Bill Cosby freed

[diegomarahenry]

9 minutes ago, hk blues said:

As for legal technicalities, I'm not sure the scenario you describe with the Chauvin case would be classed as a technicality, rather a matter of material fact. 

in this scenario 

For the public’s confidence, they needed to see someone in handcuffs, they needed the camera on his face when the guilty verdict was read out for a sense of justice. 
 

An internal review, damages payed by the police and a change of policy on restraint would not have given the same sense of justice. 

I wouldn’t like to see him released on appeal on something that should have been set in stone before the original trial. allowing the prosecution to have a cast iron case for a conviction that sees him in jail for his full term. 
 

 

[budmiester1]

9 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

That couldnt be any further from the truth, ive dedicated a large part of my career to the investigation of domestic abuse etc and to say  that its not taken seriously is utterly dismissive to people who do absolutely everything they can to help victims. There are entire departments solely dedicated to such investigations, specialist courts, specialist prosecutors who deal with only domestic abuse cases. Even outside this, domestic abuse calls make up a massive part of the day to day work of uniformed police officers too. With a large proportion of calls around domestic abuse. Every single police officer and domestic abuse prosecutor gets specialist training from Domestic Abuse Matters which is co-delivered by agencies like women's aid and rape crisis. Its a stated priority for Policing and COPFS in that its recognised as a massively important area. 

Its an incredibly complex field, if someone comes forward to report say a historical incident where the person was assaulted with no other persons present etc then its significantly difficult to prove that abuse, forensic opportunities gone, door to door opportunities significantly diminished, you rely on a strong statement from a victim which stands up to scrutiny and some other corroborative factor, which could be a confession, incriminating texts or a first disclosure from the victim. Even then the chances of finding that corroborative factor can be really difficult. That said they will still explore as many avenues as possible to do this, interviewing ex partners who may have suffered similar abuse which can provide corroboration via the moorov doctrine, but getting them to engage can be so difficult because many just want to move on or have blocked out these traumatic memories. 

Domestic abuse and sexual violence etc is for me one of the most horrific types of crime, because it so often occurs in an environment which where we should all feel the safest and the impact of it can be significantly harder to overcome than most other crimes. 
 

I get the frustration that crimes like these dont always result in a prosecution, but to allude to it being because the criminal justice system is somehow uninterested, complicit or ‘not done properly’ on some kind of massive scale is unfair and inaccurate. Are there things that can improve, absolutely, could the PF and Police etc do with more resources to investigate and prosecute, absolutely, but is it somehow because they dont care? No chance. 

Inanimate Carbon Rod, Although I understand Moorov Doctrine (retired cop) It would be a good idea to explain what it means for those that don't.

[hk blues]

5 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

in this scenario 

For the public’s confidence, they needed to see someone in handcuffs, they needed the camera on his face when the guilty verdict was read out for a sense of justice. 
 

An internal review, damages payed by the police and a change of policy on restraint would not have given the same sense of justice. 

I wouldn’t like to see him released on appeal on something that should have been set in stone before the original trial. allowing the prosecution to have a cast iron case for a conviction that sees him in jail for his full term. 
 

 

Sure we love to see a guilty person convicted, it's a basic human instinct to want to see justice with our own eyes.   We saw the cruel death he inflicted on Floyd with our own eyes so it neatly squared the circle as it were.  This doesn't make Chauvin any less guilty though.  

I'm not sure if you're privy to any inside info. but what evidence will any appeal bring out - you seem to believe there is something?  Sometimes things are pretty much as they seem and justice is done.  Not always, but sometimes.  

[RH33]

14 minutes ago, budmiester1 said:

Inanimate Carbon Rod, Although I understand Moorov Doctrine (retired cop) It would be a good idea to explain what it means for those that don't.

That different witnesses giving similar independent reports of a person's behaviour can lead to charges.

It's my hope one day mine will provide that for someone else.

Edit to add: I found the police to be thorough albeit there were couple instances when I felt communication important things were done a bit tactlessly. Calling to say no charges bit may go to PF for review of facts. When I followed this up weeks later the DI had said no but no one told me. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by RH33

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

9 minutes ago, RH33 said:

That different witnesses giving similar independent reports of a person's behaviour can lead to charges.

