Convictions are not often gained when it's one person's word against another. Evidence is normally required.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dave Lee Travis NOT guilty
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
Convictions are not often gained when it's one person's word against another. Evidence is normally required.
These anonymous accusers have not gone to the press because they cannot do so - do YOU understand the law? Those would be actions deemed to be jeopardising the CPS case, possibly leading to charges of perjury. Now to be fair it is unlikely these accusers will now go to the press having seen DLT found not guilty, otherwise described as 'innocent till proven guilty'.
It is an unlikely possibility that they may go for a civil prosecution, mainly because they will have to pay for their own legal team, something Mr Travis has already had to do and has forced him to downsize his family home. Oh, and as for knowing who DLT is, you do realise that he held down a job as a Radio 1 presenter for 25 years when radio was THE medium for music.
Stop being offended and try looking at the facts.
The irony needle just went off the scale!
Innocent until proven guilty : not guilty equals innocent.
Creaky
Well-known member
In NO way does the verdict imply that the alleged victims were lying nor that the jury thought they were!
All the verdict implies is that they were unable to come to the conclusion that they were being truthful beyond a reasonable doubt.
IF DLT believes they were lying then he is perfectly able to start a civil case against the women - all he would have to prove in such a case is that on the balance of probabilities they were lying - I doubt even that would be possible to prove.
Do you really believe that!!! DLT is just another celebrity who is being persecuted for living a normal life in the seventies. He may well have fondled a few women, but I'm pretty damn sure they were well up for it at the time. All of a sudden, some 35-40 years later, they are affronted at the situation. Get real people. It happened in the seventies. It doesn't happen now, but it did then. Women were upset if they WEREN'T fondled as they felt there was something wrong with them.
Today you can buy alcohol in the supermarket. In 35-40 years time you may not be able to. Will you all be queueing up to prosecute supermarkets for selling you booze in 2014 - something that was completely acceptable at the time?
Just my opinion, but I was around at the time and I met DLT on numerous occasions, racing cars at Santa Pod. He always came across as a very genuine, nice kind of fellow.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
NSC in judge before you know the facts shocker.
Either he's got away with fondling teenagers due to lack of evidence when it was all the rage in the 70s/80s or there are 12 cases of women lying by 'jumping on the bandwagon'.
We don't know the truth. But, if I was suddenly made judge and given a time machine, let's say I'd be looking into it a little further.
Either he's got away with fondling teenagers due to lack of evidence when it was all the rage in the 70s/80s or there are 12 cases of women lying by 'jumping on the bandwagon'.
We don't know the truth. But, if I was suddenly made judge and given a time machine, let's say I'd be looking into it a little further.
The guy was discharged but you would not think it reading this.
Cheshire Cat
The most curious thing..
That's because all the posters are male. The female perspective of Travis (using a totally unrandom and unscientific sample who was at one of his roadshows c1973) is rather different here and not positive.
Last edited:
I would be dismayed to find a lot of these posters on the jury if I ever had to go to court.
I would get life imprisonment because they would find me guilty when the majority of the evidence proved otherwise.
Hope you're not including me in that statement!
Of course not.
Raleigh Chopper
New member
He committed a dreadful act in the past and I have fool proof evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d189uP-48sU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d189uP-48sU
So wrong, but so funny too!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,455
shameful. people actually bought that?
Raleigh Chopper
New member
Yep, he deserves 5 years for that alone.
My wife would disagree with that statement.
drew
Drew
They could have gone to the press long before he was charged if that was their motive but they didn't.
You seem to be implying that the evidence proved he was innocent. What evidence was that then? The evidence you heard in court or just the evidence reported in the press?
Not sure on what basis your wife can say that. Does your wife have a positive experience with Travis then?
I'm sorry that you had a negative experience re DLT. In a totally unloaded way, may I ask whether you felt the experience was negative at the time, or whether, as some on this thread seem to suggest, it was only later, as societal attitudes changed, that you felt negatively. I stress again, I have no agenda here, I'm just genuinely curious.
surlyseagull
Well-known member
- Aug 23, 2008
- 843
Unless people were actually at the court then this is all speculation,DLT may have stated he had done certain things to these women and the court didnt find them serious enough ,he may not have ,who knows , but one thing stands out and that is ,he does not have to try and prove his innocence ,but the prosecution have to try and prove his guilt so if there is any uncertainty then a not guilty verdict is the only outcome ,and rightly so.