Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 77161	2007-03-01 03:08:00	What the jury didn't know -In the police trial	lance4k (4644)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
529050	2007-03-02 09:05:00	So, Your suggesting the jury would be incapable of doing their job if they were made privy to the real facts, rather then just the ones the system thinks they should know? Oh yeah, sounds fair to me. It has nothing to do with whether I think someone is guilty until proven innocent. Going by the fact my question was ignored I think its safe to presume that its entirely feasible to promote someones good character and therefor suggest they wouldn't do such a thing based on no prior accusations, Yet its some how not fair to acknowledge a convicted rapist is in fact a rapist, and entirely capable of rapist activities. Why the hell are we protecting rapists?	Metla (12)
529051	2007-03-02 09:13:00	The woman can have all her past life exposed in court as if that won't prejudice the jury? Martynz	martynz (5445)
529052	2007-03-02 09:28:00	So, Your suggesting the jury would be incapable of doing their job if they were made privy to the real facts, rather then just the ones the system thinks they should know? Oh yeah, sounds fair to me . It has nothing to do with whether I think someone is guilty until proven innocent . Going by the fact my question was ignored I think its safe to presume that its entirely feasible to promote someones good character and therefor suggest they wouldn't do such a thing based on no prior accusations, Yet its some how not fair to acknowledge a convicted rapist is in fact a rapist, and entirely capable of rapist activities . Why the hell are we protecting rapists? I think you'll find the convicted rapists are in jail in this case . I guess then we'll let the jury hear about previous complaints by the complainant, accusers sex life and any other damn thing anyone wants to know about the lives of anyone in a court . If the prosecutor presents the case correctly, the facts usually speak for themselves . Maybe in this case, they didn't do that well enough or alternatively the accused didn't do it . What their character is doesn't change the facts of this particular case at all . The jury considers the evidence of the accused, the accuser and any independent witnesses, not their past reputation . Rape Crisis would be up in arms if previous information about a complainant was divulged in court .	Twelvevolts (5457)
529053	2007-03-02 09:35:00	The woman can have all her past life exposed in court as if that won't prejudice the jury? Martynz They can't - that evidence wouldn't be admissible either for the same reason.	Twelvevolts (5457)
529054	2007-03-02 09:56:00	Hell yes, If the complainant has a history of making false claims it should be brought up, and I would bet it is when required.	Metla (12)
529055	2007-03-02 10:28:00	Everyone knew about the previous convictions in reality including the jury - so maybe it really doesn't make a difference . Looks like the case just didn't stack up .	Twelvevolts (5457)
529056	2007-03-03 19:05:00	There has got to be more women out there that have decided to keep their mouth shut, hopefuly after the result of this latest farce some will stick their hand up. These guys are animals and should be taken out of the system. As Rickards said "This case was a complete shambles", if the shoe had been on the other foot he would have got them convicted! They are very good at getting convictions of people who are not guilty...	exconite (11938)
529057	2007-03-03 19:44:00	Louise Nicholas has also reportedly (Sunday Times) made rape accusations against six other men previously (including at least one previous court case) and has (according the the media anyway) admitted making false accusations prior to this. She seems at the very least to have the knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time over and over again. If there is a lesson to be learnt for everyone here it seems to be not to hang around Police Club bars.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1 2 3