outstanding charges.

So as I said - not in the clear yet.

Guinness · 14-02-2014, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebtelford

Agree about the lawyers. DLT said - "I have had 2 trials, one by the media and another by the Crown Court". Savile has only had the former. What would have been the outcome in court defended by expensive barristers in front of a gullible jury with colleagues, charity recipients & maybe royalty as character witnesses?

In view of the fact that DLT, Cock-Roache ( & probably Rolf) are not guilty can we now absolve Jimmy Savile ?

What makes you think that the jury were 'gullible'? Do you have pertinent information that could have been used in the trial?

Alternatively do you read the daily mail or have the English disease of building people up until they are successful then relishing their downfall?

The very fact that these incidents are alleged to have happened 30-40 years ago and that there is no actual evidence implies that the only thing that the jury can take into account is 'who do they reasonably believe'.

If I accuse you of raping me in 1974...how do you think that you could prove otherwise except by bringing in people who knew you at the time, that could testify in court that they did not believe you capable of such a despicable crime? If the jury found you not guilty, would you still claim that the jury was 'gullible'?

And please do not go down the road of 'why would the CPS bring it to court?'..because I could deluge you with miscarriages of justice and examples of cases that should never have been brought to court.

I have no idea how old you are, but in the 70's, us young blokes treated women appallingly, myself included, because that was the way it was, it was acceptable to society. Looking back at some of the things I did growing up as a typical 'jack the lad', I'm glad I'm not a famous household name, because I'm sure a few ladies would chance their anonymous arm for the chance of a 'few quid' because of a drunken grope and an immature accusation of frigidity when I didn't get my own childish way.

Weird thing is I was walking with a young girl a couple of months ago in Corporation Park in Blackburn, she told me that she was afraid to walk in this park alone in broad daylight...that would never have happened in the perverted 70's