It's my hope one day mine will provide that for someone else.

Edit to add: I found the police to be thorough albeit there were couple instances when I felt communication important things were done a bit tactlessly. Calling to say no charges bit may go to PF for review of facts. When I followed this up weeks later the DI had said no but no one told me. 

I mean that part you’ve highlighted is totally unfair and i hate that it happened to you. 
Good on you for being so strong on it, these people rarely change their behaviour, I hope that no one else has to be a victim but  unfortunately its highly likely there will be. 

People need to know things like DSDAS are available to them too, this is a scheme you can apply for a disclosure for either yourself or someone else if you have concerns about a partner or new relationship. This essentially allows for a risk assessment and disclosure of information to a potential victim of someones previous behaviour. Id really encourage anyone to consider this if they spot red flags. 

[diegomarahenry]

6 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I'm not sure if you're privy to any inside info. but what evidence will any appeal bring out - you seem to believe there is something?  Sometimes things are pretty much as they seem and justice is done.  Not always, but sometimes.  

None, I am just using it as an example of mass public perception of guilt and the  public need for a guilty verdict.

I am 100% certain that thousands of shitehawk lawyers are picking over the case as we speak looking for something that would grant an appeal. Regardless of them thinking he is guilty or not, getting this reversed would be a big chunk of their CV. 
 

The ramifications of Floyds killer getting a not guilty verdict don’t bear thinking about. In the case of the killer, he would have to go in to hiding for the rest of his life. His life as he knew it was effectively over. America would be on fire, baring in mind the time of the case and the US election. 
 

The free Britney thing that is happening just now makes it look like she is being beaten and forced to perform in a Joe Jackson kind of way but when you look at the facts, she is a deeply troubled person who needs a lot of help. The case is about who is in charge of that help and who has her best interests at heart. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

32 minutes ago, budmiester1 said:

Inanimate Carbon Rod, Although I understand Moorov Doctrine (retired cop) It would be a good idea to explain what it means for those that don't.

Moorov Doctrine in a very simplified manner- person a is a victim of person 1, person b is also a victim, similar accounts, m.o applied or something in each victims account which corroborates the other victim. 
You’ve also got the Howden principle but thats even more complicated. 

[Thorongil]

1 hour ago, RH33 said:

And the jury make the innocent or guilt decision which the court acts upon.....

If there is a jury and even then only only very strict legal parameters given by the judge. The judge may then consider victim impact in sentencing.

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, diegomarahenry said:

None, I am just using it as an example of mass public perception of guilt and the  public need for a guilty verdict.

I am 100% certain that thousands of shitehawk lawyers are picking over the case as we speak looking for something that would grant an appeal. Regardless of them thinking he is guilty or not, getting this reversed would be a big chunk of their CV. 

 

Again though, the need for a guilty verdict doesn't mean such a verdict was wrong.

Are those lawyers wrong to look for any loophole? Yes and No; it's their job even if their actions result in a guilty person going free.  But, the legal system which allows such loopholes is the real culprit i.e. a system that allows a convicted man to go free simply because he was "protected" by an agreement that didn't serve society well is clearly flawed.  Throw in things such as the Statute of Limitations and Double Jeapardy and we begin to wonder whose side the law is on (it shouldn't be on anyone's, of course).

The OJ Simpson trial is an interesting contrast to Chauvin's with some similarities i.e. very public.

[carpetmonster]

1 hour ago, diegomarahenry said:

. 

 

An internal review, damages payed by the police and a change of policy on restraint would not have given the same sense of justice. 


 

 

A technicality, but an important one - in the US, damages are paid by the city who’s PD is responsible, not the police themselves. In 2018, the Chicago taxpayer had to pay out $113m in restitution to CPD-injured parties and for the decade it’s over half a billion dollars. We are literally in the situation where black folks are subsidizing the police murdering black folks. 

[diegomarahenry]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Again though, the need for a guilty verdict doesn't mean such a verdict was wrong.

