Doctor cleared...
Lisa
"Ian Newman" <door...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
> Article in today's Mirror:
>
> DOCTOR CLEARED
>
> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout. He
should be formally apologised to in a small effort to clear his tarnished
name (mud sticks), and the three culprits should be publicly identified,
name, photos etc...to discourage people to falsely accuse others. Not to
mention a prison sentence.
>
>
> That's it. That's the whole article. I nearly missed it.
>
> You couldn't miss the article written when he was charged with indecent
> assault though. But that sentence above is the only mention of the poor
> man's agony at the hands of three liars.
>
> How do we know they were liars? The court didn't think they were all
> mistaken, did it? Three females, three testimonies. Enough there to
> convict an archangel if they had been believed.
>
> You'll notice the names of these liars aren't mentioned by The Mirror. It
> isn't allowed to tell us.
It should. His protection is more important than theirs.
>
> --
> Women want toasted ice. - Arab proverb
> Read: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
dave
news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
> Article in today's Mirror:
>
> DOCTOR CLEARED
>
> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
>
>
>
> You couldn't miss the article written when he was charged with indecent
> assault though. But that sentence above is the only mention of the poor
> man's agony at the hands of three liars.
>
> How do we know they were liars? The court didn't think they were all
> mistaken, did it? Three females, three testimonies. Enough there to
> convict an archangel if they had been believed.
>
> You'll notice the names of these liars aren't mentioned by The Mirror. It
> isn't allowed to tell us.
AFAIR if he should complain to the Press Wotsit he can ask for the same
space as the original report(s) to have a full report of the acquital
published
the problem isn't with "the court", which is only an open space for all
interested parties to put their side of the case, it is the police who
investigated and CPS who made the decision to prosecute based on the
evidence provided.
what the public are not being allowed to "see" is a report of the evidence
provided and the reasoning on which an acquital was based, which would allow
us to make a decision in our own minds - although that would be irrelevent
in the way of the world and we would forget it in a day or so.
dave
ITMA
>
> "Ian Newman" <door...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
> news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
> > Article in today's Mirror:
> >
> > DOCTOR CLEARED
> >
> > FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
> > yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
>
> This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout.
Doctors are very vulnerable to this kind of thing but a lot of the time
they can't help being put in such a position.
--
InFoText Manuscripts
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/2634/ITMA.html
Angilion
>"Ian Newman" <door...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
>news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
>> Article in today's Mirror:
>>
>> DOCTOR CLEARED
>>
>> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
>> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
>
>This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout. He
>should be formally apologised to in a small effort to clear his tarnished
>name (mud sticks), and the three culprits should be publicly identified,
>name, photos etc...to discourage people to falsely accuse others. Not to
>mention a prison sentence.
I strongly disagree, because none of them have been proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in a fair trial.
If there is sufficient evidence that they were lying as a means of
attacking him, then they should be arrested and tried. If they are
proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, *then* they should be
treated as being guilty.
All we know so far is that a jury decided that the doctor had not
been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That does not
mean that the women lied. They are entitled to a presumption
of innocence too.
I do agree that the verdict should be given the same media coverage
as the accusation (and I *don't* mean "women betrayed as doctor
who assaulted women walks free" type of coverage).
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else.
Michael Snyder
> >news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
> >> Article in today's Mirror:
> >>
> >> DOCTOR CLEARED
> >>
> >> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
> >> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
> >
> >This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout. He
> >should be formally apologised to in a small effort to clear his tarnished
> >name (mud sticks), and the three culprits should be publicly identified,
> >name, photos etc...to discourage people to falsely accuse others. Not to
> >mention a prison sentence.
>
> reasonable doubt in a fair trial.
>
> If there is sufficient evidence that they were lying as a means of
> attacking him, then they should be arrested and tried. If they are
> proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, *then* they should be
> treated as being guilty.
>
> All we know so far is that a jury decided that the doctor had not
> been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That does not
> mean that the women lied. They are entitled to a presumption
> of innocence too.
>
> I do agree that the verdict should be given the same media coverage
> as the accusation (and I *don't* mean "women betrayed as doctor
> who assaulted women walks free" type of coverage).
OK, Angilion, I'm with you on this, but the problem is,
they will never be tried. Prosecutors do not regard false accusation
as a serious crime, and moreover, they know that it would not sit well
with the public if they tried these women.
Lisa
"Angilion" <angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com> wrote in message
news:3a301bb1...@news.freeserve.net...
