Re: Historical crimes

[Steve O]

On 02/05/2013 11:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>
> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
> I was born ?

Was your dinner a life changing experience?

[Michael Swift]

In article <auesmj...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O
<nos...@here.thanks> writes

The crime couldn't have been so life changing or it would have been
reported sooner.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[The Todal]

On 2/5/13 11:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>
> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
> I was born ?
>

> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ? No
> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>
> Just an idea ...
>

Not a good idea. If you were buggered as a 12 year old you can be
forgiven for wanting to put it behind you and get on with your life.
Reporting the assaults to the police, particularly in the 1960s, would
probably have been met with disbelief and hostility.

Does that mean that, having decided to try to forget about it for the
last 30 years, you should be unable to report it now? What benefit would
there be to society? We'd be protecting old perverts and we'd also be
protecting a few innocent people from false allegations - but the more
ancient the allegations are, the less likely a jury will find them
persuasive.

News just in today..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286

Broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting
girls including one as young as nine.

The 83-year-old from Wilmslow, Cheshire pleaded guilty at Preston Crown
Court to the offences, involving 13 victims, which occurred between 1967
and 1985.

A further three charges of indecent assault and one of rape have been
left to lie on the court file.

His lawyer said Hall apologised to his victims and added: "He is all too
aware that his disgrace is complete."

Hall was initially arrested in December and made a statement labelling
the claims "pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious".

[The Todal]

On 2/5/13 12:18, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:38:50 +0100, The Todal wrote:

>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286
>>
>> Broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting
>> girls including one as young as nine.
>>
>> The 83-year-old from Wilmslow, Cheshire pleaded guilty at Preston Crown
>> Court to the offences, involving 13 victims, which occurred between 1967
>> and 1985.
>>
>> A further three charges of indecent assault and one of rape have been
>> left to lie on the court file.
>>
>> His lawyer said Hall apologised to his victims and added: "He is all too
>> aware that his disgrace is complete."
>>
>> Hall was initially arrested in December and made a statement labelling
>> the claims "pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious".
>

> Is there any way the public will get to know the evidence against him ?
> Is pleading guilty a way to effectively hide the evidence ?

I should think that the red-tops will publish all the prurient details
and maybe personal stories from the victims.

And that would probably be a good thing, and would give people an
indication of the strength of the evidence and whether it was just one
person's word against another's.


>
> The starting point has to be whether you accept that people being accused
> of crimes which happened half a century ago is in any way compatible with
> the notion of justice ? Maybe I'm struggling to articulate why, but these
> recent cases make me uneasy. Particularly as we aren't privy to the level
> of evidence the police and CPS are basing their decisions on.
>
> As a hypothetical, suppose someone, for whatever reason, decided to trawl
> Facebook. Find a 50 year old man in the UK, and go to the police and say
> "he assaulted me in 1984". Using myself as an example, how could I prove
> where I was *generally* that year ? College records would certainly
> confirm that I was resident in a certain place but I couldn't demonstrate
> that I hadn't where the assault is alleged to have taken place. It's 29
> years ago, for Gods sake.
>

I can't think of any trial yet where the defendant has said "I have
never seen this person before in my life, I have no idea why she is
accusing me of these dreadful offences".

But maybe there have been such trials. If so, I'd be interested to know
the outcome. Most trials seem to involve victims who are known to the
defendant but there is an argument about precisely what took place.

[Svenne]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:25:40 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>I can't think of any trial yet where the defendant has said "I have
>never seen this person before in my life, I have no idea why she is
>accusing me of these dreadful offences".
>
>But maybe there have been such trials. If so, I'd be interested to know
>the outcome. Most trials seem to involve victims who are known to the
>defendant but there is an argument about precisely what took place.

Here's one:

An 86 year old pensioner was charged with raping a girl 30 years
previously. He said that not only did he not rape the girl but he had
no idea who she was. He was found guilty and given five years:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-for-raping-girl-30-years-975935

[AlanG]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 10:07:12 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>

wrote:

>Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
>evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
>years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
>me feeling a tad uneasy.
>
>My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
>can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
>I was born ?

If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
detail for decades to come. I can certainly recall traumatic
incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago

[Omega]

"Svenne" wrote in message
news:q0k4o8tmhn1g8hej5...@4ax.com...

.....................

He 'raped' her repeatedly over a period of three years in the back of his
van in a garage. She was raped then she went back for more, for a further
THREE years? Someone is going to have to help me with this one!

omega

.....................

[Norman Wells]

And what do you say was the evidence against him?

[Svenne]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:57:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

Not relevant. I was providing an example of an historic rape case
where a defendant accused of raping someone repeatedly over many years
denied even knowing his victim.

[Norman Wells]

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

(c) Mandy Rice-Davies 1963

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:38:50 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ? No
>> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
>> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.

>> Just an idea ...

>Not a good idea. If you were buggered as a 12 year old you can be
>forgiven for wanting to put it behind you and get on with your life.

And if that is the decision you stuck to for 20 years or more, IMO
it's the one you should continue to stick to. Not only for the
accused and for justice, but because changing that decision may very
well cause the *victim* a great deal of harm rather than bringing any
sort of "closure" (or whatever else the victim thought they would get
out of the process).

>Reporting the assaults to the police, particularly in the 1960s, would
>probably have been met with disbelief and hostility.

And shortly before that, an adult homosexual could have been sent to
prison for doing something we now consider to be perfectly OK. It was
the standards of the time that everyone had to live by, and if those
standards were wrong, then tough for the people who suffered as a
result.

>Does that mean that, having decided to try to forget about it for the
>last 30 years, you should be unable to report it now?

IMO yes.

> What benefit would
>there be to society?

Well, society would not be caught up in an hysterical witch-hunt and
pushed further toward paedophile paranoia, for one. I certainly do
not see any benefit to society of carrying out these prosecutions - if
they were not allowed then nobody would know that the crimes might
have occurred.

I also believe that it is sometimes a *good* thing for people to
continue to have fond memories of things that in reality had a dark
side. It can do far more harm than good to discover that the
role-model that a person has tried to live up to all their life did
some pretty nasty things. Apart from anything else, it could result
in people deciding that if even Rolf Harris was doing those things,
then such behaviour cannot be nearly as bad as is being made out, can
it?

Do you think that the McCarthy hunts for secret communists was of
benefit to society?

You are aware that there is a time limitation on seeking compensation
in a civil court, and IMO there should be similar limits for a
criminal prosecution for much the same reasons.

Like in civil cases, there could be various rules that control when
the clock starts ticking, and the safety-net of permitting a judge to
allow a case that is out of time to be brought if there are good
reasons for doing so.

--
Cynic

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:38:50 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> On 2/5/13 11:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
>> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
>> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
>> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>>
>> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
>> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
>> I was born ?
>>
>> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ? No
>> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
>> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>>
>> Just an idea ...
>>
>
> Not a good idea. If you were buggered as a 12 year old you can be
> forgiven for wanting to put it behind you and get on with your life.
> Reporting the assaults to the police, particularly in the 1960s, would
> probably have been met with disbelief and hostility.
>
> Does that mean that, having decided to try to forget about it for the
> last 30 years, you should be unable to report it now?

If you've managed to not report it for 30 years you must have got over it. Anyone who can't get over something after 30 years needs their head read.

--
"Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts."

[Major Scott]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:18:55 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 11:38:50 +0100, The Todal wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/13 11:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
>>> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for
>>> many years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted
>>> leaves me feeling a tad uneasy.
>>>
>>> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week.
>>> How can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred
>>> before I was born ?
>>>
>>> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ?
>>> No limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open
>>> for someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>>>
>>> Just an idea ...
>>>
>>>
>> Not a good idea. If you were buggered as a 12 year old you can be
>> forgiven for wanting to put it behind you and get on with your life.
>> Reporting the assaults to the police, particularly in the 1960s, would
>> probably have been met with disbelief and hostility.
>

> I appreciate that. And I accept that what we are dealing with *now* was
> also a crime *then*. However social attitudes have shifted - possibly for
> the better. It seems a little dangerous to judge people by *todays*
> standards for actions in the past.

>
>>
>> Does that mean that, having decided to try to forget about it for the
>> last 30 years, you should be unable to report it now? What benefit would
>> there be to society? We'd be protecting old perverts and we'd also be
>> protecting a few innocent people from false allegations - but the more
>> ancient the allegations are, the less likely a jury will find them
>> persuasive.
>

> Maybe it wasn't such a good idea ....

