I think what we're also seeing here is the use of long, drawn out high profile cases in order to focus the public's attention away from very serious issues. (I'm not saying those cases you mentioned aren't serious, I should add, just not as).
I noticed this when the so-called 'child abuse' enquiry was going on in the UK. This, naturally, needed to be a whitewash, because if the full extent of the Establishment abuse network had become public knowledge then the Establishment simply would not have survived.
And so the way they dealt with it was by selecting isolated 'celebrity' individuals and focussing the public's attention on them. It didn't matter if they were innocent or guilty. Finding a few of them guilty provides the public with the feeling that 'ah, something has been done, they got the bad guys, now I can go back to sleep'.
The way they prevented the really serious (category A) network from ever being brought to attention was by setting up one single 'accuser', some guy they called 'Nick' with the intention, naturally, of discrediting him at some point thus discrediting anyone else who comes forward and tells a similar story. Whether 'Nick' was an actor, or a real victim, I don't know, but the outcome was the same. So, whilst the public were entirely misdirected, and Theresa May's Home Office conveniently lost/mislaid all the files (cf. also the Geoffrey Dickens report, early 1980s - suppressed by Leon Brittan who was ironically himself accused of serious child rape), the Category A child abuse network escaped.
Perhaps the 'me too' thing is more of the same - a combination of 'sacrificing a few individuals' and 'misdirecting the public' and 'providing the public with a sense of emotional satisfaction from justice being seen to be done'.
So, I think there is a lot more to all of this than simply 'the law is an ass'. Not that I disagree with you on that one, though!
The issue I see is the application of the burden of proof. I challenged a Contentious Probate case a while back ie Civil case were the burden of proof should be balance of probabilities but my legal advice was not to take the case to Court because the level of proof required was high, so where was the balance of probabilities criteria? No where to be seen another standard was applied.
Likewise in Me Too & LL cases criminal cases, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, some say 90% certainty. How can you have that high level of proof for historic events, where is the factual evidence, the semen stain etc. Similarly, with LL where is the factual evidence to achieve 'beyond reasonable doubt' ?
Has a lower criteria has been used, perhaps the Courts need to apply the correct level of proof with some objectivity, because it looks to me as if they are swaying in the wind and applying what they want when they want.
I keep reading these cases and wondering the same thing. How can you be certain when:
(a) the incidents occured 13-50 years previous
(b) the only witness giving direct testimony to the incident was the victim (the victim's mother or father taking the stand and saying 'I learned about this in 2015 or 2017 when my daughter told me she had given a police statement' is not direct testimony of the historic incident)
(c) for each of these cases 2/3-3/4 of the testimony was from women who were not the women that the charge related to, and was about incidents that were not the incidents cited on the charge sheet
This suggests to me that the verdict was one based on dislike of the celebrity and their success, and less about being certain that they had actually done the deed. And when you see ones like Rolf Harris' "Cambridge Green" girl whose (?refreshed memory?) testimony kept changing as it was revealed by the defence that her story made it impossible for Rolf to have done it, and the appeals judges saying such variable quality testimony 'was safe', you really do have to wonder about what we teach at law schools.
Speaking of law schools, I am disgusted that some of the top law schools now are giving pass marks to law students who essentially fail every exam. An exam or essay mark of 40% is sufficient in some law schools to be granted your LLB/GDL/LLM and go on to the SRA exam. It makes me wonder why I studied and worked so hard to get my average mark over 90% for each of my DipLaw, GDL and LLM papers, and when I had lecturers telling me almost nobody 'got an A' and that I should stop stressing about it, it made me worry about the quality of ability most lawyers and barristers now possess.
And yet... for all my stressing to get good marks the SRA won't accept my quals from NZ or AUS or grant me dispensation to undertake an LPC. And to date I haven't found a Barrister willing to hire me to 'article' in their chambers - I suspect because they cannot be assured that the SRA will ever say 'yes'
Surely the burden of proof can’t be just 90% certainty. That means you are sending 10% of innocent people to jail for many years, even for life. I should have thought it would be 99.9% certain.
I don't think it means sending 10% of innocent people to jail. Each trial is a single event and unrelated to any other what you are doing is treating all trials as a population, and I don't think they are. But there is no doubt innocent people are in jail.
