DLT...am feeling really sorry for him now.

[trueblue]

No in the charges he was acquitted of the jury didn't decide they didn't happen, they only decided they weren't sure that they happened. They could all of thought it probably did happen but weren't sure so returned a Not Guilty verdict.

I really do understand the semantics, funnily enough. However, nobody deals in semantics better than the legal profession and, as I have no need to push the boundaries, I don't run the risk of taking them on unless I have had legal advice myself.

The one fact is he was cleared of ten charges. It's quite possible that every single member of the jury was absolutely, one hundred percent convinced from the evidence they heard that, in those ten cases, the alleged events did not happen. Unless you were on the jury, you don't know otherwise. Regardless, he was found 'not guilty' which the majority of people will (hopefully) equate with being innocent whether that is technically the same thing or not. Otherwise, there's not much point having jury trials - may as well just bang people up and save the money.

Incidentally, it's "they could all have" rather than "they could all of". Maybe the NCTJ don't bother with basic use of the language.

Anyway, all very interesting chaps. Better crack on with 'Capricorn'...

 

[keaton]

I really do understand the semantics, funnily enough. However, nobody deals in semantics better than the legal profession and, as I have no need to push the boundaries, I don't run the risk of taking them on unless I have had legal advice myself.

The one fact is he was cleared of ten charges. It's quite possible that every single member of the jury was absolutely, one hundred percent convinced from the evidence they heard that, in those ten cases, the alleged events did not happen. Unless you were on the jury, you don't know otherwise. Regardless, he was found 'not guilty' which the majority of people will (hopefully) equate with being innocent whether that is technically the same thing or not. Otherwise, there's not much point having jury trials - may as well just bang people up and save the money.

Incidentally, it's "they could all have" rather than "they could all of". Maybe the NCTJ don't bother with basic use of the language.

Anyway, all very interesting chaps. Better crack on with 'Capricorn'...

Well you've shown no understanding of semantics until now, andyou still seem confused and have started being arsy about grammar on a message board, so i'm out.
But as understanding information and interpreting it isn't your thing and spelling and grammar is, I wish you another happy thirty years on the classified ads.

 

[trueblue]

Haha. When you've got 20 years under your belt at national level, come back to me.

 

[MarioOrlandi]

Innocent until Proven Guilty, sorry but that is the other way round, especially in the cases of alleged sexual assault. A man regardless of his innocence/guilt can be dragged through the gutter, their friends will desert them and shunned where ever they go, and in some cases even driven to comit siucide and all this is before their trial. Even if they are unaminously found "not guilty" there will always be the doubters because to them "guilty" is the only surefire verdict.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

Innocent until Proven Guilty, sorry but that is the other way round, especially in the cases of alleged sexual assault. A man regardless of his innocence/guilt can be dragged through the gutter, their friends will desert them and shunned where ever they go, and in some cases even driven to comit siucide and all this is before their trial. Even if they are unaminously found "not guilty" there will always be the doubters because to them "guilty" is the only surefire verdict.

Couldnt agree more. I have no way of determining for myself if he did it or not, so I have to rely on the jury for that. They found him NOT guilty, so he is still innocent (as hw was before the trial started) IMO. If any subsequent trials find him guilty then he would be guilty.

It does seem celebrities get judged much harsher than others, without info.

 

[keaton]

Couldnt agree more. I have no way of determining for myself if he did it or not, so I have to rely on the jury for that. They found him NOT guilty, so he is still innocent (as hw was before the trial started) IMO. If any subsequent trials find him guilty then he would be guilty.

It does seem celebrities get judged much harsher than others, without info.

Why are celebrities judged harsher?
Is anyone even claiming he's guilty?

 

[marshy68]

How can one person have so many accusations against them from different people, and not be guilty?

As he said if patting someone's arse was a crime in the 70's and 80's the majority of the male population would be in the clink. Times they have changed.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

Why are celebrities judged harsher?
Is anyone even claiming he's guilty?

No noone has said he IS guilty but have implied he is also not innocent because 2 counts were not unanimous.

Ok, firstly I said that celebrities are judged harsher, but in the context of the conversation I can see this may be unclear. I dont think they are judged any differently than anyone else in court (although jurors may be influenced by their status, who knows) I meant the public and press tend to form a guilty until proven innocent mentality.

My point is that a person enters a court as innocent. They then hear charges against them and the court then either finds them guilty or not. If they are not guilty, they are by default still innocent. This is not true in Scotland, but where not proven is different.

My point is that if a jury cannot find a defendant guilty then they ARE innocent of the charges. Civil cases can blur this line.

It is not a courts job to establish innocence, it is to establish guilt. Innocence is presumed until guilt can be proven. Some on here are casting doubt on the validity of the verdict as some of the charges were not unanimously agreed. All I am saying is he is still innocent.