>
>>
>> News just in today..
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286
>>
>> Broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting
>> girls including one as young as nine.
>>
>> The 83-year-old from Wilmslow, Cheshire pleaded guilty at Preston Crown
>> Court to the offences, involving 13 victims, which occurred between 1967
>> and 1985.
>>
>> A further three charges of indecent assault and one of rape have been
>> left to lie on the court file.
>>
>> His lawyer said Hall apologised to his victims and added: "He is all too
>> aware that his disgrace is complete."
>>
>> Hall was initially arrested in December and made a statement labelling
>> the claims "pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious".
>

> Is there any way the public will get to know the evidence against him ?
> Is pleading guilty a way to effectively hide the evidence ?
>

> The starting point has to be whether you accept that people being accused
> of crimes which happened half a century ago is in any way compatible with
> the notion of justice ? Maybe I'm struggling to articulate why, but these
> recent cases make me uneasy. Particularly as we aren't privy to the level
> of evidence the police and CPS are basing their decisions on.
>
> As a hypothetical, suppose someone, for whatever reason, decided to trawl
> Facebook. Find a 50 year old man in the UK, and go to the police and say
> "he assaulted me in 1984". Using myself as an example, how could I prove
> where I was *generally* that year ? College records would certainly
> confirm that I was resident in a certain place but I couldn't demonstrate
> that I hadn't where the assault is alleged to have taken place. It's 29
> years ago, for Gods sake.

Indeed. Just on the point of evidence being too scarce, old cases should be let lie.

--
I married my wife for her looks...but not the ones she's been giving me lately!

[richardm...@googlemail.com]

I appreciate 30, 40 years is a long time
however, with someone coming forward with
an allegation now, that may encourage more
recent victims to come forward too.
Surely that is a good thing.

In the case of Stuart Hall, maybe he has
a birth mark (akin to MJackson) that would
give credence to the victims allegation.

It does beg the question, why 40 years etc.
I can understand why someone may not recognise
their attacker but Roach and Fred Talbot (Richard & Judy)
have been on TV almost every day for years.

Personally i do believe they should remain anonymous
unless they are found guilty or the go on the
run and the Police are looking for them.

[The Todal]

People keep using the phrase "witch hunt".

What we need to keep firmly in mind is that there are no such things as
witches. Anyone who goes searching for witches is therefore victimising
innocent people.

That cannot be said of people who go searching for sexual offenders.
They definitely exist. They are not the product of a fevered
imagination. Some suspects will be sexual offenders, others will be
innocent.

>
> I also believe that it is sometimes a *good* thing for people to
> continue to have fond memories of things that in reality had a dark
> side. It can do far more harm than good to discover that the
> role-model that a person has tried to live up to all their life did
> some pretty nasty things. Apart from anything else, it could result
> in people deciding that if even Rolf Harris was doing those things,
> then such behaviour cannot be nearly as bad as is being made out, can
> it?
>
> Do you think that the McCarthy hunts for secret communists was of
> benefit to society?

No, but that again is a very different issue. It is possible to be a
communist and be persecuted unfairly for one's political views by an
intolerant society. It is not possible to be a sexual predator and be
persecuted unfairly.

>
> You are aware that there is a time limitation on seeking compensation
> in a civil court, and IMO there should be similar limits for a
> criminal prosecution for much the same reasons.

I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.

[The Todal]

Very possibly. If you were buggered and treated as some guy's sexual
plaything as a child, do you think you might end up suffering from
psychiatric problems, perhaps?

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT),
richardm...@googlemail.com wrote:

>I appreciate 30, 40 years is a long time
>however, with someone coming forward with
>an allegation now, that may encourage more
>recent victims to come forward too.
>Surely that is a good thing.

ITYM "If it saves just one child ..."

The problem is that there are negatives as well as positives. Such as
increasing the paranoia of society, and encouraging chancers to make
malicious lies knowing that there is a good chance that they, also
will be believed.

There ais a heck of a lot of money to be made from a good story full
of titillating sexual abuse, especially if it involves a celebrity, so
the "encouragement" is unlikely to be *all* good.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:46:24 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>> Do you think that the McCarthy hunts for secret communists was of
>> benefit to society?

>No, but that again is a very different issue. It is possible to be a
>communist and be persecuted unfairly for one's political views by an
>intolerant society. It is not possible to be a sexual predator and be
>persecuted unfairly.

Of *course* it is equally possible. Communists were not tolerated
then because society believed that communists had completely
unacceptable views and morals, and did things that caused a great deal
of harm. If society was correct and communists do in fact cause a
great deal of harm, then they were not being persecuted unfairly.
There is no doubt that *some* communists did do terrible things in the
name of communism, and those examples could be trotted out to prove
how evil communists were.

Nowadays society believes that any person older than X years (without
ther being agreement as to what "X" is) who has any sort of sexual
activity whatsoever with a person under 16 causes a huge amount of
harm. The fact that that belief is about as true in the general case
as it was about communists is something that you ignore because you
are caught up in the same distorted belief as people were in the
McCarthy era.

Some communist acts cause harm. Some sexual activities cause harm.
The legality of the act is not a good indication of the amount of harm
that is likely to result.

>> You are aware that there is a time limitation on seeking compensation
>> in a civil court, and IMO there should be similar limits for a
>> criminal prosecution for much the same reasons.

>I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.

What disadvantages do you say exist in the criminal case that do not
exist in the civil case?

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:47:21 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>Very possibly. If you were buggered and treated as some guy's sexual
>plaything as a child, do you think you might end up suffering from
>psychiatric problems, perhaps?

Perhaps but perhaps not.

But if so, they would have materialised *long* before 30 years.

But it is very dishonest of you to describe an extreme case that is
nothing like the accusations being currently made.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:10:08 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:

>If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>detail for decades to come.

You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
recalling the details accurately are quite small.

> I can certainly recall traumatic
>incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago

But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
as exactly where it happened and who else was present.

--
Cynic

[The Todal]

On 2/5/13 16:56, Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:46:24 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Do you think that the McCarthy hunts for secret communists was of
>>> benefit to society?
>
>> No, but that again is a very different issue. It is possible to be a
>> communist and be persecuted unfairly for one's political views by an
>> intolerant society. It is not possible to be a sexual predator and be
>> persecuted unfairly.
>
> Of *course* it is equally possible. Communists were not tolerated
> then because society believed that communists had completely
> unacceptable views and morals, and did things that caused a great deal
> of harm. If society was correct and communists do in fact cause a
> great deal of harm, then they were not being persecuted unfairly.
> There is no doubt that *some* communists did do terrible things in the
> name of communism, and those examples could be trotted out to prove
> how evil communists were.

Authors, actors and film directors who had communist beliefs were
plainly no risk to the country but were persecuted out of an unrealistic
belief that they were the enemy within. Nobody seriously believed that
Arthur Miller was likely to round up a lot of people and send them to a
Gulag.

>
> Nowadays society believes that any person older than X years (without
> ther being agreement as to what "X" is) who has any sort of sexual
> activity whatsoever with a person under 16 causes a huge amount of
> harm. The fact that that belief is about as true in the general case
> as it was about communists is something that you ignore because you
> are caught up in the same distorted belief as people were in the
> McCarthy era.

I find your argument unconvincing.
Sexual activity with a person under 16 is unlawful. It is futile to
argue that it would have been perfectly acceptable in the days of the
Tudors, or in a different country. It was unlawful in the 60s and those
who thought they were immune from the laws that apply to the rest of
society were arrogant bastards who deserve to be dragged out of their
bathchairs and nursing homes and put on trial.

They can then deal with the prosecution as they think fit - tell the
truth and hope for the mercy of the court or tell a lot of fibs.

>
> Some communist acts cause harm. Some sexual activities cause harm.
> The legality of the act is not a good indication of the amount of harm
> that is likely to result.

I'm in favour of legalising cannabis but I wouldn't seriously argue that
it was unjust to prosecute people under our current laws. Okay, unjust
to prosecute them for smoking weed thirty years ago, but only because
the time and expense of such a prosecution is disproportionate to the
benefit.

Reminding people that it is not acceptable to sexually exploit underage
kids will always be beneficial to society.

>
>>> You are aware that there is a time limitation on seeking compensation
>>> in a civil court, and IMO there should be similar limits for a
>>> criminal prosecution for much the same reasons.
>
>> I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.
>
> What disadvantages do you say exist in the criminal case that do not
> exist in the civil case?
>

Civil cases are merely to obtain financial compensation for people. They
do not really benefit society at large.

