I think he's just picked his words a bit poorly, as this is a subjective nightmare anyway, but in that for the purposes of the court the circumstances have not been established even if this comes down to assessing and believing one character witness over the other.
Kevin Webster not a paedo
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
I think he's just picked his words a bit poorly, as this is a subjective nightmare anyway, but in that for the purposes of the court the circumstances have not been established even if this comes down to assessing and believing one character witness over the other.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
All the CPS are doing is judging if there is a realistic chance of conviction not whether someone is guilty or not. That's the jury's job.
Although to play devils advocate the CPS hardly shower themselves in glory and seem (at least from the outside) to now to public pressure on occasions and pursue a case because it seems the right thing to do as opposed to being a case with a good foundation of evidence.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
All a charge means is that there is enough of a case to be brought before a court. That's it.
I never said that they were, but it's not quite as simple as that either in that cases are balances on probability of success but also other factors such as the nature, publicity and public interest in the case.
All I'm saying to him is that if the fiscal has set a hearing date then obviously they deem the charge / complaint to be valid at the bare minimum.
Not quite right, they thought there was sufficient evidence to take it before jury. However their job is to look at the evidence in the worst possible light and assume all claims are 100% true. Whereas the jury is to look at thing in a more balanced perspective.
I'm dealing in absolutes from a legal perspective. He is proven innocent, you may call it not guilty and think what you like but he is now innocent.
I agree that the world isn't perfect and perhaps in reality he could have committed these acts but legally he hasn't and that has to remain as a key ideal of the legal system. Personally think what we like but he is innocent.
I'm not singing any praises here, I don't disagree, but 'justice' is a difficult balancing act at the best of times.
I have no doubt that there is perhaps a bit of reactionary case reviewing going on, but it is in some ways natural and to be expected. It shouldn't be detrimental obviously.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You clearly aren't getting the difference between proven and assumed but I'm losing interest in informing you of how wrong you are.
I understand the difference between proven and assumed.
What I don't accept is your application of the terms despite how boring you find being challenged.
Burnsy already explained why this won't happen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
No he won't even if he has been cleared hiss reputation and character is tarnished. He'll always be referred to as Peado!
The CPS only press forward if they 'think' there is a chance of conviction (and in public interest). It does not mean that there is sufficient evidence (only in their opinion) and it certainly does not mean there is any guilt just because it went to court, that is for a jury to decide (right or wrong).
To be charged with a crime following a CPS investigation does not in any way mean the evidence is substantial, it only means that in 'someone's opinion' a prosecution is possible, meaning that the criteria has been met in terms of possible evidence. The criteria is just a 'to do' list of information that WILL BE NEEDED to secure a conviction, nothing else. In court the smallest details can cause a case to collapse so the CPS need to ensure that all the essential parts are present and correct - the actual evidence is secondary - the only way this got to court is because it was largely two peoples word against each other, the criteria was met but the actual evidence was too complicated for the CPS to decide if there was a chance of conviction simply because of the nature of it. If there had been a camera filming the act of rape then the same criteria would have to be met but the evidence would have been compelling.
Last edited:
It's probably the fairest way to do these cases.
Guilty means they can be rightly labelled for whatever crime they have commuted. Innocent means their life isn't ruined forever by a spurious, or unproven (to keep burnsy happy
) allegation. Lets face it I wouldn't want him round my kids despite being proven innocent, rightly or wrongly **** like this will stick forever and he will struggle with it for life now.Yes thanks for that, but in terms of the validity of a police action CPS approval for court appearance is clearly some vindication on their actions, it's quite obvious that the CPS have to assess the evidence for presentation in court.
I have never once said this was a presumption of guilt, quite the opposite actually.