Dave Lee Travis Guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Woolly Blue said:
Not on here mate. But I'd say the press have been a bit naughty. OK, they havn't named her, and, to be fair, lots of people who used to work at Granada were pretty sure who it was, but that's different to effectively putting her name in the public domain.
Click to expand...

It's just been on the news then, naming the programme she worked on. Does just sort of zero it in.
 

Sapie88 said:
mary_berry_1x1.jpg
Click to expand...

How old is she? Just wondering if she's now the first lady over 75 I've ever had a trouser twinge over.....
 

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
The entire Yewtree operation has cost in excess of £3m and is now dredging the barrel in order to provide some form of payoff

The minute Travis was found not guilty the first time round the CPS should have wanged the file into a skip. Instead they brought one of the unproven charges back to court, together with this one from a new 'victim' who came forward after seeing 'his smug face' at the first trial.

Don't tell me this would have ever made it into the court at all, let alone twice, if the whole Yewtree bandwagon wasn't behind it.

Justice? I think not.
Click to expand...

This one he's been convicted of , so the one the jury think he's actually guilty of ? You'd rather they left it ?

I get the General 'uncomfortableness' around the whole 'retrospective justice idea' but - and I appreciate they aren't all yewtree- we've had Stuart hall plead guilty to a host of sexual offences , Clifford convicted of several serious offences and rolf harris convicted of abusing women/children and his daughters friend . Which of them would you rather was still enjoying the cult of celebrity or being feted by the queen for example ?

As regards DLT he's been convicted of something that the victim reported at the time, it seems. It's an offence, if you don't agree that sexual touching of a woman without her consent be an offence , firstly I'm staggered and secondly change the law. I've also, it seems, been fortunate not to have been pounced on by various predatory women or gay men but if the female members of my family were I doubt I'd consider it trivial . If this was a one off perhaps Travis wouldn't have been charged given the 'seriousness' of the offence and the time elapses but he faced an array of allegations so taken together he was charged and that does seem fairly reasonable . Also in my opinion he really wasn't helped given his comments in the witness box , which you'd presume he'd given in interview , namely it's incredibly trivial everybody did it but actually I didn't which I'm sure contributed to their decision to charge .

Having been through the justice process it's horrible and it chews you up , whether innocent or guilty but sadly it's the system we have and frankly I have a little difficulty maintaining too much sympathy for Travis considering he seems to have a little difficulty keeping his hands to himself . certainly there are those who've suffered at the hands of the justice system I've got greater sympathy for.

peteblue said:
Is this not a verbal sexual assault, which I am sure will disgust many posters on here.......You see how easy it is to accuse someone.............
Click to expand...

But not convict the jury didn't simply convict him of all charges they seemed to deliberate and acquit of a number of convict of one showing , to me , they've taken their responsibilites seriously having seen the witnesses , accused and listen to all the evidence .
 
Last edited:
Harryflashman said:
This one he's been convicted of , so the one the jury think he's actually guilty of ? You'd rather they left it ?

I get the General 'uncomfortableness' around the whole 'retrospective justice idea' but - and I appreciate they aren't all yewtree- we've had Stuart hall plead guilty to a host of sexual offences , Clifford convicted of several serious offences and rolf harris convicted of abusing women/children and his daughters friend . Which of them would you rather was still enjoying the cult of celebrity or being feted by the queen for example ?

As regards DLT he's been convicted of something that the victim reported at the time, it seems. It's an offence, if you don't agree that sexual touching of a woman without her consent be an offence , firstly I'm staggered and secondly change the law. I've also, it seems, been fortunate not to have been pounced on by various predatory women or gay men but if the female members of my family were I doubt I'd consider it trivial . If this was a one off perhaps Travis wouldn't have been charged given the 'seriousness' of the offence and the time elapses but he faced an array of allegations so taken together he was charged and that does seem fairly reasonable . Also in my opinion he really wasn't helped given his comments in the witness box , which you'd presume he'd given in interview , namely it's incredibly trivial everybody did it but actually I didn't which I'm sure contributed to their decision to charge .