Criminal cases serve to remind society of the limits of acceptable
behaviour. There are still many people who think that they can rape a
stepdaughter or niece with impunity because "it's her word against mine
and no jury will ever convict me". Such people might be deterred by
these historic prosecutions which remind them that the helpless 12 year
old eventually grows up into a vengeful harridan who will have a
believable story.

[Eric]

On 02/05/2013 17:07, The Todal wrote:

>
> Criminal cases serve to remind society of the limits of acceptable
> behaviour. There are still many people who think that they can rape a
> stepdaughter or niece with impunity because "it's her word against mine
> and no jury will ever convict me". Such people might be deterred by
> these historic prosecutions which remind them that the helpless 12 year
> old eventually grows up into a vengeful harridan who will have a
> believable story.

The conviction rate for trials involving sexual allegations is under 7%.
For burglary it is 80%.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:02:41 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:10:08 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>>on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>>detail for decades to come.
>
>You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
>recalling the details accurately are quite small.

Quite large if the incident is severe enough

>
>> I can certainly recall traumatic
>>incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago
>
>But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
>accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
>as exactly where it happened and who else was present.

I certainly can. What I cannot do with any accuracy is put a time and
date to the incidents except to within a couple of years. But since I
was under 5 years old and could not tell the time or read a calendar
that is understandable.

[Yellow]

In article <kVqgt.186858$ZX4....@fx08.fr7>, jeth...@hotmailbin.com
says...

>
> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>
> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
> I was born ?

Keep seeing people saying "cannot remember what I had for dinner...."
but let's say you were held down, against your will, and buggered by a
someone 30 years ago, do you really think you would have forgotten all
about it?

Just seem like silly comparison - mundane, daily events and tasks and
rape.

> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ?
No
> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>
> Just an idea ...

Perhaps if we have a string of people who are accused of these awful
crimes being found not guilty because of doubt over the evidence due to
its age, then it is something we should think about. But until then, I
think these current cases should be allowed to play out because none of
us have the slightest idea of the evidence presented in the cases nor
its quality.

I guess in a nutshell, instead of a knee-jerk reaction we need some
facts to work with - and presumably Stuart Hall felt the evidence
against him was sufficiently compelling despite its age or we would not
have seen today's turn of events.

[Yellow]

In article <51828d7c...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...

So if your were raped by Roache, but cannot remember whether he was
wearing boxers or y-fronts, that should be the end of it? No case to
answer?

[The Todal]

Dishonest? Moi?

If I had been french-kissed by Jimmy Savile at the age of 10, or had my
genitals fondled, or had my hand placed on his genitals, I think it is
possible that the memory of this would have been unpleasant and
disturbing as I grew into adulthood. I might become unable to form
loving relationships, I might distrust authority figures. It's possible.
I don't know for sure.

I wonder if you can *honestly* say that such events are part of normal
life for a lot of youngsters and that they adapt as easily to them as
any other sexual experience. And that it is much the same as
finger-fucking Mary Jane Rottencrotch in the back of your Chevy at the
age of 16.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:07:52 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>> Of *course* it is equally possible. Communists were not tolerated
>> then because society believed that communists had completely
>> unacceptable views and morals, and did things that caused a great deal
>> of harm. If society was correct and communists do in fact cause a
>> great deal of harm, then they were not being persecuted unfairly.
>> There is no doubt that *some* communists did do terrible things in the
>> name of communism, and those examples could be trotted out to prove
>> how evil communists were.

>Authors, actors and film directors who had communist beliefs were
>plainly no risk to the country

That's the point - it was *not* what was believed at the time.

> but were persecuted out of an unrealistic
>belief that they were the enemy within. Nobody seriously believed that
>Arthur Miller was likely to round up a lot of people and send them to a
>Gulag.

But he may perhaps have used his influence and money to persuade
others to do so.

>> Nowadays society believes that any person older than X years (without
>> ther being agreement as to what "X" is) who has any sort of sexual
>> activity whatsoever with a person under 16 causes a huge amount of
>> harm. The fact that that belief is about as true in the general case
>> as it was about communists is something that you ignore because you
>> are caught up in the same distorted belief as people were in the
>> McCarthy era.

>I find your argument unconvincing.
>Sexual activity with a person under 16 is unlawful.

And? Is it your argument that its unlawful status means that is must
be harmful?

> It is futile to
>argue that it would have been perfectly acceptable in the days of the
>Tudors, or in a different country.

Why is that a futile argument? It shows that it is not something that
by its very nature *must* be considered wrong.

> It was unlawful in the 60s and those
>who thought they were immune from the laws that apply to the rest of
>society were arrogant bastards who deserve to be dragged out of their
>bathchairs and nursing homes and put on trial.

The same could be said for communists. Or homosexuals.

>They can then deal with the prosecution as they think fit - tell the
>truth and hope for the mercy of the court or tell a lot of fibs.

Which didn't help Oscar Wilde or Alan Turin.

>> Some communist acts cause harm. Some sexual activities cause harm.
>> The legality of the act is not a good indication of the amount of harm
>> that is likely to result.

>I'm in favour of legalising cannabis but I wouldn't seriously argue that
>it was unjust to prosecute people under our current laws. Okay, unjust
>to prosecute them for smoking weed thirty years ago, but only because
>the time and expense of such a prosecution is disproportionate to the
>benefit.

And I make exactly the same claim regarding fairly minor sexual
activities with 14 and 15 year olds in the 1960's.

>Reminding people that it is not acceptable to sexually exploit underage
>kids will always be beneficial to society.

Underage? Exploit? Those things are shifting sands.

>>> I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.

>> What disadvantages do you say exist in the criminal case that do not
>> exist in the civil case?

>Civil cases are merely to obtain financial compensation for people. They
>do not really benefit society at large.

Nor do prosecutions of people in the final years of their lives for
things that they did before most of society were born.

>Criminal cases serve to remind society of the limits of acceptable
>behaviour.

*If* they are contempory they remind people of the limits of
acceptable behaviour *today*.

> There are still many people who think that they can rape a
>stepdaughter or niece with impunity because "it's her word against mine
>and no jury will ever convict me".

Are there? I very much doubt that that has been the case in the UK
for many years.

It is a fact that right now there are a huge number of 16 and 17 year
olds who have a 15 year old girlfriend. Most will have committed some
form of sexual act with their girlfriend, even if it is just a
passionate kiss. They know that what they are doing is reasonably
acceptable to most people, and there is no chance that they will be
prosecuted for it even though it is as a matter of fact illegal.

Imagine if, in 30 years time such a thing becomes completely
unacceptable. Would it help that future society to "remind" them of
how attitudes have changed by rounding up all thse young lovers and
throwing them in jail?

--
Cynic

[Major Scott]

No, they're not real like a broken leg. And definitely not for 30 years. And definitely not if I haven't felt the need to report it for 30 years.

--
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe - Frank Zappa

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:54:09 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>If I had been french-kissed by Jimmy Savile at the age of 10, or had my
>genitals fondled, or had my hand placed on his genitals, I think it is
>possible that the memory of this would have been unpleasant and
>disturbing as I grew into adulthood.

That is only probable if it involved forcing or coercing you to do
something that you did not want to do.

According to the only scientifically conducted research into such
things, anyway.

If you allowed it willingly, even if that was out of curiosity or a
desire to please a celebrity, it might be something you would remember
with some distaste, but there is very little probability that it would
cause you any trauma or other emotional harm.

Unless, that is, you were grabbed by the authorities, questioned at
length and treated as a poor victim in need of counselling.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:43:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>

wrote:

>>>If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>>>on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>>>detail for decades to come.

>>You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
>>recalling the details accurately are quite small.

>Quite large if the incident is severe enough

No. Read up on it. What usually happens over time is that various
other memories from different times become woven into the memory of
the traumatic event.

>>> I can certainly recall traumatic
>>>incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago

>>But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
>>accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
>>as exactly where it happened and who else was present.

>I certainly can. What I cannot do with any accuracy is put a time and
>date to the incidents except to within a couple of years. But since I
>was under 5 years old and could not tell the time or read a calendar
>that is understandable.

What was the weather at the time - cold or hot outside? What sort of
clothes were you any any other person wearing? What, if anything was
playing on the radio? Do you recall any Christmas or birthday
presents in the details? How high above/below you eyes did any
furniture appear to be?

Because *if* you do in fact accurately recall most of the details of
the event, it should be possible to use the adult reasoning you now
have to figure out at least a time of year, and quite possibly the
year itself.

But more usually, when you forensically analyse your remembered
details, you realise that not all of the memories can possibly be
accurate. Perhaps, for example, you remember it happening inside a
house with a person present who you know died before you moved to that
particular house.

