Would you be able to prove you did not do something today

If someone accused you of doing it in 30 years time?

I have been reading through Jonathon King's website again (I do this a couple of times a year or so as he is posting a diary from prison) and it got me to thinking, again.

Forget whether you think he is guilty or not, in this it really matters not.

But, the offences he was accused of committing were apparently up to 32 years ago, non are less than 20 I think, something like that.

Now the accuser/s has/ve not had to prove that he did do it on that day. (Or even in that year as in the case of some of them the dates of the offence was moved when it was proven that events could not have been so due to them mentioning certain TV programmes that were first broadcast some months later.)

Could you prove that if accused in 30 years time of some heinous crime that you did not do it, could not have done it.

It seems in sex crimes, or at least some of them, we have turned justice on its head and it is up to the accused to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are innocent and not as is the case normally accepted that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just a thought.

Interesting point - I think the first thing is wether it goes to court and requires a CPS commitment.

I know the CPS are slagged off something chronic and do get it wrong quite alot but there must be a cast iron prosecution (in their minds) therefore they must believe they can prove what happened whenever be it 30 yrs ago.

I suppose at the end of the day it is possibly a guilt thing that makes people own up.

It is a good point. I often thought about this when I lived on my own in my flat. If I was accused of something after having spent a day alone in my flat, how I could I possibly prove my innocence?

Even today for instance, my only alibi would be my girlfriend and her daughter.

When Karen Hadaway & Nicola Fellowes were murdered the old bill came round a few weeks later (they visited everyone in the vicinity) and everyone, including myself, were interviewed about where they were and what they were doing on the particular day they disappeared.
I remember it crossing my mind that it was difficult enough to recall where I was that day, and if I had to prove it I would be shafted, because I'm sure my friends at the time had a similar vagueness about theirs & my whereabouts as I had (being stoners didn't help). All I could say was where I was likely to have been, but little chance of proof to back it up.
I digress a little, but the point to be had is that 2 weeks ago's whereabouts recollection is tough enough. 32 years? Not on your nelly. And to prove it? No chance.

I once got involved in a case of a young person who had been charged with assaulting a police officer at a Reclaim the Streets demonstration in central Brighton.

The Old Bill had assembled a sequence of extracts from surveillance cameras and CCTV footage that all pointed towards guilt.

Thanks to the insistence of an excellent civil rights solicitor, we were given access to the whole of the police footage shot that day. And were able to prove conclusively that it was someone else who had been responsible for the assault. But it took hours down in John Street, viewing the material in the presence of a police officer.

But marvin is right. In practical terms, you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. The pressure to give up is intense.

Mind you, there are people with thousands of posts on NSC who can probably account for every thought that has ever entered their heads - provided Bozza keeps the archival evidence.

And when they're not on NSC, they are out somewhere having their photos taken by Turkey.