> >news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
> >> Article in today's Mirror:
> >>
> >> DOCTOR CLEARED
> >>
> >> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
> >> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
> >
> >This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout. He
> >should be formally apologised to in a small effort to clear his tarnished
> >name (mud sticks), and the three culprits should be publicly identified,
> >name, photos etc...to discourage people to falsely accuse others. Not to
> >mention a prison sentence.
>
> reasonable doubt in a fair trial.
>
> If there is sufficient evidence that they were lying as a means of
> attacking him, then they should be arrested and tried. If they are
> proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, *then* they should be
> treated as being guilty.
>
> All we know so far is that a jury decided that the doctor had not
> been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That does not
> mean that the women lied. They are entitled to a presumption
> of innocence too.
>
> I do agree that the verdict should be given the same media coverage
> as the accusation (and I *don't* mean "women betrayed as doctor
> who assaulted women walks free" type of coverage).
>
I didn't read the article..only what Ian Newman posted. So in this case I
agree with you, however I still think that false (proven) accusations should
carry a sentence.
Angilion
wrote:
>Angilion wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:39:30 +1300, "Lisa" <He...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ian Newman" <door...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
>> >news:2000120522202...@nym.alias.net...
>> >> Article in today's Mirror:
>> >>
>> >> DOCTOR CLEARED
>> >>
>> >> FAMILY doctor Alan Tutin, 52, of Guildford, Surrey, was
>> >> yesterday cleared of indecently assaulting three women.
>> >
>> >This type of miscarriage of justice deserves a full front page layout. He
>> >should be formally apologised to in a small effort to clear his tarnished
>> >name (mud sticks), and the three culprits should be publicly identified,
>> >name, photos etc...to discourage people to falsely accuse others. Not to
>> >mention a prison sentence.
>>
>> I strongly disagree, because none of them have been proven guilty beyond
>> reasonable doubt in a fair trial.
>>
>> If there is sufficient evidence that they were lying as a means of
>> attacking him, then they should be arrested and tried. If they are
>> proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, *then* they should be
>> treated as being guilty.
>>
>> All we know so far is that a jury decided that the doctor had not
>> been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That does not
>> mean that the women lied. They are entitled to a presumption
>> of innocence too.
>>
>> I do agree that the verdict should be given the same media coverage
>> as the accusation (and I *don't* mean "women betrayed as doctor
>> who assaulted women walks free" type of coverage).
>
>OK, Angilion, I'm with you on this, but the problem is,
>they will never be tried. Prosecutors do not regard false accusation
>as a serious crime, and moreover, they know that it would not sit well
>with the public if they tried these women.
I know, but that doesn't mean that treating people as guilty
without even bothering to have a trial is right. Sometimes
there are only bad choices and you have to go with the
least bad.
Angilion
>Lisa wrote
>
>>I didn't read the article..only what Ian Newman posted. So in this
>case I
>>agree with you, however I still think that false (proven) accusations
>should
>>carry a sentence.
>
>Yes, so long as there was deliberate lying (perjury) involved. Often
>a person genuinely believes that they have been assaulted but the
>incident was in fact accidental or justified. The accusation was
>therefore made genuinely, and despite all the pain it cases to the
>accused, the accuser is not blameworthy either.
In addition, mistaken identity is definitely a possibility in many cases.
Look at the descriptions of attackers - they are rarely detailed and
will fit a large number of people. There is likely to be only one
eyewitness, who will be very unlikely to be calmly noting a detailed
description of the attacker, and in any case eyewitness testimony is
notoriously unreliable.
Michael Snyder
Umm... you mean like the current US presidential election? ;-(
eaglep...@gmail.com
Thus traumatised my son in particular so much that when he reached puberty at 15 he suffered PTSD due to the assault. He has been in and out of psychiatric wards due to this and is now 21.
It takes a lot of courage to make a com ain't and open up something that has been going on for years. It was 9 years later when he was convicted.
Graham.
wrote:
>I'm not sure anyone will read this but if you do please take note...... One of the people that was sexually assaulted was my son who was 8 and his sister who was 12. Dr Tutin used lots of high powered barristers to get off on technical reasons.
>Thus traumatised my son in particular so much that when he reached puberty at 15 he suffered PTSD due to the assault. He has been in and out of psychiatric wards due to this and is now 21.
>It takes a lot of courage to make a com ain't and open up something that has been going on for years. It was 9 years later when he was convicted.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Graham.
wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168265/Sex-pest-GP-molested-patients-20-years-struck-off.html
I remember the case, what a bastard.
