that's the point java. I'm saying we don't know. you're saying you know he didn't do it.

should the case have been brought? no.
would I have voted guilty if I'd been on the jury? no.
did he do it? I don't know.

I'd love to see how many of the kev is innocent brigade would let someone they knew had been acquitted in a case like this babysit their daughter.

that's not sniping, though, it's just fact. he might have done. there was nothing in the trial that conclusively disproved the allegations.

the burden of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt, not balance of probability.

no, if he'd been convicted on the evidence presented I'd actually be saying it was a miscarriage of justice.

the reason alleged sex offenders aren't given anonymity is because if they're serial sex offenders, it's the publicity around the allegations and any court hearings that brings forward other victims.

I've seen that happen; a friend of mine testified in a case where, had the accused been given anonymity, three other victims wouldn't have come forward and the guy - a serial paedophile - would either not have faced trial or been found not guilty.

I sat on a rape trial last year.

In her first statement to the police the woman was asked 'What happened'.

She replied 'We had sex'.

Policeman: 'Did you want to?'

Woman: 'No, but I didn't tell him'.

How it came to court was a mystery.

I was charged with assault, not only did I not do it there was a third party in the room so it was not just my word against the accuser.
I got arrested and finally charged after being left in a cell for 23 hours. The other bloke that was in the room at the time of the alleged assault was sitting in the waiting room of the police station ready to make a statement.

However, they went ahead and the C.P.S. went for a conviction. When it went to court the police said the witness was "not contactable". He was sitting in the police station for over 3 hours, all on cctv of course and they fully knew who he was and why he was there. They lied through their teeth.

My brief produced his statement, the judge then took ten seconds to say to the C.P.S., "what on Earth is this bloke doing in my court room?"

C.P.S. "We withdraw your honour."
Judge, "You are free to go Blue."

The entire hearing lasted about four minutes, the whole episode caused me untold amounts of grief and problems at work. The two arresting officers were there and both walked straight out and couldn't even look me the eye afterwards.

allyou are trying to do viva is to try and smear this bloke
nothing you have said in that has got nothing to do with the case - the girl was a virgin so she couldn't be raped

i get sick of you liberal elitist legal types who mess around with legal niceties and drag in 'at least 6 women' etc  -it
has nothing to do with the fact that the girl lied and the mother put her up to it.

better check out what is starting to leak out isntead of jumping on some sort of legalise high horse that your sort are so fond of doing -

viva

I understand the point you are seeking to make here and there is some confusion within the counter argument so to clarify:

A central tenet of Common Law (unlike Roman/Civil Law) is that a person charged with an offence is in nearly all cases presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is key. Whilst the burden of proof for the criminal proceedings is as you say extremely high the defendant doesn't lose the shield of this presumption until found guilty. Thus if he isn't convicted he never lost the presumption and it stands. Therefore he is still presumed innocent.

no you are not you are trying to cast doubt coz you don't like the verdict - it doesn't fit in with your liberal elitist  view of the world

and the worst of it is the guy represents 'low brow' entertainment which your type snears at

re the girl and especially the mother - you quite clearly don't know whatis going on

what bit of VIRGIN don't you understand???

naydam's gone quiet.

Well, I've been waiting for the dust to settle after this case, but it DOES leave several questions.
Not least of these is why the CPS went ahead with such flimsy evidence. The evidence that they produced would never end in a guilty verdict and I can only hope that this was made clear to the girl at the time. It may be that she was quite prepared to face the defence counsel and have her story dissected with the inconsistencies being held up as proof of lies. personally, I would expect inconsistencies in a story that had taken place years earlier, especially when bearing in mind the age of the girl at that time. I would be very surprised if a qualified interrogator COULDN'T find inconsistencies. It could be argued that the inconsistencies could be seen as an indication that the answers were from memory, and not from a carefully rehearsed script.
But I would also have to say that the prosecuting counsel apparently made no effort at all to do their job. Perhaps they did, but the details that should have been asked seem to have been passed by.
For instance, (according to press comments) he DID say that he got INTO the bed. I believe that he was asked if he was naked but no mention was made of what the child was/was not wearing. Possibly quite important because the next question is 'What size bed was she in?' Depending on the type of bed would throw some light upon the likelihood of accidentally getting into (OR onto) it. The 'accident' would much more likely occur in a double bed as opposed to a single bed or bunk beds.
I have not seen it reported if the girl was awake or asleep at this time.
So anyway, He is (I assume)quite drunk when this occurs...but how did he get like that? Was he so drunk when he commenced 'baby-sitting'? Surely not. But if he wasn't... where did he get all the necessary alcohol? How much did he supposedly consume in order to be so drunk?
Was he really drunk at all?

One of the problems with trying to reach an opinion regarding 'did he or didn't he?' is that none of the press reports can be taken as verbatim. It is always somebody's interpretation of what was said, but it strikes me that the defence counsel did their job far better than he prosecution did.

Anyway, the case is over and a lot of damage has been done to both parties and, I suspect, some close friends and relatives of each.

Based upon the evidence offered, the correct verdict was reached.

Just a couple of points for clarification to some other posters: I believe that I heard a legal definition that 'rape' in this case did not necessarily mean full vaginal penetration. That any degree of entry would suffice...so proof of virginity would not rule out the possibility of rape.
Also, there was reference in an earlier post about putting a hand over the child's mouth to silence her. There has never been any suggestion of violence of any sort in this case. Many posters seem to think that violence is a necessary component to sexual activity as named in the charges. It isn't.

it was a put up job that failed - and no money made by them - except as usual legal filth pocket the dosh

hand on heart I think he may have done something , but if I was on the jury id have said not guilty in less than 30 seconds.agree with naydam the prosecution barrister etc was useless.

the fact the girl said he raped her is proof positive she lied as 3 doctors all said she  was still  a virgin........she is now 14 so she now knows the difference

was she a relative or girlfriends daughter

even more so then.......

leaving aside the no smoke without fire debate which seems to be have been going here the CPS are only meant to bring cases that have a realistic chance of conviction

in this instance the chances of conviction were surely virtually nil. they are not meant to try cases on the off chance a very stupid jury might find in their favour

Perhaps someone can clarify if an explanation has been given but why was the original decision of the CPS not to take this further overturned? From what I can tell it seems there may be three factors:

The mothers complaint.

The child supposedly remembering further details.

The current climate and furore surrounding Saville.

One and three shouldn't have caused a rethink and the second should have been thoroughly examined before proceeding.

You can easily see those who desperately wanted a guilty verdict because they are clutching at every available straw to justify their stance. They are totally unable to accept that a jury of EIGHT women and four men unanimously found the defendant not guilty.

They are saying he hasn't been proven innocent or that the prosecution didn't do their job. Well at least they are right about the last one because if they had done their job this would never have come to court. All I hope is that those who cannot accept this unanimous verdict do not end up on the wrong side of the CPS decisions.

sorry dr naydam

so naydam you think he is guilty.........yes or no