Are those lawyers wrong to look for any loophole? Yes and No; it's their job even if their actions result in a guilty person going free.  But, the legal system which allows such loopholes is the real culprit i.e. a system that allows a convicted man to go free simply because he was "protected" by an agreement that didn't serve society well is clearly flawed.  Throw in things such as the Statute of Limitations and Double Jeapardy and we begin to wonder whose side the law is on (it shouldn't be on anyone's, of course).

It doesn’t mean it’s wrong but finding someone guilty (because they are) but not following protocol, leading them to be released and receive a healthy payout a couple of years later for the mental anguish of being jailed isn’t a victory in the long run. The initial guilty verdict the public want followed by an apparent vindication in the media. 
 

the civil case with Cosby would have been seen as a victory at the time, we have little chance of getting him charged in court so the civil case and immunity will be at least something. Then they think they can make it stick and apparently try and bend a rule. 

[scottsdad]

2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

That couldnt be any further from the truth, ive dedicated a large part of my career to the investigation of domestic abuse etc and to say  that its not taken seriously is utterly dismissive to people who do absolutely everything they can to help victims. There are entire departments solely dedicated to such investigations, specialist courts, specialist prosecutors who deal with only domestic abuse cases. Even outside this, domestic abuse calls make up a massive part of the day to day work of uniformed police officers too. With a large proportion of calls around domestic abuse. Every single police officer and domestic abuse prosecutor gets specialist training from Domestic Abuse Matters which is co-delivered by agencies like women's aid and rape crisis. Its a stated priority for Policing and COPFS in that its recognised as a massively important area. 

Its an incredibly complex field, if someone comes forward to report say a historical incident where the person was assaulted with no other persons present etc then its significantly difficult to prove that abuse, forensic opportunities gone, door to door opportunities significantly diminished, you rely on a strong statement from a victim which stands up to scrutiny and some other corroborative factor, which could be a confession, incriminating texts or a first disclosure from the victim. Even then the chances of finding that corroborative factor can be really difficult. That said they will still explore as many avenues as possible to do this, interviewing ex partners who may have suffered similar abuse which can provide corroboration via the moorov doctrine, but getting them to engage can be so difficult because many just want to move on or have blocked out these traumatic memories. 

Domestic abuse and sexual violence etc is for me one of the most horrific types of crime, because it so often occurs in an environment which where we should all feel the safest and the impact of it can be significantly harder to overcome than most other crimes. 
 

I get the frustration that crimes like these dont always result in a prosecution, but to allude to it being because the criminal justice system is somehow uninterested, complicit or ‘not done properly’ on some kind of massive scale is unfair and inaccurate. Are there things that can improve, absolutely, could the PF and Police etc do with more resources to investigate and prosecute, absolutely, but is it somehow because they dont care? No chance. 

My dad was a copper, retired many years ago. But I remember him talking about a family (the kids went to school with us) where the man would regularly beat up the woman. The neighbours always heard it, it wasn't a secret at all. Sometimes dad would get called to the house, and the woman would answer "with a face like a pound of mince". But she would say that nothing happened and, in those days, you needed corroboration. If she said nothing happened, despite the clear injuries, then the police were utterly powerless to do anything. 

The woman's son (and the man's step-son) beat the crap out of the guy when he was 15 or 16, and the guy ended up leaving. 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Was it the age differences in relationships thread where someone said "You may not be a nonce in the eyes of the law but you are to me"? P&B wisdom carries the day again.

[Shandon Par]

5 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

That couldnt be any further from the truth, ive dedicated a large part of my career to the investigation of domestic abuse etc and to say  that its not taken seriously is utterly dismissive to people who do absolutely everything they can to help victims. There are entire departments solely dedicated to such investigations, specialist courts, specialist prosecutors who deal with only domestic abuse cases. Even outside this, domestic abuse calls make up a massive part of the day to day work of uniformed police officers too. With a large proportion of calls around domestic abuse. Every single police officer and domestic abuse prosecutor gets specialist training from Domestic Abuse Matters which is co-delivered by agencies like women's aid and rape crisis. Its a stated priority for Policing and COPFS in that its recognised as a massively important area. 