Having been through the justice process it's horrible and it chews you up , whether innocent or guilty but sadly it's the system we have and frankly I have a little difficulty maintaining too much sympathy for Travis considering he seems to have a little difficulty keeping his hands to himself . certainly there are those who've suffered at the hands of the justice system I've got greater sympathy for.



But not convict the jury didn't simy convict him of all charges they seemed to deliberate and acquit of a number of convict of one showing , to me , they've taken their responsibilites seriously having seen the witnesses , accused and listen to all the evidence .
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that - all they are saying is that convicting for that offense decades after it happened with no witnesses or evidence beyond the word of the victim is dangerous in the extreme.
 

Tubey said:
Nobody has said that - all they are saying is that convicting for that offense decades after it happened with no witnesses or evidence beyond the word of the victim is dangerous in the extreme.
Click to expand...

We don't and never have had a statue of limitations in this country mate . We've also have a long history of witness testimony being considered compelling long before the media & csi 'obsession' with DNA and the like .

I won't argue its dangers theyre absolutely there and the fact that the jury only convicted on the charge with 'outcry' witnesses probably means they share you're doubts. A jury gets to watch witnesses , both prosecution and defence give evidence and that's immensely powerful and theyve felt that it was sufficient to convict travis.
 
Harryflashman said:
We don't and never have had a statue of limitations in this country mate . We've also have a long history of witness testimony being considered compelling long before the media & csi 'obsession' with DNA and the like .

I won't argue its dangers theyre absolutely there and the fact that the jury only convicted on the charge with 'outcry' witnesses probably means they share you're doubts. A jury gets to watch witnesses , both prosecution and defence give evidence and that's immensely powerful and theyve felt that it was sufficient to convict travis.
Click to expand...

The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" has not been (until seemingly now) a concept based on victim evidence alone. Especially given the elapsed time. And I'm not talking about statute of limitations there, I'm simply talking about how elapsed time in general has a degrading quality on recollection and evidence.

Just because a jury thinks somethings a bit "off" about someone or they believe a certain victim should not be enough to convict, as the burden of proof is on the prosecution to go beyond reasonable doubt.

In accordance to the law, most, if not all of these charges should have been dismissed immediately in my view. He might have did it, probably did, no smoke without fire etc. but there's absolutely no way I can envisage how it can be legally proved he did.
 
Tubey said:
The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" has not been (until seemingly now) a concept based on victim evidence alone. Especially given the elapsed time. And I'm not talking about statute of limitations there, I'm simply talking about how elapsed time in general has a degrading quality on recollection and evidence.

Just because a jury thinks somethings a bit "off" about someone or they believe a certain victim should not be enough to convict, as the burden of proof is on the prosecution to go beyond reasonable doubt.

In accordance to the law, most, if not all of these charges should have been dismissed immediately in my view. He might have did it, probably did, no smoke without fire etc. but there's absolutely no way I can envisage how it can be legally proved he did.
Click to expand...

There is a huge history of convictions of one word against another mate , you only have to look at Google and you can find them . Serious historical Sexual abusers are imprisoned regularly , many having pleaded guilty , with absolutely no evidence other than the victims word . Would you honestly not prosecute any of them ? I'm not going to post examples but there are a host of teachers and priests who've recently pleaded guilty to such offences do you think that prosecutions are inappropriate ?

The jury convicted on one and acquitted on others which surely points to them having taken their role seriously weighed the evidence and deliberated ? How do you know they convicted because he was a 'bit off ' rather than on the evidence ?

roydo said:
Bet it wouldnt have even made court is it was me.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Fondle a woman's breast without her consent I think you've got half a chance of going to court like . Get 13 women making similar allegations I wouldnt fancy you're odds of avoiding court.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top