The idea of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has received a lot of attention from legal scholars and philosophers. My take on it is that it doesn't necessarily require the juror to be certain, and certainly not absolutely certain... just no longer in possession of a doubt that they consider in their own mind would reasonably bring the verdict into question.
I think that on one side too many people think that the juror must be absolutely sure that the defendant is guilty, and on the other side there are others that think it okay to infer what or how the defendant may have committed the crime in order to find guilt (to this point I have seen judges who actually instructed a jury that it was 'okay to infer' the defendant's guilt - a position that I feel invites jumping to conclusions and one I do not agree with).
In any event, we would hope a jury of 'reasonable people' would approach from the position that taking someone's liberty is a serious undertaking and that they should give all due care and attention and a significant degree of certainty in their decision. In practice sadly this is not always the case. Juries and judges are human and come with their own pre-baked biases... and in trials like this that involve what many will consider to be reprehensible crimes (baby killer!), there is a lot of opportunity for those biases to come out.
The coercive power in these cases would seem to have been fame or money rather than the physical variety that we more often associate with rape. Is that still rape, I figure it is. I’m happy for Harris’s, Cosby’s and Weinstein’s names to be sullied with such accusations and all of them attracted plenty of them.
It’s annoying to read some seemingly compelling analysis of the Letby case and then realize I probably can’t trust the things I learned because the author is a brilliant individual who thinks the globalist pandemicmasters metooed bill cosby.
Grace Lee Whitney, aka Yeoman Janice Rand in the original StarTrek series, was apparently sexually assaulted by a Desilu executive. She defended herself. She stated that after this incident the man in question made sure no other roles came her way.
It was/is called the casting couch. Many young women complied in order to get the job. People like Harvey Weinstein took what they could get and got away with it for many years.
It is good all this is now in the open, that we agree this is despicable behavior, and that we try to eradicate it.
Difficult to fully understand what you are suggesting, but whatever you are suggesting, it would appear that you have an even lower opinion than I of the movers and shakers of this world of ours. I don't entirely see how Lucy Letby fits into all of this. Notable people dropped by their powerful friends, and anonymous Lucy an horrendous victim of an horrendous system.
I think what we're also seeing here is the use of long, drawn out high profile cases in order to focus the public's attention away from very serious issues. (I'm not saying those cases you mentioned aren't serious, I should add, just not as).
I noticed this when the so-called 'child abuse' enquiry was going on in the UK. This, naturally, needed to be a whitewash, because if the full extent of the Establishment abuse network had become public knowledge then the Establishment simply would not have survived.
And so the way they dealt with it was by selecting isolated 'celebrity' individuals and focussing the public's attention on them. It didn't matter if they were innocent or guilty. Finding a few of them guilty provides the public with the feeling that 'ah, something has been done, they got the bad guys, now I can go back to sleep'.
The way they prevented the really serious (category A) network from ever being brought to attention was by setting up one single 'accuser', some guy they called 'Nick' with the intention, naturally, of discrediting him at some point thus discrediting anyone else who comes forward and tells a similar story. Whether 'Nick' was an actor, or a real victim, I don't know, but the outcome was the same. So, whilst the public were entirely misdirected, and Theresa May's Home Office conveniently lost/mislaid all the files (cf. also the Geoffrey Dickens report, early 1980s - suppressed by Leon Brittan who was ironically himself accused of serious child rape), the Category A child abuse network escaped.
Perhaps the 'me too' thing is more of the same - a combination of 'sacrificing a few individuals' and 'misdirecting the public' and 'providing the public with a sense of emotional satisfaction from justice being seen to be done'.
So, I think there is a lot more to all of this than simply 'the law is an ass'. Not that I disagree with you on that one, though!
The issue I see is the application of the burden of proof. I challenged a Contentious Probate case a while back ie Civil case were the burden of proof should be balance of probabilities but my legal advice was not to take the case to Court because the level of proof required was high, so where was the balance of probabilities criteria? No where to be seen another standard was applied.
Likewise in Me Too & LL cases criminal cases, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, some say 90% certainty. How can you have that high level of proof for historic events, where is the factual evidence, the semen stain etc. Similarly, with LL where is the factual evidence to achieve 'beyond reasonable doubt' ?
Has a lower criteria has been used, perhaps the Courts need to apply the correct level of proof with some objectivity, because it looks to me as if they are swaying in the wind and applying what they want when they want.