Whilst I suffered no trauma in my early life (that I am aware of), I
have some very vivid memories of certain noteworthy events which I
later analysed and discovered several inconsistencies.

--
Cynic

[Mel Rowing]

On 2 May, 11:07, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>
> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
> I was born ?
>
> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ? No
> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>
> Just an idea ...

Hall pleaded guilty!

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:53:14 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>> >If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>> >on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>> >detail for decades to come.

>> You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
>> recalling the details accurately are quite small.

>> > I can certainly recall traumatic
>> >incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago

>> But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
>> accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
>> as exactly where it happened and who else was present.

>So if your were raped by Roache, but cannot remember whether he was
>wearing boxers or y-fronts, that should be the end of it? No case to
>answer?

The possibility is that although you suddenly and very clearly
remembered it being Roache who raped you the instant you saw his photo
in the paper, the reality might be that your abuser was in fact your
brother, father or uncle.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:47:14 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>Keep seeing people saying "cannot remember what I had for dinner...."
>but let's say you were held down, against your will, and buggered by a
>someone 30 years ago, do you really think you would have forgotten all
>about it?

You would recall the fact that you were abused, yes.

But details - including the identity of the abuser are not as certain
to be remembered accurately.

Ask people who were involved in a car accident to describe what
happened, and you will very seldom get agreement on even the main
details, such as whether the driver of the other vehicle was a man or
a woman, etc.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

The Todal wrote:

> I wonder if you can *honestly* say that such events are part of normal
> life for a lot of youngsters and that they adapt as easily to them as
> any other sexual experience. And that it is much the same as
> finger-fucking Mary Jane Rottencrotch in the back of your Chevy at the
> age of 16.

No, I don't think you could honestly say that. If you're 16, you're not
entitled to drive.

And it's most unlikely you'd own a Chevy.

[Norman Wells]

If anyone grabbed me by the authorities, I'd complain. It's very
painful.

[AC]

Well, if you can misidentify a peer of the realm...

--
AC

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:12:16 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Unless, that is, you were grabbed by the authorities, questioned at
>> length and treated as a poor victim in need of counselling.
>
>If anyone grabbed me by the authorities, I'd complain. It's very
>painful.

Tell me about it!

--
Cynic

[AC]

Not the point.

I accuse you of buggering some lad 25 years ago. You know you are
innocent, because you are innocent. I then ask you what you were doing
12 Oct 1988 at 8.30pm.

No, I cant answer that either.

--
AC

[Ste]

On May 2, 4:42 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT),
>

But if offenders think they can get off scot free no matter how
obscene their crime, then the encouragement offered by that impunity
is also unlikely to be all good. Surely you don't think that no
alleged sex crime should ever be investigated?

[Yellow]

In article <5182a734...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...

I said someone who was raped by Roache, not someone who just "thinks"
they were.

If we assume for one moment that this for-the-sake-of-argument rape did
actually occur, what level of detail of recollection do you believe to
be necessary before you would accept that they were actually raped? To
repeat - I am talking here about a rape that happened.

Or do you believe that no one ever gets raped and that all reports are
make up in order to get money, attention, and/or one's own back?

[Yellow]

In article <5182a870...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:47:14 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >Keep seeing people saying "cannot remember what I had for dinner...."
> >but let's say you were held down, against your will, and buggered by a
> >someone 30 years ago, do you really think you would have forgotten all
> >about it?
>
> You would recall the fact that you were abused, yes.
>
> But details - including the identity of the abuser are not as certain
> to be remembered accurately.

If you were abused by a stranger, then I agree, you would not be able to
identify from a photofit reliably. But if you were abused by say Jimmy
Saville, I do not care how many years have passed, you would be certain.

>
> Ask people who were involved in a car accident to describe what
> happened, and you will very seldom get agreement on even the main
> details, such as whether the driver of the other vehicle was a man or
> a woman, etc.

If I was hit by a stranger, I agree. I was in a multiple pile-up in the
early 90's (so 20 years ago) and I could not tell you anything about the
other people concerned except for the one I knew.

He worked where I worked and we were both on the way to work, hence us
both being on the same bit of road. And him, I remember.

[Yellow]

In article <Niygt.160422$T71....@fx01.fr7>, x...@xxx.xxx says...

>
> Yellow wrote:

> > I guess in a nutshell, instead of a knee-jerk reaction we need some
> > facts to work with - and presumably Stuart Hall felt the evidence
> > against him was sufficiently compelling despite its age or we would not
> > have seen today's turn of events.
> >
>
> Not the point.
>
> I accuse you of buggering some lad 25 years ago. You know you are
> innocent, because you are innocent. I then ask you what you were doing
> 12 Oct 1988 at 8.30pm.
>
> No, I cant answer that either.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Not knowing what I was doing on a given
date 30 years ago is not going to get me found guilty of a crime - it is
trivia. There needs to bit bigger evidence, trivial details being
irrelevant so who cares whether or not, after 30 years, they can be
remembered.

[Ste]

On May 2, 5:07 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/13 16:56, Cynic wrote:
>
>
> > Some communist acts cause harm.  Some sexual activities cause harm.
> > The legality of the act is not a good indication of the amount of harm
> > that is likely to result.
>
> I'm in favour of legalising cannabis but I wouldn't seriously argue that
> it was unjust to prosecute people under our current laws. Okay, unjust
> to prosecute them for smoking weed thirty years ago, but only because
> the time and expense of such a prosecution is disproportionate to the
> benefit.

It seems especially unjust to prosecute after 30 years, since the main
point of criminalising drugs is to deter their use - and evidently
that policy would have failed if the prosecution was only taking place
30 years later, and most of those who stood to be prosecuted would
long have ceased to be consumers of drugs (or would have already been
ravaged by their effects).

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> There ais a heck of a lot of money to be made from a good story full
>> of titillating sexual abuse, especially if it involves a celebrity, so
>> the "encouragement" is unlikely to be *all* good.

>But if offenders think they can get off scot free no matter how
>obscene their crime, then the encouragement offered by that impunity
>is also unlikely to be all good.

Failing to prosecute 30 year old crimes is hardly likely to send out
such a message, is it? For a start nobody need *know* that such
crimes are not prosecuted. And as far as any offenders themselves are
concerned, they *have already* got away with their crimes for almost
all their life, so punishing them now is not going to make the
slightest difference to the (almost zero) probability that they will
re-offend in future.

As for would-be offenders living today, I think most people fully
realise that the probability of getting away with such a crime these
days is a lot slimmer than it used to be 40 or 50 years ago, so any
message that prosecuting an historic crime would send is redundant.

> Surely you don't think that no
>alleged sex crime should ever be investigated?

I have never said nor implied any such thing. This is *only* about
crimes that occurred decades ago and which were either not reported
earlier or there is no new evidence. I have the same view on *all*
types of crime, not just sex crimes, though there are additional
reasons for such a view in the case of crimes where the public have a
significantly different attitude to now than they did at the time of
commission.

--
Cynic

[Ste]

On May 2, 5:57 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:07:52 +0100, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>

The sorts of things we're concerned with here, were no more acceptable
in the 60s than they are today. Sanctions and enforcement may have
been more informal, at least in the first instance, and that is
precisely why we find a hotbed of abuse in places like children's
homes where criminals could assume a position of responsibility over
neglected and maltreated children, safe in the knowledge that they
were the ones primarily charged with care of their victims, and that
their victims were discreditable and were unlikely to have independent
links in the community, should they be inclined to make any
allegations.

[Svenne]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

You don't know much about drugs.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:41:22 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>> >So if your were raped by Roache, but cannot remember whether he was
>> >wearing boxers or y-fronts, that should be the end of it? No case to
>> >answer?

>> The possibility is that although you suddenly and very clearly
>> remembered it being Roache who raped you the instant you saw his photo
>> in the paper, the reality might be that your abuser was in fact your
>> brother, father or uncle.

>I said someone who was raped by Roache, not someone who just "thinks"
>they were.

But there is no way for anyone (apart from Roache) to be sure about
that, is there?

>If we assume for one moment that this for-the-sake-of-argument rape did
>actually occur, what level of detail of recollection do you believe to
>be necessary before you would accept that they were actually raped? To
>repeat - I am talking here about a rape that happened.

