The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by PeterMac on 10.06.13 20:38

Putting this here, for the moment, as it gives food for thought about the difference between Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and "insufficient evidence to convict, or indeed to proceed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339007/Andrew-Lancel-Former-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-indecently-assaulting-boy.html
Former Coronation Street actor is cleared of indecently assaulting boy, 15, but judge says verdict 'is not a rejection of the complainant's account'
Lancel, who played Frank Foster, cleared of four counts of indecent assault
Youngster claimed assault took place when he was a teenager in 1994
Judge said the claimant was 'clearly scarred' by his experience
He said verdict 'did not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.'

and later
'It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago.'

Is this the first time in an English court that a judge has spelled it out like this ?
Can he now be sued for libel ? The implication is absolutely clear.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by tigger on 10.06.13 20:42

@PeterMac wrote:Putting this here, for the moment, as it gives food for thought about the difference between Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and "insufficient evidence to convict, or indeed to proceed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339007/Andrew-Lancel-Former-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-indecently-assaulting-boy.html
Former Coronation Street actor is cleared of indecently assaulting boy, 15, but judge says verdict 'is not a rejection of the complainant's account'
Lancel, who played Frank Foster, cleared of four counts of indecent assault
Youngster claimed assault took place when he was a teenager in 1994
Judge said the claimant was 'clearly scarred' by his experience
He said verdict 'did not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.'

and later
'It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago.'

Is this the first time in an English court that a judge has spelled it out like this ?
Can he now be sued for libel ? The implication is absolutely clear.

Does Scottish Law still have the "Not Proven' verdict? Which is to say: Guilty, but not enough evidence? or 'Don't do it again?'

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by Guest on 10.06.13 20:52

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Yes it does still exist in Scotland.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by aiyoyo on 10.06.13 21:11

Interesting!

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by plebgate on 10.06.13 21:46

@tigger wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Putting this here, for the moment, as it gives food for thought about the difference between Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and "insufficient evidence to convict, or indeed to proceed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339007/Andrew-Lancel-Former-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-indecently-assaulting-boy.html
Former Coronation Street actor is cleared of indecently assaulting boy, 15, but judge says verdict 'is not a rejection of the complainant's account'
Lancel, who played Frank Foster, cleared of four counts of indecent assault
Youngster claimed assault took place when he was a teenager in 1994
Judge said the claimant was 'clearly scarred' by his experience
He said verdict 'did not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.'

and later
'It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago.
'

Is this the first time in an English court that a judge has spelled it out like this ?
Can he now be sued for libel ? The implication is absolutely clear.

Does Scottish Law still have the "Not Proven' verdict? Which is to say: Guilty, but not enough evidence? or 'Don't do it again?'


More than 18 years ago the age of consent for a male was 18 and not 16. If the alleged assault occured more than 18 years ago, why use today's age of consent?

all beyond me.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by Woofer on 10.06.13 22:05

There should have been a `not proven` in the Casey Anthony verdict as well.

Recently Judge Perry has said -

"On May 6, 2013, he stated that he believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Casey Anthony, even though most of the evidence was circumstantial, and that he was shocked by the not-guilty verdict."

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by Guest on 10.06.13 22:22

There is indeed an ocean of difference between "not guilty" and "not proven"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by PeterMac on 11.06.13 7:22

Just as there is a difference between a case being dropped for lack of sufficient conclusive evidence, and "exoneration".

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by stillsloppingout on 12.06.13 1:55

I have read between the lines in this case and drawn the obvious conclusion .
[ His wife will just have to get used to the idea !! ,

Moving on . Still the Police and claimants are still pursuing C list celebs , aged soap stars etc . WRONG .
Do you not think in this compensation day and age, the top stars would not be pursued ? Well they are, and there are a hell of a lot of Major pop stars, again its all retrospective, some names you would not believe . [ especially where boys are involved !!! ] but The D notice [ allegedly ] is a powerful tool .

Ive noticed the velvet curtain has remained intact thus far [ that is the gay secrecy policy , ] as in relation to pedophile activity most pedophiles are homosexual, and due to the lack of resources ie appropriate victims , a lot were sharing there quarry with high profile figures from politics etc , thats why there has been very few gay revelations .

Pedophiles , by there very nature, build up close secretive networks , and sometimes they overlap by chance or design with persons in extremely high powered positions , weather it be persons in the Police , Lawyers or Politicians . !!!!!

Most pedophiles are from Middle class backgrounds .





stillsloppingout

Posts : 489
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-02-06
Location : N WEST ENGLAND

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by lj on 12.06.13 4:33

@Woofer wrote:There should have been a `not proven` in the Casey Anthony verdict as well.

Recently Judge Perry has said -

"On May 6, 2013, he stated that he believed there was sufficient evidence to convict Casey Anthony, even though most of the evidence was circumstantial, and that he was shocked by the not-guilty verdict."

There was enough in the Casey Anthony trial to get a conviction. Maybe if the jury had the possibility to choose the "not proven" verdict, that would have been the outcome. After all the jurors that commented on their decision did say that it was not a "she did not do it" verdict, but a "lack of evidence" one.

IMO it would not have made any difference: she would be set free, and the whole world knows she did it.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3276
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by aquila on 12.06.13 7:40

O.J. Simpson springs to mind.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.06.13 9:10

@stillsloppingout wrote:I have read between the lines in this case and drawn the obvious conclusion .
[ His wife will just have to get used to the idea !! ,

Moving on . Still the Police and claimants are still pursuing C list celebs , aged soap stars etc . WRONG .
Do you not think in this compensation day and age, the top stars would not be pursued ? Well they are, and there are a hell of a lot of Major pop stars, again its all retrospective, some names you would not believe . [ especially where boys are involved !!! ] but The D notice [ allegedly ] is a powerful tool .

