I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,305

Quote: Jennie @ September 11 2013, 12:35 AM BST

Ignoring that last sentence for a moment. How do you know? Really? How do you know that people in the 1960's weren't casually inclined to criminal action?

Methods of crime detection has improved astronomically. What if people were doing it in the 60's...but getting away with it?

Just some of the advances in the last 40 years -

Sharing information between police forces/countries

The Police National Computer (database of every individual who has ever so much as applied for a driving licence - everything there is to know about you is on there.)

DNA

Footprint/fingerprint evidence.

Cell Site (the ability to track movement by tracing the cell mast used by mobile phones)

Bugging and RIPA

CCTV. Which is everywhere.

Blood splatter forensics.

Advances in criminological profiling.

View original

I know because of hard logic applied to the social structures. Where you have most people in the same relationships, homes and jobs for 40 years, they can't pull a fast one and then disappear. There is no need for them to do so as there is nothing in it for them and they have sufficient security not to resort to crime.

Where companies are in the same hands for generations, it is in their interests to keep a reputation. When commercials for law firms aren't on the radio every five seconds American-style, managers are not paranoid about the potential for litigation. Consequently they aren't as fraudulent about errors or indeed as manipulative. And where there is full employment as there was in 1961, a lot of crime is just redundant.

But where money has been placed on such a pedestal that anything might be excused if it makes a profit, people will push at the boundaries and go beyond them. That they can do so and be fly-by-nights is pretty much the perfect recipe for spiv culture on the grandest scale. Consider murderers. They too go on the run.

This isn't in any way a personal slight Jennie, but did you not enjoy the stuff about man/women's liberty and Magna Carta in your law studies? For most lawyers I've met it was the greatest part of their studies and training. And if he's 'innocent until proven guilty' then he's most certainly innocent when proven not guilty!

Quote: Jennie @ September 11 2013, 12:25 AM BST

No.

"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

It means that the jury could not be sure of guilt.

Personally, I think he probably did do it.

Maybe the jury did too. Maybe they thought he very probably did it.

But that is still a not guilty verdict.

View original

That's a highly biased opinion of yours. "Not Guilty" can equally mean that the jury thought that the defendant definitely did not do whatever he was charged with.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 11 2013, 12:46 AM BST

This isn't in any way a personal slight Jennie, but did you not enjoy the stuff about man/women's liberty and Magna Carta in your law studies? For most lawyers I've met it was the greatest part of their studies and training. And if he's 'innocent until proven guilty' then he's most certainly innocent when proven not guilty!

View original

Alfred.

This is going to come out wrong, because it is late and I am tired, so I apologise in advance.

I am up. It is 1am. I have been up since 5am this morning. I am working (and posting on here, to be fair).

I am starting a trial at 10am tomorrow morning. I have 3 lever arch files to read and prepare before then. Firstly, I have to know, pretty much from memory, what each and every one of the 7 eye witnesses is saying. I have to know how that impacts my client.

Then I have to work out what parts of their evidence my client disagrees with and wants to challenge. Once I have done that, I have to plan my cross examination. How am I going to handle this witness? Are they mistaken? Lying? Do I go in hard or use a kid glove?

How do I lay the foundations of my questioning? How can I block off every avenue of escape, so without knowing it, they have talked themselves into an untenable position, so I can deliver the killer blow and destroy their credibility with the jury?

There is a legal argument too. So I have to prepare that. I am reading case law. Working out the points for me and against me. I have to write a skeleton argument with case references. It's a technical area of law. The Judge, a man 30 years my senior and several times my intellectual superior, will question me on every single point.

I'll go to bed at 4ish. Get up at 7ish. Work until 8, go to court.

Once at court, I will be faced with a client. They may go to prison. They are worried. They have never been in this position before. They need someone to tell them it's OK. I am all they have. Their liberty, their future, rests with me.

I am a social worker in a wig. I have pulled razors out of client's hands. I have put them in the recovery position when they have passed out and started to choke on their own vomit. I have rung hostels trying to get them a bed for the night and bought drug addicts a bacon sandwich.

I have made children cry when recalling painful memories. I have had to watch child pornography because my client is disputing the police's description of what is depicted. (This is in the past - NOT tomorrow's client).

I get no pension. No sick pay. No holiday pay. I cannot be ill, because if I am ill I don't work and don't eat. No maternity pay if I ever got pregnant.