I would require evidence that is sufficient to make me certain beyond
reasonable doubt that Roache did in fact commit the rape - knowing as
I do that a completely honest witness who sincerely believes she was
raped by Roache may easily be mistaken if she is going only from her
30 year-old memories of the event. Making your scenario such that he
is in fact guilty makes no difference, because it is something that
nobody (except Roache) could know and so cannot affect a decision. I
could alter the scenario to be one where Roach is innocent and the
victim is mistaken and the evidence could be exactly the same.

>Or do you believe that no one ever gets raped and that all reports are
>make up in order to get money, attention, and/or one's own back?

No, I do not believe that at all, any more than I believe that rape
victims are never mistaken or that nobody ever makes false rape
accusations. What I *do* believe however is that it is very unlikely
that there will be sufficient evidence after 30 years that we could be
sure beyond reasonable doubt that the accused really is guilty, and a
conviction requires more than the view that he *might well* be guilty
or that such rapes have certainly occurred and so *somebody* has to
pay the price, guilty or not.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:47:54 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>> But details - including the identity of the abuser are not as certain
>> to be remembered accurately.

>If you were abused by a stranger, then I agree, you would not be able to
>identify from a photofit reliably. But if you were abused by say Jimmy
>Saville, I do not care how many years have passed, you would be certain.

Sorry but there you are dead wrong. After many years, memories can
and very often do very convincingly exchange one familiar figure with
another. That is especially true in cases where there are strong but
very mixed emotions about a person. It is not too uncommon, so I have
read, for the bad traits of a person you otherwise love very much to
be transferred to someone different who you do not hold such feelings
about. IOW a person begins "remembering" what they would *like* to
have been the case rather than what really *was* the case.

I have read more than one case history of a person who distinctly
recalls being punished, shouted at or otherwise had unpleasant things
done to them by a hated step-parent when other evidence has revealed
that it in fact involved the biological parent who they loved and
greatly missed.

Had the abuse taken place in the recent past, it is far less likely
for the memory to play such tricks.

--
Cynic

[AC]

In front of a jury, I disagree. The "victim" remembers perfectly well,
because it was traumatic. Ruined their life, cant stop thinking about
it, etc. The defendant looks evasive because, oh my goodness, he cant
remember. Funny that. Victim looks convincing. Muppet jury convicts. No
appeal, no new evidence. Why would there be, it never happened.

Wont happen, cant happen? Of course not. No never.

--
AC

[AC]

Yellow wrote:
> In article <5182a870...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:47:14 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Keep seeing people saying "cannot remember what I had for dinner...."
>>> but let's say you were held down, against your will, and buggered by a
>>> someone 30 years ago, do you really think you would have forgotten all
>>> about it?
>>
>> You would recall the fact that you were abused, yes.
>>
>> But details - including the identity of the abuser are not as certain
>> to be remembered accurately.
>
> If you were abused by a stranger, then I agree, you would not be able to
> identify from a photofit reliably. But if you were abused by say Jimmy
> Saville, I do not care how many years have passed, you would be certain.
>
>

Say the victim was actually psychologically affected by the abuse. Say
it was a group thing. Say the only stand out person there was JS. Not
hard to mentally transfer. Not easy to prove either way.

Also, to push it further, not hard for the victim to "forget" the group
bit. Heh, Im mean, why complicate things after all these years? He was
there after all. Bastard deserves it, right?

--
AC

[AC]

None. I would not accept it 100% happened with out physical evidence.
Balance of probability, maybe, but never beyond reasonable doubt.

>
> Or do you believe that no one ever gets raped and that all reports are
> make up in order to get money, attention, and/or one's own back?
>

No, many have and AFAIK, have to have evidence. An alleged victim's word
cant ever be enough.


--
AC

[AC]

...and compensation to pay off that mortgage.

--
AC

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 14:46:45 +0300, Svenne <tvaer...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:25:40 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I can't think of any trial yet where the defendant has said "I have
>>never seen this person before in my life, I have no idea why she is
>>accusing me of these dreadful offences".
>>
>>But maybe there have been such trials. If so, I'd be interested to know
>>the outcome. Most trials seem to involve victims who are known to the
>>defendant but there is an argument about precisely what took place.
>
>Here's one:
>
>An 86 year old pensioner was charged with raping a girl 30 years
>previously. He said that not only did he not rape the girl but he had
>no idea who she was. He was found guilty and given five years:
>
>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-for-raping-girl-30-years-975935

At least you are consistent.

Your comments on that case in this group were very similar to those
you have been making this time around.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Yellow]

In article <5182baac...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:41:22 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So if your were raped by Roache, but cannot remember whether he was
> >> >wearing boxers or y-fronts, that should be the end of it? No case to
> >> >answer?
>
> >> The possibility is that although you suddenly and very clearly
> >> remembered it being Roache who raped you the instant you saw his photo
> >> in the paper, the reality might be that your abuser was in fact your
> >> brother, father or uncle.
>
> >I said someone who was raped by Roache, not someone who just "thinks"
> >they were.
>
> But there is no way for anyone (apart from Roache) to be sure about
> that, is there?

You think the only person who can confirm an attack is the attacker?

That's logic is... interesting.

>
> >If we assume for one moment that this for-the-sake-of-argument rape did
> >actually occur, what level of detail of recollection do you believe to
> >be necessary before you would accept that they were actually raped? To
> >repeat - I am talking here about a rape that happened.
>
> I would require evidence that is sufficient to make me certain beyond
> reasonable doubt that Roache did in fact commit the rape - knowing as
> I do that a completely honest witness who sincerely believes she was
> raped by Roache may easily be mistaken if she is going only from her
> 30 year-old memories of the event. Making your scenario such that he
> is in fact guilty makes no difference, because it is something that
> nobody (except Roache) could know and so cannot affect a decision. I
> could alter the scenario to be one where Roach is innocent and the
> victim is mistaken and the evidence could be exactly the same.

I had a pet rabbit when I was 12, I do not now think it was perhaps a
cat because 30 years have passed.

>
> >Or do you believe that no one ever gets raped and that all reports are
> >make up in order to get money, attention, and/or one's own back?
>
> No, I do not believe that at all, any more than I believe that rape
> victims are never mistaken or that nobody ever makes false rape
> accusations. What I *do* believe however is that it is very unlikely
> that there will be sufficient evidence after 30 years that we could be
> sure beyond reasonable doubt that the accused really is guilty, and a
> conviction requires more than the view that he *might well* be guilty
> or that such rapes have certainly occurred and so *somebody* has to
> pay the price, guilty or not.

That's just guesswork but as these court cases play out, we will learn
what is and what is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[Yellow]

In article <JRzgt.160493$T71....@fx01.fr7>, x...@xxx.xxx says...

Having been a "muppet" on a jury, we as a group took it all incredibly
seriously and understood the responsibility of our task.

So perhaps you are judging other people by what you would do?

[Yellow]

In article <5182bd89...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...

>
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:47:54 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >> But details - including the identity of the abuser are not as certain
> >> to be remembered accurately.
>
> >If you were abused by a stranger, then I agree, you would not be able to
> >identify from a photofit reliably. But if you were abused by say Jimmy
> >Saville, I do not care how many years have passed, you would be certain.
>
> Sorry but there you are dead wrong. After many years, memories can
> and very often do very convincingly exchange one familiar figure with
> another.

Yes, I am sure this rare event happens every day of the week.

> That is especially true in cases where there are strong but
> very mixed emotions about a person. It is not too uncommon, so I have
> read, for the bad traits of a person you otherwise love very much to
> be transferred to someone different who you do not hold such feelings
> about. IOW a person begins "remembering" what they would *like* to
> have been the case rather than what really *was* the case.
>
> I have read more than one case history of a person who distinctly
> recalls being punished, shouted at or otherwise had unpleasant things
> done to them by a hated step-parent when other evidence has revealed
> that it in fact involved the biological parent who they loved and
> greatly missed.

Not every day then. You know of one case.

> Had the abuse taken place in the recent past, it is far less likely
> for the memory to play such tricks.

All this is just a load of bollocks and repeating it over and over is
not convincing anyone.

What next? They are doing it for the money?

[Steve O]

On 02/05/2013 11:28, Michael Swift wrote:
> In article <auesmj...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O
> <nos...@here.thanks> writes

>>> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
>>> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for
>>> many
>>> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
>>> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>>>
>>> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
>>> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred
>>> before
>>> I was born ?
>>

>> Was your dinner a life changing experience?
>
> The crime couldn't have been so life changing or it would have been
> reported sooner.
>
> Mike
>
How do you know whether it was so life changing or devastating that they
couldn't report it up until now?

