Kevin Webster not a paedo

[Richie]

No.

1. Innocent until proven guilty. Never been charged with a crime.
2. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty of that crime as there was insufficient evidence.
3. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty as evidence was disproven.

So what about this case? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23968896

Given his initial charging and conviction, is Barri White "Not Guilty" or is he "Innocent" as they have been deemed to be separate entities in this thread?

Going by some views, he is still not innocent but is instead "not guilty" which, again for some people in here, seems to mean the CPS didnt do a good enough job or his lawyers were better than the CPS...

What I am trying to state is, just because someone is charged with a crime, it does not remove the ability for them to be WHOLLY INNOCENT. People seem to suggest that it is not possible for anyone found Not Guilty to be Innocent.

 

[muon]

So what about this case? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23968896

Given his initial charging and conviction, is Barri White "Not Guilty" or is he "Innocent" as they have been deemed to be separate entities in this thread?

Going by some views, he is still not innocent but is instead "not guilty" which, again for some people in here, seems to mean the CPS didnt do a good enough job or his lawyers were better than the CPS...

Following the conviction, Mr Mason, who led the investigation, told the BBC it was "appropriate" he had met both Mr White and Mr Hyatt.

"All I could do was personally apologise as I have done and also hopefully [Ahmed's conviction] will assist in proving that [Mr White] categorically did not kill Rachel," he said.

Looks like a 3 to me? Should have made it clear in my previous post 3 = 1.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Why so much confusion?

He's been found not guilty in a court, therefore he is not guilty.

The only thing that will change that now is if new evidence comes to light. Until that moment, he is not guilty and should be treated as such.

 

[Biohazard]

Yeah innocent and not guilty are pretty interchangeable for me too.

 

[muon]

Why so much confusion?

He's been found not guilty in a court, therefore he is not guilty.

The only thing that will change that now is if new evidence comes to light. Until that moment, he is not guilty and should be treated as such.

The problem is that people in this thread believe the girl is guilty of lying.

If the guy is innocent, surely the girl must be lying? Otherwise he can't be innocent. One of those statements must be true.

The reality is no one other than both of them know for sure which is true.

 

[SB118]

I agree with this 100%, its a prime example of why the media frenzy that happens needs to stop, the guy will always live with this hanging over him, despite the court ruling.

Everything should remain behind closed doors until a guilty verdict is reached, then the media can whip themselves into the frenzy they want, but not before.

Any lessons to be learned from this, no, it will continue to happen, lives ruined and destroyed despite being found not guilty, which is a real shame.

But the greater good is served if the alleged offenders identity is made public.

Single alleged offence? Single set of statements & evidence. Other alleged victims read about the allegations in the press, they come forward. Then it turns into multiple statements, lots of evidence, proof of a possible pattern and a much stronger chance of a conviction.

 

[Hades]

But the greater good is served if the alleged offenders identity is made public.

Is the greater good served if an innocent mans reputation is tarnished beyond repair? Does that benefit society or weaken it?

EDIT: And why is the greater good of more importance than an individual person?


** I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent - I have no idea other than the fact that there was not sufficient evidence to prove a conviction in a court of law, judged by his peers.

 

[Angilion]

In the past, a juror had to be satisfied "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the accused was guilty before they could return a guilty verdict. This was viewed as being 91% certain.

Viewed by whom? How can anyone accurately quantify their degree of doubt? I think you're wrong in your conclusions about what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant.

Current advice to jurors is that they must be "sure" that the accused did what he or she is accused of. This suggests 100% certain to me.

I queried the change when I was on jury duty. I was told that the standard had not changed and the change in wording was to make the required standard clearer in current usage of English. I'm not entirely sure that it does, but that is apparently the reason for the change.

I think that as a juror, it must be almost impossible to be "sure" in the case of contested, unsupported claims. As a result, I suspect that a greater number of guilty persons are acquitted nowadays than in the past.

It should also be almost impossible to have no doubt of guilt in the case of contested, unsupported claims. So I suspect that the change in wording has not had the effect you suspect it has. I think that the opposite change is more likely, since there's an increasing trend towards presumption of guilt for men accused of sexual crimes. Although perhaps not, because it is different in court and I think that many people who would presume guilt in daily life won't do so if they're in court on a jury. The formality and the stress on requiring evidence of guilt is completely different to daily life.

 

[Angilion]

Doesn't mean he's not a pedo, just that he wasn't convicted of being one based on her testimony.

I can't she why she would lie though, what would she gain that was worth all this public grief?

Power, sympathy, power, money, power. Did I mention power? There are people who like harming other people. What do people gain from beating up random strangers? What do people gain from raping? I don't really understand why anyone does such things, but I know that some people do do them.

It's also possible that it never happened but that she's not lying. Maybe it never happened but she genuinely believes it did - it's worrying easy to have detailed but entirely false memories. People usually think that memories are like recordings, but that's not at all true. Almost all of what we remember is fabricated subconsciously by our own minds, filling in from a few details. If those details are wrong, a person can remember detailed things that never happened. For example, merely showing people a fake advertising poster supposedly from Disney was enough to result in almost a third of people remembering that they had met Bugs Bunny when they went to Disneyworld. Which is impossible, as he's not a Disney character and is never depicted at Disneyworld. But they remembered it happening, even remembered details like shaking his hand.