I earn 1/4 of what I could earn in the City. I have a law degree from a good university, I could have gone into the corporate world and done whatever I wanted.

But I didn't. And I don't regret it for a moment. I am privileged to do one of the best jobs in the world.

I do all this precisely because I understand and respect the principles of rule of law, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act. I believe in them more than you know, and you will forgive me if I don't particularly like being lectured to about them.

I entirely respect your right to believe Le Vell to be innocent. But it's 1am and I have work to do.

Quote: billwill @ September 11 2013, 1:08 AM BST

That's a highly biased opinion of yours. "Not Guilty" can equally mean that the jury thought that the defendant definitely did not do whatever he was charged with.

View original

You misunderstand what I say.

Of course it could mean they thought he was innocent.

But it does not mean they definitely thought he was innocent.

You are doing good work Jennie. I couldn't do it. Make sure that you get sufficient rest tonight.

Sorry. That was a longer rant than I meant it to be. And sounds quite arrogant, which I don't mean it to do.

I'm going to concentrate now.

Night all x

Quote: Jennie @ September 11 2013, 12:28 AM BST

You seem very certain of his innocence, Alfred.

View original

Not certain, we don't know what he did or didn't do, and nor do the jury, but just looking casually at what was presented to us through the media there seemed way too much reasonable doubt to me that he did all or any of what he was accused of. He had no history of similar allegations against him and yet he'd had affairs, surely there was opportunity here for rape allegations from one of his conquests, but there hadn't been any.

It was one girl's word against his, I don't know the history of their relationship but her evidence was apparently scattered and inconsistent, 'lacking any real detail' of said attacks.' Why?

There was talk of her being affected by a motivational speaker, talking of selling her story, 'no sexual injury' was discovered on two examinations, it was only these further allegations that made the CPS think again, bizarrely without asking her why she didn't make them with the original accusations!

The conclusion I'm more inclined towards tbh, is that of the allegations being fantastical and malicious. My point about liberty and innocence and MC wasn't personal, it was to emphasise my belief in innocence unless proven guilty. These accused go through personal hell if they are innocent of rape charges so I believe we should respect their innocence when that's the verdict.

I do believe there's an unfortunate sexual bias around when these cases are aired, it's something worth researching maybe, on forums there seems to be a lot of automatic female support for the female victim and often there is counter male support for the male accused. That would be a worry to me as a lawyer in sex crime trials.

Soootyj you seem very angry towards me?, I have not made others leave this forum? perhaps, other women have left here for personal reasons.

Big thanks to guys who supported me!! xxxx

PS; big thanks to Jennie for explaining the complexities of UK Justice- indeed, there is much discussion on the 'Quality' of the random jurors system?.

John Cleese on Europas view on bombing Syria:

http://thenewstalkers.com/m/discussion?id=6450411%3ATopic%3A620474

Quote: Jakob Jensen @ September 11 2013, 7:59 AM BST

John Cleese on Europas view on bombing Syria:

http://thenewstalkers.com/m/discussion?id=6450411%3ATopic%3A620474

View original

Nice.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender."

Quote: Nogget @ September 11 2013, 9:03 AM BST

Nice.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender."

View original

Quote: Horseradish @ September 10 2013, 11:55 PM BST

Corporate crime, which largely goes unpunished, is not only higher in public awareness. It has substantially increased in the past decade with the growth of multinational corporations.

View original

Not sure about that; multinationals tend to bend rather than break laws, hence the fortunes they spend on lawyers. (I am saying nothing about morality here.)

Whereas in the 60s and 70s certainly, and presumably before, and to a degree after, corruption of public officials was rife, which is much rarer now.

Quote: Nogget @ September 11 2013, 9:03 AM BST

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender."

View original

That is actually quite an old joke. Not sure whether Cleese here is recycling his own material or just laying claim to an unattributed gag.

I haven't a clue whether Levell is guilty or innocent. I do think anybody who plays around while their partner is undergoing chemotherapy is complete scum. Therefore, if he's suffered from undegoing this court case, then Hell mend him. He deserves a bit of unpleasantness in his life after waht he's put his wife through. Unfair? Who says life is fair.

Is it just me who keeps reading Leveil as Leevil?

No....poor LeVell