[Svenne]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:01 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>

wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 14:46:45 +0300, Svenne <tvaer...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:25:40 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I can't think of any trial yet where the defendant has said "I have
>>>never seen this person before in my life, I have no idea why she is
>>>accusing me of these dreadful offences".
>>>
>>>But maybe there have been such trials. If so, I'd be interested to know
>>>the outcome. Most trials seem to involve victims who are known to the
>>>defendant but there is an argument about precisely what took place.
>>
>>Here's one:
>>
>>An 86 year old pensioner was charged with raping a girl 30 years
>>previously. He said that not only did he not rape the girl but he had
>>no idea who she was. He was found guilty and given five years:
>>
>>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-for-raping-girl-30-years-975935
>
>At least you are consistent.
>
>Your comments on that case in this group were very similar to those
>you have been making this time around.

Yes, this case was discussed on this group some years ago and my
position was the same then as it is now.

Old, uncorroborated memories are useless and dangerous as evidence and
cases based on them should not be prosecuted. More substantial
evidence is needed.

[Steve O]

On 02/05/2013 17:02, Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:10:08 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>

> wrote:
>
>> If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>> on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>> detail for decades to come.
>
> You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
> recalling the details accurately are quite small.
>
>> I can certainly recall traumatic
>> incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago
>
> But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
> accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
> as exactly where it happened and who else was present.
>

I can recall, 41 years ago, when I was 10 years old, using a public
toilet in a park when a man , aged around 35 yrs, barged his way into my
cubicle, whipped his cock out and started masturbating, and was
encouraging me to do so.
I kept my clothes on but couldn't get past him until he'd dropped his
load onto the cubicle walls ( he didn't take very long) after which I
pushed him out of my way and left.
I never told the police or my parents.
Physically he didn't touch me at all, he just stood there wanking.
I wasn't specifically traumatized by it or anything, I just thought it
was weird, because at that time I didn't even know what semen was.
I was too embarrassed to it mention to my parents or friends and didn't
even consider calling the police.
However, as to your suggestion as to whether a person's memory of such
an event would be degraded over time, and despite the fact that I wasn't
particularly affected by this incident,it did stick in my mind and I
could still tell you what time of year it was, which friends I was with,
the make of bike I was riding the time of day, the exact cubicle I was
in, and many other specific details with regards to the man including
the exact words he used, the particular type of cream zipped windcheater
he was wearing, his distinctive accent and his sandy coloured wavy
hairstyle.
In fact, I would even venture to say that I would recognize him if I saw
him again.
And he wasn't even a famous TV personality either.
Now, if you translate that into quite a serious physical sexual assault
or repeated assaults over time and it might give you a good idea of
exactly what a person can or can't remember about events 40 years ago.

[MM]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

There has to be some *evidence* for fuck's sake! Not just allegations.
Look how many, mainly male, teachers have been the subject of false
allegations.

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:57:40 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:07:52 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>

>>> Some communist acts cause harm. Some sexual activities cause harm.
>>> The legality of the act is not a good indication of the amount of harm
>>> that is likely to result.
>
>>I'm in favour of legalising cannabis but I wouldn't seriously argue that
>>it was unjust to prosecute people under our current laws. Okay, unjust
>>to prosecute them for smoking weed thirty years ago, but only because
>>the time and expense of such a prosecution is disproportionate to the
>>benefit.
>

If Britain gets Sharia Law, which is a distinct possibility, then
that's highly possible. Kissing on the street would be totally
illegal. Even holding hands. (Well, whatever hands one would still
have, that is.)

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

That is complete rubbish. You're talking about an era in which
magazines like "Health & Efficiency" were openly available.

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:42:16 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>I had a pet rabbit when I was 12, I do not now think it was perhaps a
>cat because 30 years have passed.

But who can prove now it was actually a rabbit? It may have indeed
been a cat, but, as your friends all had pet rabbits, you wanted one
as well, so you decided that the family cat was actually a rabbit and
thus you came to believe you had a pet rabbit. After all, children can
invent "reality" for themselves with a play tea-set, can't they?

So who can vouch for the rabbit now?

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 21:23:12 +0100, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

>No, many have and AFAIK, have to have evidence. An alleged victim's word
>cant ever be enough.

Absolutely agree.

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 23:37:53 +0100, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks>
wrote:

Why would you have been embarrassed when you didn't have a clue as to
what he was doing? Or did you just get embarrassed because another
person was using the public convenience at the same time as you? Even
today, I can't "go" if there's someone at the next urinal.

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:47:14 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>I guess in a nutshell, instead of a knee-jerk reaction we need some
>facts to work with - and presumably Stuart Hall felt the evidence
>against him was sufficiently compelling despite its age or we would not
>have seen today's turn of events.

Maybe there wasn't any evidence, but he was advised to "confess" and
thus get a lighter sentence. You're not telling me this hasn't
happened before, are you?

MM

[MM]

So because you happen to have been a juror, you are assuming that ALL
jurors in EVERY trial are just like you, yes?

You seem to assume an awful lot. Maybe even about someone's guilt when
they are in fact innocent, depending on how you hear the prosecution's
statements and what biased view of humanity you may or may not
possess. After all, tens of thousands of people still hate
homosexuality, so you're not going to convince me that any "gay"
person will inevitably get a fair trial no matter what (s)he's
alleged to have done.

This why the jury system is completely f***ed", as is the British
"justice" system, which cares not a jot about banging up the innocent
as long as the Establishment gets the "closure" it is always seeking.

MM

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 02/05/2013 18:54, Mel Rowing wrote:

> On 2 May, 11:07, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> Whilst I would support the concept that it should not be possible to
>> evade punishment for a crime simply because you got away with it for many
>> years, the current spate of 40+ year old crimes being prosecuted leaves
>> me feeling a tad uneasy.
>>
>> My wife and I struggle to remember what we had for dinner last week. How
>> can a complainant be accurate about a crime that may have occurred before
>> I was born ?
>>

>> As a suggestion, maybe there should be a limit on reporting a crime ? No
>> limit on investigating and prosecuting it, but it shouldn't be open for
>> someone to pop up after 45 years and then report a crime.
>>
>> Just an idea ...
>
> Hall pleaded guilty!
>

You are 81.

Guilty costs much less than non-guilty.

What do you do?

--
WM
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://soaptoo.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk
Truth:Humanity:Justice

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 03/05/2013 06:36, MM wrote:

>> The sorts of things we're concerned with here, were no more acceptable
>> in the 60s than they are today.
>
> That is complete rubbish. You're talking about an era in which
> magazines like "Health & Efficiency" were openly available.

... and 'worse'

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 02/05/2013 15:47, The Todal wrote:

> Very possibly. If you were buggered and treated as some guy's sexual
> plaything as a child, do you think you might end up suffering from
> psychiatric problems, perhaps?

Depends how much you enjoyed it.

[Svenne]

A single, uncorroborated accusation decades after the alleged event is
sufficient evidence for charges to be brought and if the prosecution
can convince the jury to "believe the victim", something regarded as a
virtue and practically a civic duty these days, it is enough for a
guilty verdict and a jail sentence for som doddering and confused old
sod.

[Ste]

On May 2, 10:42 pm, Yellow <n...@none.com> wrote:
> In article <5182baac.36549...@127.0.0.1>, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk says...

How can we be sure it wasn't a cat that you now recall to be a rabbit?

[Ste]

On May 3, 6:26 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>

I think they're normally the victim of false allegations whilst the
supposed victim is still in their charge, not 50 years later. It's
difficult to see how there can usually be any strong independent
evidence - and of course juries are not mugs, which is why so few
convictions result because they aren't able to decide beyond a
reasonable doubt.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:49:26 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:

>On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:43:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>

>wrote:
>
>>>>If someone had rammed his penis up your jacksy while you were chewing
>>>>on the roast potato I'm sure you would recall the incident in all its
>>>>detail for decades to come.
>
>>>You would certainly recall the incident, but the probability of
>>>recalling the details accurately are quite small.
>

>>Quite large if the incident is severe enough
>
>No. Read up on it. What usually happens over time is that various
>other memories from different times become woven into the memory of
>the traumatic event.

>
>>>> I can certainly recall traumatic
>>>>incidents of my childhood over 60 years ago
>
>>>But I'd take a bet that you do not recall the details at all
>>>accurately - quite possibly including some of the major details, such
>>>as exactly where it happened and who else was present.
>

>>I certainly can. What I cannot do with any accuracy is put a time and
>>date to the incidents except to within a couple of years. But since I
>>was under 5 years old and could not tell the time or read a calendar
>>that is understandable.
>
>What was the weather at the time - cold or hot outside?