 

[hurfdurf]

Burnsy, I find some of your views quite disturbing considering the fact that you are a police officer.

The one in particular I can't help but remember is when you were saying that responsibility lies with a man when it comes to consensual intimacy regardless of how drunk both people are.

I think it might be the same for others, so they can't help but read some of your further views with prejudice based on your previously expressed views.

The fact that he is correct about things more often than not seems to be the prevailing factor.

 

[spoffle]

The fact that he is correct about things more often than not seems to be the prevailing factor.

You have no valid opinion.

 

[Angilion]

Doesn't change the concept.

The accused should be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the court unless proven guilty.

He was found not guilty and therefore assumed innocent.

In the eyes of the law, yes, he is innocent.

In reality, I don't know if he is or he isn't and neither do you. Presumption of innocence is a legal concept that exists in order to reduce the chance of people being wrongly punished by the state. It is not a statement of absolute truth.

 

[SB118]

Is the greater good served if an innocent mans reputation is tarnished beyond repair? Does that benefit society or weaken it?

EDIT: And why is the greater good of more importance than an individual person?


** I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent - I have no idea other than the fact that there was not sufficient evidence to prove a conviction in a court of law, judged by his peers.

The chance to protect many other victims vs. one persons reputation. Needs of the many, etc.

 

[Hades]

The chance to protect many other victims vs. one persons reputation. Needs of the many, etc.

Would you feel the same way if the police knocked on your door tomorrow to arrest you and haul you to court, with your name in the paper, because someone else commited a serious offence, or because someone made up false allegations against you? The outcome may be your wife/partner leaving you, your children never talking to you again and losing your job.

If you're happy for someone else to be affected in that way then I assume you're happy to accept it without protest if you were to be afflicted in the same way.

Would you willingly accept that happening to you becasue you feel it is the best thing for society?



Would you willingly accept your son or daughter being falsely accused of the same? They lose their friends, family and job becaise of it. But it's ok because it's for the greater good of society.



Or perhaps... just perthaps... society is stronger and better served by protecting innocent people?

 

[Angilion]

Can the girl be prosecuted for telling lies, destroying a mans life and wasting tax payers money?
If not why not?

Because it would be politically inadvisable to do so.

Because there isn't enough chance of a conviction for the CPS to justify starting a trial.

Either would do and both are true.

Also, you appear to be presuming that she is guilty. Thankfully, the law doesn't work that way. Our legal system strongly tries to presume innocence, at least in court.

Follow your question through a bit. If a verdict automatically left witnesses open to prosecution and presumption of guilt, we'd have a very hard time finding anyone willing to testify in any trial and an even harder time finding any justice.

 

[SB118]

Would you feel the same way if the police knocked on your door tomorrow to arrest you and haul you to court, with your name in the paper, because someone else commited a serious offence, or because someone made up false allegations against you? The outcome may be your wife/partner leaving you, your children never talking to you again and losing your job.

If you're happy for someone else to be affected in that way then I assume you're happy to accept it without protest if you were to be afflicted in the same way.

Would you willingly accept that happening to you becasue you feel it is the best thing for society?

My arrest did cost me my job and has effected my mental health to a degree, but I still believe that the greater good is served by trying to inform other possible victims.

 

[Hades]

My arrest did cost me my job and has effected my mental health to a degree, but I still believe that the greater good is served by trying to inform other possible victims.

I haven't read all of the thread so I've no idea what you were arrested for. But if you're fine with your reputation being tarnished for the better good, despite being innocent then, I guess that's a matter for you.

Personally I'd fight tooth and nail for my innocence and therefore can't agree with a person being publicly accused of something they were not proven guilty of. My reputation and my family are worth a huge amount to me and if I am prepared to fight hard for my own position then I have to fight for theirs too.

Off to bed now... will revisit this thread again tomorrow evening.

 

[Richie]

Looks like a 3 to me? Should have made it clear in my previous post 3 = 1.

Yeah innocent and not guilty are pretty interchangeable for me too.

That's the issue I am trying to highlight though. Some people on here seem to equate "Not Guilty" with a possibility of guilt had the prosecution been better at proving the case i.e. the accused is not entirely innocent.

In the Rachel Manning, this is not the case i.e. Barri White IS innocent and not simply "Not Guilty but that doesn't mean he didn't do it"

 

[pitchfork]

He's got a pedo name to be fair.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

i dont understand how this got to court - there seems to be no evidence apart from one word against another.

She added to her story the cps reopened the case and bam court here we go...im sure the police were equally prejudice which would have helped twist knots into the case...

Still it all seems to have disolved in course in a classic case of wtf was this really about.

Oh and for people wondering why some girls/women/men/boys do this- until you have met a sociopath its hard to explain but there are more out there then you can imagine, and there ****ing dangerous.