Abso-frickin'-lutely
I keep reading these cases and wondering the same thing. How can you be certain when:
(a) the incidents occured 13-50 years previous
(b) the only witness giving direct testimony to the incident was the victim (the victim's mother or father taking the stand and saying 'I learned about this in 2015 or 2017 when my daughter told me she had given a police statement' is not direct testimony of the historic incident)
(c) for each of these cases 2/3-3/4 of the testimony was from women who were not the women that the charge related to, and was about incidents that were not the incidents cited on the charge sheet
This suggests to me that the verdict was one based on dislike of the celebrity and their success, and less about being certain that they had actually done the deed. And when you see ones like Rolf Harris' "Cambridge Green" girl whose (?refreshed memory?) testimony kept changing as it was revealed by the defence that her story made it impossible for Rolf to have done it, and the appeals judges saying such variable quality testimony 'was safe', you really do have to wonder about what we teach at law schools.
Speaking of law schools, I am disgusted that some of the top law schools now are giving pass marks to law students who essentially fail every exam. An exam or essay mark of 40% is sufficient in some law schools to be granted your LLB/GDL/LLM and go on to the SRA exam. It makes me wonder why I studied and worked so hard to get my average mark over 90% for each of my DipLaw, GDL and LLM papers, and when I had lecturers telling me almost nobody 'got an A' and that I should stop stressing about it, it made me worry about the quality of ability most lawyers and barristers now possess.
And yet... for all my stressing to get good marks the SRA won't accept my quals from NZ or AUS or grant me dispensation to undertake an LPC. And to date I haven't found a Barrister willing to hire me to 'article' in their chambers - I suspect because they cannot be assured that the SRA will ever say 'yes'
Surely the burden of proof can’t be just 90% certainty. That means you are sending 10% of innocent people to jail for many years, even for life. I should have thought it would be 99.9% certain.
I don't think it means sending 10% of innocent people to jail. Each trial is a single event and unrelated to any other what you are doing is treating all trials as a population, and I don't think they are. But there is no doubt innocent people are in jail.
The idea of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has received a lot of attention from legal scholars and philosophers. My take on it is that it doesn't necessarily require the juror to be certain, and certainly not absolutely certain... just no longer in possession of a doubt that they consider in their own mind would reasonably bring the verdict into question.
I think that on one side too many people think that the juror must be absolutely sure that the defendant is guilty, and on the other side there are others that think it okay to infer what or how the defendant may have committed the crime in order to find guilt (to this point I have seen judges who actually instructed a jury that it was 'okay to infer' the defendant's guilt - a position that I feel invites jumping to conclusions and one I do not agree with).
In any event, we would hope a jury of 'reasonable people' would approach from the position that taking someone's liberty is a serious undertaking and that they should give all due care and attention and a significant degree of certainty in their decision. In practice sadly this is not always the case. Juries and judges are human and come with their own pre-baked biases... and in trials like this that involve what many will consider to be reprehensible crimes (baby killer!), there is a lot of opportunity for those biases to come out.
The coercive power in these cases would seem to have been fame or money rather than the physical variety that we more often associate with rape. Is that still rape, I figure it is. I’m happy for Harris’s, Cosby’s and Weinstein’s names to be sullied with such accusations and all of them attracted plenty of them.
It’s annoying to read some seemingly compelling analysis of the Letby case and then realize I probably can’t trust the things I learned because the author is a brilliant individual who thinks the globalist pandemicmasters metooed bill cosby.
Good work. I have included your article in my British Royal family graph:
https://embed.kumu.io/19a916f68af842684545a8ef6a4de3e7
Grace Lee Whitney, aka Yeoman Janice Rand in the original StarTrek series, was apparently sexually assaulted by a Desilu executive. She defended herself. She stated that after this incident the man in question made sure no other roles came her way.
It was/is called the casting couch. Many young women complied in order to get the job. People like Harvey Weinstein took what they could get and got away with it for many years.
It is good all this is now in the open, that we agree this is despicable behavior, and that we try to eradicate it.
Difficult to fully understand what you are suggesting, but whatever you are suggesting, it would appear that you have an even lower opinion than I of the movers and shakers of this world of ours. I don't entirely see how Lucy Letby fits into all of this. Notable people dropped by their powerful friends, and anonymous Lucy an horrendous victim of an horrendous system.