Not winter

> What sort of
>clothes were you any any other person wearing? What, if anything was
>playing on the radio? Do you recall any Christmas or birthday
>presents in the details? How high above/below you eyes did any
>furniture appear to be?
>
>Because *if* you do in fact accurately recall most of the details of
>the event, it should be possible to use the adult reasoning you now
>have to figure out at least a time of year, and quite possibly the
>year itself.

I can tell what time of year to within a few months but little else of
the exact year or time of day. Except the time was either late morning
or afternoon

>
>But more usually, when you forensically analyse your remembered
>details, you realise that not all of the memories can possibly be
>accurate. Perhaps, for example, you remember it happening inside a
>house with a person present who you know died before you moved to that
>particular house.

Nope, Never had that.
What is true are photographs of me which I cannot recall ever being
taken. But since most of these were not earth shattering events I
don't expect to recall them
>
>Whilst I suffered no trauma in my early life (that I am aware of), I
>have some very vivid memories of certain noteworthy events which I
>later analysed and discovered several inconsistencies.

I have never found that except in relation to the time and I admit to
being hazy on dates

[Norman Wells]

Svenne wrote:

> A single, uncorroborated accusation decades after the alleged event is
> sufficient evidence for charges to be brought

No it isn't. Read the CPS guidelines.

> and if the prosecution
> can convince the jury to "believe the victim", something regarded as a
> virtue and practically a civic duty these days, it is enough for a
> guilty verdict and a jail sentence for som doddering and confused old
> sod.

That's why we have a very high hurdle to clear in any criminal
prosecution, ie that of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and why at least 10
out of 12 jurors, and normally all 12, have to be convinced that that
hurdle has been cleared.

[Norman Wells]

A man in his eighties, even if he is innocent, may not relish the
prospect of the remaining years of his life being consumed by fighting
the cases, all the adverse publicity and prurience, and all the stress
involved. Normal life expectancy is only about 82 after all. He may
well decide to take the hit now as the lesser of two evils.

If he does, it says little for the British justice system, because
anyone should be able to protest his innocence and have a fair trial.
The system should not be making numerous examples of old men who cannot
defend themselves just because they're easy targets who will easily
fold, even if innocent, because of the factors I mention. Is it a
coincidence, I wonder, that those now accused are all elderly? Have the
prosecutors shamefully gone for the very lowest hanging fruit?

[Norman Wells]

MM wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:45:06 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>> Having been a "muppet" on a jury, we as a group took it all
>> incredibly seriously and understood the responsibility of our task.
>>
>> So perhaps you are judging other people by what you would do?
>
> So because you happen to have been a juror, you are assuming that ALL
> jurors in EVERY trial are just like you, yes?

I think most are. They're not all like you.

> You seem to assume an awful lot. Maybe even about someone's guilt when
> they are in fact innocent, depending on how you hear the prosecution's
> statements and what biased view of humanity you may or may not
> possess. After all, tens of thousands of people still hate
> homosexuality, so you're not going to convince me that any "gay"
> person will inevitably get a fair trial no matter what (s)he's
> alleged to have done.
>
> This why the jury system is completely f***ed", as is the British
> "justice" system, which cares not a jot about banging up the innocent
> as long as the Establishment gets the "closure" it is always seeking.

No, it's why we have a very high hurdle to clear, that of 'beyond
reasonable doubt' and why we insist on at least 10 out of 12, and
normally all 12, independent people all agreeing that that hurdle has
been cleared.

If you can suggest anything better to sort the genuinely guilty from the
genuinely innocent, as I've asked you many times before, do say what it
is.

[Svenne]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:11:07 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>
>> A single, uncorroborated accusation decades after the alleged event is
>> sufficient evidence for charges to be brought
>
>No it isn't. Read the CPS guidelines.

Yes it is:

"Corroboration or supporting evidence is not essential"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rapepolicy.html

[IanAl]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:10:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>The Todal wrote:
>
>> I wonder if you can *honestly* say that such events are part of normal
>> life for a lot of youngsters and that they adapt as easily to them as
>> any other sexual experience. And that it is much the same as
>> finger-fucking Mary Jane Rottencrotch in the back of your Chevy at the
>> age of 16.
>
>No, I don't think you could honestly say that. If you're 16, you're not
>entitled to drive.

You can in most states of America.

>And it's most unlikely you'd own a Chevy.

Easily, though it might be an old beaten-up one, unless your parents
are rich.

[Steve O]

I didn't fully understand what he was doing, but I knew that what he was
doing wasn't right.
It wasn't something I wanted to talk to my parents about.

>Or did you just get embarrassed because another
> person was using the public convenience at the same time as you? Even
> today, I can't "go" if there's someone at the next urinal.

I don't think you read the account properly.
I wasn't using a urinal- I had gone into a toilet cubicle to use that
and I had my bike propped up against the door.
There was no lock on the cubicle so he pushed his way in and closed the
cubicle door behind him then started wanking.
In a small space, I found that embarrassing.
But it seems you have completely missed the point, or ignored it- which
is that memories like that can remain vivid for many years afterwards,
even if it wasn't so traumatic.
I would say it was an unpleasant experience, and it did worry me for a
while, but I soon got over it.
But that still doesn't mean that what he did was right, or that he
should get away with it.
If I saw him today, and like I say, I would still recognize him, then
why shouldn't I report him?

[totallyconfused]

On May 3, 10:22 am, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 01:26:45 +0300, Svenne wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 May 2013 22:02:01 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 02 May 2013 14:46:45 +0300, Svenne <tvaerska...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 12:25:40 +0100, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>I can't think of any trial yet where the defendant has said "I have
> >>>>never seen this person before in my life, I have no idea why she is
> >>>>accusing me of these dreadful offences".
>
> >>>>But maybe there have been such trials. If so, I'd be interested to
> >>>>know the outcome.  Most trials seem to involve victims who are known
> >>>>to the defendant but there is an argument about precisely what took
> >>>>place.
>
> >>>Here's one:
>
> >>>An 86 year old pensioner was charged with raping a girl 30 years
> >>>previously. He said that not only did he not rape the girl but he had
> >>>no idea who she was. He was found guilty and given five years:
>
> >>>http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/
>
> jailed-for-raping-girl-30-years-975935
>
>
>
> >>At least you are consistent.
>
> >>Your comments on that case in this group were very similar to those you
> >>have been making this time around.
>
> > Yes, this case was discussed on this group some years ago and my
> > position was the same then as it is now.
>
> > Old, uncorroborated memories are useless and dangerous as evidence and
> > cases based on them should not be prosecuted. More substantial evidence
> > is needed.
>
> *Any* uncorroborated memory is useless. Whether it's 5 minutes ago, or 50
> years ago.
>
> There is an experiment I saw on TV years ago, where a group of volunteers
> was shown a video clip set in a mall. A woman comes into shot. Sits on a
> bench. A few seconds pass, and an incident happens behind her, and the
> camera zooms in. The clip stops, and the audience is asked "what colour
> was the womans handbag". There was a variety of recollections - black,
> red, white.
>
> The woman had no handbag at all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> There is an experiment I saw on TV years ago, where a group of volunteers
> was shown a video clip set in a mall. A woman comes into shot. Sits on a
> bench. A few seconds pass, and an incident happens behind her, and the
> camera zooms in. The clip stops, and the audience is asked "what colour
> was the womans handbag". There was a variety of recollections - black,
> red, white.

Tim Roth wrote an episode of Lie To Me that dealt exactly with this
issue. I believe it was about 'perception blindness'. Very similar
to the 'gorilla at a basketball game' video.

As I wrote in a review I wrote earlier this week:
Adults have acquired a body of experience throughout their life or
frames of reference that define their world.

Citation:
Mezirow, Jack (Summer). "Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice".
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74: 5.

[Norman Wells]

From the same paragraph:

"However, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution; that is, it is
for the prosecution to establish the defendant's guilt. Therefore the
prosecution must adduce evidence upon which, if it is accepted, a
reasonable jury may convict."

The CPS will not proceed with a prosecution unless there is a reasonable
prospect of securing a conviction at trial. That's their guiding
principle.

Over 60% of rape cases that reach trial result in conviction, which
shows that the CPS is getting it largely right. However, only 7% of
reported rapes resulted in a conviction in 2011/12, which shows that the
CPS is reluctant to bring cases. Presumably that is because there is no
supporting evidence apart from just the word of the accuser.

I think the figures show that the CPS does not routinely proceed without
corroboration or supporting evidence. It would bring far more cases to
court and would lose a lot more if they did.

[totallyconfused]

a) And that it is much the same as

> >> finger-fucking Mary Jane Rottencrotch in the back of your Chevy at the
> >> age of 16.

Todal- when did you meet the local slut from my high school? (well,
that was the rumour started by the boys!)

b)I had a Chevy when I was 16; A Bisquaine. (My Father's logic: I want
her to drive the bigges MF car possible so if there is an accident
there is lots of metal around. Good thinking: One thing they didn't
teach us in drivers ed was 'do not break in the rain, on a bend in the
road, covered with leaves.' I ended up with just a broken check bone
and nose. If not for the size of the car, I would probably be dead.)


c)My having a Chevy at 16 got me labelled (among other things) as
'fridged'; had a car but wouldn't 'put out'.

Norman: Most 'cases' in the UK are never ever dealt with via a Jury
Trial and indeed is never an option available: have you not heard of
the 'Family Court' (a misnomer if there every was one) and the 'Court
of Protection'?
TC

[Norman Wells]

Jethro_uk wrote:

> Except in the Stuart Hall case, there was no jury.

Well, of course not. Following his admission of guilt, there was
nothing for them to decide.

[Norman Wells]

Were we talking about the USA?

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:

> I would say it was an unpleasant experience, and it did worry me for a
> while, but I soon got over it.
> But that still doesn't mean that what he did was right, or that he
> should get away with it.
> If I saw him today, and like I say, I would still recognize him, then
> why shouldn't I report him?

No-one's saying you should or you shouldn't. It's your call. But your
word against his won't even result in a prosection, let alone a
conviction, so there seems little point.

[Steve O]

Which leads me to believe that there might be a point to some of the
recent prosecutions, or why else would they bother?
It now appears to emerge that Stuart Hall used his fame, money and
influence to systematically abuse underage girls over many years,
possibly with the complicity of his employers.
These people aren't facing prosecution because they had an "occasional
indiscretion" 40 years ago.
They're being prosecuted because they were suspected or got away with
their activities for many years and are now being brought to book,
starting with the worst offenders.
Savile was lucky enough to die before the police were prompted into
action, and it appears they are now determined to not allow another Savile.
I can't say that it is a bad thing.

[Max Demian]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:22:03 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 01:26:45 +0300, Svenne wrote:

>> Old, uncorroborated memories are useless and dangerous as evidence and
>> cases based on them should not be prosecuted. More substantial evidence
>> is needed.
>
>*Any* uncorroborated memory is useless. Whether it's 5 minutes ago, or 50
>years ago.
>
>There is an experiment I saw on TV years ago, where a group of volunteers
>was shown a video clip set in a mall. A woman comes into shot. Sits on a
>bench. A few seconds pass, and an incident happens behind her, and the
>camera zooms in. The clip stops, and the audience is asked "what colour
>was the womans handbag". There was a variety of recollections - black,
>red, white.
>
>The woman had no handbag at all.

"You're driving a empty bus along the road, and the bus stops and
picks up 10 people. Then it goes along, drops off 5 and picks up 2. At
the next stop 3 people get off and 4 get on. It goes along to the
railway station, drops off 5 and picks up 10.

"What was the colour of the driver's eyes?"

--
Max Demian

[IanAl]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 11:01:28 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

Both "Mary Jane Rottencrotch" and Chevys belong in Americaland.

[Svenne]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 10:58:26 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

In a climate where "believing the victim" is practically a civic duty
then the prosecution don't need much to get a conviction.

[AlanG]

You can buy a Chevy in the UK.
I have one parked outside at the moment.

[Norman Wells]

That's why they only proceed with a prosecution in 11% of reported cases
then, is it?

The figures don't lie.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:42:16 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:

>> >I said someone who was raped by Roache, not someone who just "thinks"
>> >they were.

>> But there is no way for anyone (apart from Roache) to be sure about
>> that, is there?

>You think the only person who can confirm an attack is the attacker?

>That's logic is... interesting.

Your interpretation of what I wrote certainly is, anyway.

>> I would require evidence that is sufficient to make me certain beyond
>> reasonable doubt that Roache did in fact commit the rape - knowing as
>> I do that a completely honest witness who sincerely believes she was
>> raped by Roache may easily be mistaken if she is going only from her
>> 30 year-old memories of the event. Making your scenario such that he
>> is in fact guilty makes no difference, because it is something that
>> nobody (except Roache) could know and so cannot affect a decision. I
>> could alter the scenario to be one where Roach is innocent and the
>> victim is mistaken and the evidence could be exactly the same.

>I had a pet rabbit when I was 12, I do not now think it was perhaps a
>cat because 30 years have passed.

It may however well be the case that something you remember that
rabbit doing was actually done by a different rabbit - or even a cat.
The big issue however is that a 3rd party has no way of even knowing
how certain you are that your memory is accurate - you could be
uncertain by present yourself as being completely certain or
vice-versa.

>> >Or do you believe that no one ever gets raped and that all reports are
>> >make up in order to get money, attention, and/or one's own back?
>>
>> No, I do not believe that at all, any more than I believe that rape
>> victims are never mistaken or that nobody ever makes false rape
>> accusations. What I *do* believe however is that it is very unlikely
>> that there will be sufficient evidence after 30 years that we could be
>> sure beyond reasonable doubt that the accused really is guilty, and a
>> conviction requires more than the view that he *might well* be guilty
>> or that such rapes have certainly occurred and so *somebody* has to
>> pay the price, guilty or not.

>That's just guesswork but as these court cases play out, we will learn
>what is and what is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The fear I have is that juries are swayed more by emotion and public
outrage than the facts that are presented during the trial.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

Steve O wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Steve O wrote:
>>
>>> I would say it was an unpleasant experience, and it did worry me
>>> for a while, but I soon got over it.
>>> But that still doesn't mean that what he did was right, or that he
>>> should get away with it.
>>> If I saw him today, and like I say, I would still recognize him,
>>> then why shouldn't I report him?
>>
>> No-one's saying you should or you shouldn't. It's your call. But
>> your word against his won't even result in a prosection, let alone a
>> conviction, so there seems little point.
>
> Which leads me to believe that there might be a point to some of the
> recent prosecutions, or why else would they bother?
> It now appears to emerge that Stuart Hall used his fame, money and
> influence to systematically abuse underage girls over many years,
> possibly with the complicity of his employers.
> These people aren't facing prosecution because they had an "occasional
> indiscretion" 40 years ago.
> They're being prosecuted because they were suspected or got away with
> their activities for many years and are now being brought to book,
> starting with the worst offenders.

I suspect it's actually starting with the oldest who won't have the
strength to fight back, so they can get some nice easy victories. If
the CPS had any balls, however, it would be vigorously pursuing younger
pop stars of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s who openly did a load of that
sort of thing. It's not altogether impossible that their female
'groupies' indulged with them in a little bit of light kissing or
holding hands, and it's highly unlikely that rigorous enquiries were
made about their ages. Perhaps they're not being pursued because they
might not be such an easy touch?

[Cynic]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 23:37:53 +0100, Steve O <nos...@here.thanks>
wrote:

>I can recall, 41 years ago, when I was 10 years old, using a public
>toilet in a park when a man , aged around 35 yrs, barged his way into my
>cubicle, whipped his cock out and started masturbating, and was
>encouraging me to do so.

But how much of that recollection is accurate? One thing in your
account that causes me some degree of doubt is that you state that the
man was about 35 years old. Very few 10 year olds are capable of
judging the age of an adult, especially adults over the age of 30. If
you doubt me and know any 10 year olds, just ask them to estimate the
ages of the teachers at their school, or a TV newsreader, or a random
stranger .

>However, as to your suggestion as to whether a person's memory of such
>an event would be degraded over time, and despite the fact that I wasn't
>particularly affected by this incident,it did stick in my mind and I
>could still tell you what time of year it was, which friends I was with,
>the make of bike I was riding the time of day, the exact cubicle I was
>in, and many other specific details with regards to the man including
>the exact words he used, the particular type of cream zipped windcheater
>he was wearing, his distinctive accent and his sandy coloured wavy
>hairstyle.
>In fact, I would even venture to say that I would recognize him if I saw
>him again.
>And he wasn't even a famous TV personality either.

I am quite certain that you believe that you accurately recall all
those details. That's the thing with old memories - they are just as
convincing to you whether they are real or false.

Until, perhaps one day you see a photograph of the person you remember
so clearly and realise that it could not possibly have been the person
you saw that day, or you meet someone who was also present but has a
completely different (but equally vivid) recollection of the events.

--
Cynic