Its an incredibly complex field, if someone comes forward to report say a historical incident where the person was assaulted with no other persons present etc then its significantly difficult to prove that abuse, forensic opportunities gone, door to door opportunities significantly diminished, you rely on a strong statement from a victim which stands up to scrutiny and some other corroborative factor, which could be a confession, incriminating texts or a first disclosure from the victim. Even then the chances of finding that corroborative factor can be really difficult. That said they will still explore as many avenues as possible to do this, interviewing ex partners who may have suffered similar abuse which can provide corroboration via the moorov doctrine, but getting them to engage can be so difficult because many just want to move on or have blocked out these traumatic memories. 

Domestic abuse and sexual violence etc is for me one of the most horrific types of crime, because it so often occurs in an environment which where we should all feel the safest and the impact of it can be significantly harder to overcome than most other crimes. 
 

I get the frustration that crimes like these dont always result in a prosecution, but to allude to it being because the criminal justice system is somehow uninterested, complicit or ‘not done properly’ on some kind of massive scale is unfair and inaccurate. Are there things that can improve, absolutely, could the PF and Police etc do with more resources to investigate and prosecute, absolutely, but is it somehow because they dont care? No chance. 

I knew you’d have a detailed response to that! Cheers for the response.

What I was referring to was that it looks like if a woman’s abuser is in the police then they are only half as likely to see a conviction (three point something percent!).

Maybe needs to be some mechanism to make it easier to get a conviction. If, for example, man a skelps man b with a bottle on a night out, you’d expect to see man b punished. Wife a getting battered by husband b seems far less likely to see her attacker punished. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51773425

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

7 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

I knew you’d have a detailed response to that! Cheers for the response.

What I was referring to was that it looks like if a woman’s abuser is in the police then they are only half as likely to see a conviction (three point something percent!).

Maybe needs to be some mechanism to make it easier to get a conviction. If, for example, man a skelps man b with a bottle on a night out, you’d expect to see man b punished. Wife a getting battered by husband b seems far less likely to see her attacker punished. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51773425

 

Ive no experience with that kind of investigation, but would have had no problem investigating a police officer when I was in that field. If anything probably would have been more determined to get them done because of the way articles like that make every person connected to the police look. 
That said on the other side i’ve had a friend subject of a malicious allegation which almost destroyed his career and personal life (genuinely horrible experience for them and absolutely unfounded in any way). 
For me its not about making it easier to convict etc, getting rid of corroboration would not be a good thing imo, but we need to essentially educate young men right from an early age about healthy relationships and behaviour. We teach teenagers sexual health, why not make this other side part of the curriculum too? remove the taboo and empower women to leave abusive relationships, again something that should be taught to every kid. 
We also need to properly support victims to help them come forward, bigger strides are being made in this but like anything you can always improve.  

[BFTD]

Some shocking things in this thread, not least the fact that ytmnd.com is alive and well in 2021.

[Left Back]

17 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

I knew you’d have a detailed response to that! Cheers for the response.

What I was referring to was that it looks like if a woman’s abuser is in the police then they are only half as likely to see a conviction (three point something percent!).

Maybe needs to be some mechanism to make it easier to get a conviction. If, for example, man a skelps man b with a bottle on a night out, you’d expect to see man b punished. Wife a getting battered by husband b seems far less likely to see her attacker punished. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51773425

 

Why would man b get punished for being bottled?

[Moomintroll]

2 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Why would man b get punished for being bottled?

It's Shandon, he is man a & has comically injured himself trying to bottle man b. Police turn up see said injuries and arrest man b for assualt, Shandon then falls out the witness box when trying to get man b exonerated & the poor bugger gets 3 years.

[Cyclizine]

On 02/07/2021 at 08:39, Thorongil said:

Also pretty  alarming that you think Not Guilty doesn’t also mean innocent. 

 

On 02/07/2021 at 08:49, oneteaminglasgow said:

It doesn’t. 

This is why I don't agree with the proposals to scrap the "Not Proven" verdict in Scots Law. If the jury/sheriff have to decide if the case against the accused is true beyond reasonable doubt, then the logical verdicts are "Proven" and "Not Proven". It's "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" we should scrap.

[Miguel Sanchez]

13 hours ago, BFTD said:

Some shocking things in this thread, not least the fact that ytmnd.com is alive and well in 2021.

I checked to see if it was still there before typing out the link