You have my deepest sympathy.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
GB
young man doesn't visit his tormentor and have it out with him, perhaps
physically? I'd have thought it would be very therapeutic.
thisi...@gmail.com
Please, please be careful about the judgements you pass and what you say
The Todal
> Take a look at the latest news on the creep, you sexist idiots. I was one of the MANY women Mr Tutin abused. In fact I was a child - 14 at the time. Labelling women who suffer abuse at the hands of men is a tragic and dangerous thing to do for society and against the protection people deserve against this abuse.
>
> Please, please be careful about the judgements you pass and what you say
>
very long time ago and before the doctor was struck off in 2009.
Still, it's topical based on other prosecutions that have been going on.
AndyW
> Take a look at the latest news on the creep, you sexist idiots. I was one of the MANY women Mr Tutin abused. In fact I was a child - 14 at the time. Labelling women who suffer abuse at the hands of men is a tragic and dangerous thing to do for society and against the protection people deserve against this abuse.
replying to are no longer on here or even alive.
Andy
GB
> On 29/9/14 15:36, thisi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Take a look at the latest news on the creep, you sexist idiots. I was
>> one of the MANY women Mr Tutin abused. In fact I was a child - 14 at
>> the time. Labelling women who suffer abuse at the hands of men is a
>> tragic and dangerous thing to do for society and against the
>> protection people deserve against this abuse.
>>
>> Please, please be careful about the judgements you pass and what you say
>>
>
> You seem to be replying to a newsgroup post that was made in 2000, a
> very long time ago and before the doctor was struck off in 2009.
>
> Still, it's topical based on other prosecutions that have been going on.
that Dr Tutin had been falsely accused. That's a serious matter, and the
comments were perfectly valid.
The Todal
> On 29/09/2014 16:06, The Todal wrote:
>> On 29/9/14 15:36, thisi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Take a look at the latest news on the creep, you sexist idiots. I was
>>> one of the MANY women Mr Tutin abused. In fact I was a child - 14 at
>>> the time. Labelling women who suffer abuse at the hands of men is a
>>> tragic and dangerous thing to do for society and against the
>>> protection people deserve against this abuse.
>>>
>>> Please, please be careful about the judgements you pass and what you say
>>>
>>
>> You seem to be replying to a newsgroup post that was made in 2000, a
>> very long time ago and before the doctor was struck off in 2009.
>>
>> Still, it's topical based on other prosecutions that have been going on.
>
> In what way were the original comments sexist? It seemed at the time
> that Dr Tutin had been falsely accused. That's a serious matter, and the
> comments were perfectly valid.
>
adjective here.
If a defendant is cleared of sexual offences it certainly does not imply
that his accusers were liars. To say in a public newsgroup that they
must all be liars and that they should be named and shamed is absolutely
outrageous. And the same principle applies to any case where a person
has been acquitted of such offences, including the DLT case.
I think this links to Dr Tutin's fitness to practice decision - clearly
a lot of allegations were made and some were found not proved, but then
again quite a few were found proved.
http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/Tutin%20(M)%20Redacted%20Mins%2019%20May%2008%20-%2007%20April%2009.doc
GB
> On 30/9/14 10:50, GB wrote:
>> On 29/09/2014 16:06, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 29/9/14 15:36, thisi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Take a look at the latest news on the creep, you sexist idiots. I was
>>>> one of the MANY women Mr Tutin abused. In fact I was a child - 14 at
>>>> the time. Labelling women who suffer abuse at the hands of men is a
>>>> tragic and dangerous thing to do for society and against the
>>>> protection people deserve against this abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Please, please be careful about the judgements you pass and what you
>>>> say
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be replying to a newsgroup post that was made in 2000, a
>>> very long time ago and before the doctor was struck off in 2009.
>>>
>>> Still, it's topical based on other prosecutions that have been going on.
>>
>> In what way were the original comments sexist? It seemed at the time
>> that Dr Tutin had been falsely accused. That's a serious matter, and the
>> comments were perfectly valid.
>>
>
> The comments weren't valid, but I think "sexist" is not a useful
> adjective here.
>
> If a defendant is cleared of sexual offences it certainly does not imply
> that his accusers were liars. To say in a public newsgroup that they
> must all be liars and that they should be named and shamed is absolutely
> outrageous. And the same principle applies to any case where a person
> has been acquitted of such offences, including the DLT case.
liars. I should have said that.
I was focussing on the role of the newspapers. They revel in accusations
of that particular sort, but they may not report the acquittal with
quite the same prominence. And the previous posters were right that the
mud sticks, and it's impossible really to get away from that.