Ive noticed the velvet curtain has remained intact thus far [ that is the gay secrecy policy , ] as in relation to pedophile activity most pedophiles are homosexual, and due to the lack of resources ie appropriate victims , a lot were sharing there quarry with high profile figures from politics etc , thats why there has been very few gay revelations .

Pedophiles , by there very nature, build up close secretive networks , and sometimes they overlap by chance or design with persons in extremely high powered positions , weather it be persons in the Police , Lawyers or Politicians . !!!!!

Most pedophiles are from Middle class backgrounds .




Do you have a link to your sweeping statement that 'most paedophiles are homosexual', please?
Its a common held myth, granted, but I'd be utterly amazed if that were the case.

Also, if a grown man, maybe married, usually straight, fiddles with a little boy that isn't 'homosexual', its 'paedophilia'

Considering estimates put one in ten of the population as gay, then working with how many paedophiles there are surely by numbers you are also implying most homosexuals are also paedophile!

I'm willing to be corrected, but, as I said, I'd be amazed if that were the case nah

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by PeterMac on 12.06.13 9:35

@rainbow-fairy wrote:Considering estimates put one in ten of the population as gay, . . .
This was a false figure from Kinsey, a long time ago, and now de-bunked as flawed. The gay lobby however, clings on to the figure to prove how 'normal' they are.
The more reliable estimates vary from one to four percent, though finding the true value, if this has any relevance, is very difficult.
Like much research you have to ask "What are you going to do with the information when you've got it ?"

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by PennyX on 12.06.13 11:03

@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Considering estimates put one in ten of the population as gay, . . .
This was a false figure from Kinsey, a long time ago, and now de-bunked as flawed. The gay lobby however, clings on to the figure to prove how 'normal' they are.
The more reliable estimates vary from one to four percent, though finding the true value, if this has any relevance, is very difficult.
Like much research you have to ask "What are you going to do with the information when you've got it ?"

*The gay lobby however, clings on to the figure to prove how 'normal' they are.*

Don't you like " gays " PeterMac?

PennyX

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by jeanmonroe on 12.06.13 11:11

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100188660/david-cameron-did-not-mean-to-imply-that-gay-men-are-paedophiles/

David Cameron did not mean to imply that gay men are paedophiles

That one's sorted then!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.06.13 11:46

@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Considering estimates put one in ten of the population as gay, . . .




This was a false figure from Kinsey, a long time ago, and now de-bunked as flawed.   The gay lobby however, clings on to the figure to prove how 'normal' they are.
The more reliable estimates vary from one to four percent, though finding the true value, if this has any relevance, is very difficult.
Like much research you have to ask "What are you going to do with the information when you've got it ?"


Where does the 'more reliable' estimate come from PeterMac? 
As for clinging on to 'one in ten' to 'prove how normal they are', 10 out of 100 is hardly a majority, any more than 1 - 4 / 100 is. If pushed I'd say BOTH guestimates are wrong and under the LGBTQ umbrella the number is HIGHER than one in ten!

I just find it really offensive to read it insinuated that most paedophiles are gay! (I know that wasn't you PeterMac, unless you have a pseudonym!)

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by PeterMac on 12.06.13 12:00

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I just find it really offensive to read it insinuated that most paedophiles are gay! (I know that wasn't you PeterMac, unless you have a pseudonym!)
Or indeed that most gays are paedophiles, or that straight people are all potential rapists.
The various strands of orientation and of behaviour do not seem to be linked, so far as I can ascertain.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.06.13 12:19

@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I just find it really offensive to read it insinuated that most paedophiles are gay! (I know that wasn't you PeterMac, unless you have a pseudonym!)




Or indeed that most gays are paedophiles, or that straight people are all potential rapists.
The various strands of orientation and of behaviour do not seem to be linked, so far as I can ascertain.


Indeed they are not Peter, through my study of this case I've done a LOT of research into p***o's, as unsavoury as such study is. 
This is where the McCanns 'suspects' crash down. There was the German guy mentioned (can't recall name and the search engine on a blackBerry is practically pre-historic!!!), but he was 'into' boys of about ten. 
From my research, paedophiles have a 'type' young girls, young boys, just-pubescent girls etc etc. They do NOT jump from one to another. PLUS, a straight man can be sexually attracted to little boys, but that isn't homosexuality, it is paedophilia in one of its many forms.  
Which is another reason the Jaycee Dugard/Natascha Kampusch references don't stand up either!
Tut tut  they really should do their research first! winkwink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by stillsloppingout on 12.06.13 12:38

Reply If you read my post again i say Most pedophiles are Homosexual ,  NOT Homosexual's , there IS a difference .
 
To spell it out Most pedophiles are Male , [wether married or not ] and given a choice they prefer sex with the same sex than with the opposite sex . [ the clergy being a classic example of this ] .

stillsloppingout

Posts : 489
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-02-06
Location : N WEST ENGLAND

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Not Guilty does NOT mean INNOCENT

Post by Guest on 12.06.13 12:47

Did our glorious leader David Cameron ever state publicly that he didn't mean to imply that paedophiles are necessarily gay? That is certainly the impression I got from his comments on TV but I appreciate that he was caught unawares with "the list" and may have spoken without thinking. 

Just to clarify Dave - you never know, perhaps he reads this forum! - there's no witch hunt against consenting adults, only against those adults (male and female) who molest children.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum