Grateful that we are not a League One club

Previous rape claims both do not and should not have any bearing on the decision of a jury when they are making the decision. Angry, if you're a QC and you bring up a claim about an entirely DIFFERENT person when you're defending the defendant in the case of 'Crown against Evans' then the judge would throw the evidence out. It would be inadmissible and the jury would be instructed not to consider it. I know what I'm talking about here.

This is even more pertinent when there is zero evidence that this woman has EVER made a false rape claim. Yes, she made a rape claim that did not lead to a conviction. That does not equate to a false rape claim. To get a rape conviction, the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape occurred. 99% won't cut it. Similarly, to get a false rape accusation conviction the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape did not occur. In the vast majority of cases, there is not enough evidence for the jury to be certain either way and it falls in the bracket of '1 to 99%'. The burden of doubt always lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

In that '1-99% bracket', there would be no grounds for either a rape conviction or a false rape claim conviction. Ergo, there are no grounds to claim this woman ever made a false rape claim. Ergo, the previous rape claims that she made have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this case.

Angry wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

another who should never consider a legal career

Looks about right to me, what has he got wrong?

Too much to write x-isles to be honest, but in a nutshell as i've already stated they dont grant case reviews to anyone unless there is solid enough grounds to question the original verdict after a failed appeal attempt. They are only ever granted in rare cases.
Her previous false claims if there are some (off the record the law needs to be changed to come down very hard on fake rape claims) would be taken into account and looked into when considering the other evidence that has come to surface that brought this case review should it lead to that conclusion.

So basically he's got nothing wrong in his assessment of the legal position, a career path in the legal world is still open to him. What differs is the personal interpretation of the situation, which is a very different thing, different people will have different interpretations, different opinions.

For the record I don't disagree with much of what you say in your 'interpretation'. The legal system and jury system however doesn't work to the whims of individual interpretations and opinions, it can't, and shouldn't because you can't satisfy every individual whim every time. It's grown through statue and common law for centuries and gives the collective whims of 12 people, firmly directed by a legal expert (the judge) within the framework of statues, case law, and precedent. It ain't perfect, far from it, but it's the fairest system available. I'd take it over judge only systems, sharia law, trial by media, X factor style phone polls or internet kangaroo courts any day.

You're right, they don't give appeals out willy nilly, there must be some cause to have done so. But Sam is right in what he says too and that's why the appeal needs to go through the proper legal process and a judgement made. It doesn't get resolved by shouting down people who hold an interpretation you don't agree with and telling then not to pursue a career in law.

Trial by Media, imagine that?
We are feckin awful for it.

GreenSam wrote:

Previous rape claims both do not and should not have any bearing on the decision of a jury when they are making the decision. Angry, if you're a QC and you bring up a claim about an entirely DIFFERENT person when you're defending the defendant in the case of 'Crown against Evans' then the judge would throw the evidence out. It would be inadmissible and the jury would be instructed not to consider it. I know what I'm talking about here.

This is even more pertinent when there is zero evidence that this woman has EVER made a false rape claim. Yes, she made a rape claim that did not lead to a conviction. That does not equate to a false rape claim. To get a rape conviction, the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape occurred. 99% won't cut it. Similarly, to get a false rape accusation conviction the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape did not occur. In the vast majority of cases, there is not enough evidence for the jury to be certain either way and it falls in the bracket of '1 to 99%'. The burden of doubt always lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

In that '1-99% bracket', there would be no grounds for either a rape conviction or a false rape claim conviction. Ergo, there are no grounds to claim this woman ever made a false rape claim. Ergo, the previous rape claims that she made have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this case.

no clue have you other than what google tells you.

X Isle wrote:

Angry wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

I don't see how the previous rape claim should have any bearing in this trial.

For starters, it wasn't a 'false rape claim' it was an unsubstantiated rape claim. Just because it was not proved, does not mean she was definitely lying. It simply means there was not enough evidence to know either way. If she had been previously convicted on a false rape claim charge, you can be sure Evans's supporters would be letting us know about it.

And anyway, previous records should not have any relevance to the matter at hand in any case. Even if she had made 20 false rape claims (as it stands, we must assume she made none) then that wouldn't mean that she could not be raped at any given time. 'The boy who cried wolf' is a nice childhood fable but it's not any kind of a legal framework.

another who should never consider a legal career

Looks about right to me, what has he got wrong?

Too much to write x-isles to be honest, but in a nutshell as i've already stated they dont grant case reviews to anyone unless there is solid enough grounds to question the original verdict after a failed appeal attempt. They are only ever granted in rare cases.
Her previous false claims if there are some (off the record the law needs to be changed to come down very hard on fake rape claims) would be taken into account and looked into when considering the other evidence that has come to surface that brought this case review should it lead to that conclusion.

So basically he's got nothing wrong in his assessment of the legal position, a career path in the legal world is still open to him. What differs is the personal interpretation of the situation, which is a very different thing, different people will have different interpretations, different opinions.

For the record I don't disagree with much of what you say in your 'interpretation'. The legal system and jury system however doesn't work to the whims of individual interpretations and opinions, it can't, and shouldn't because you can't satisfy every individual whim every time. It's grown through statue and common law for centuries and gives the collective whims of 12 people, firmly directed by a legal expert (the judge) within the framework of statues, case law, and precedent. It ain't perfect, far from it, but it's the fairest system available. I'd take it over judge only systems, sharia law, trial by media, X factor style phone polls or internet kangaroo courts any day.

You're right, they don't give appeals out willy nilly, there must be some cause to have done so. But Sam is right in what he says too and that's why the appeal needs to go through the proper legal process and a judgement made. It doesn't get resolved by shouting down people who hold an interpretation you don't agree with and telling then not to pursue a career in law.    

no his legal career is dead.

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Previous rape claims both do not and should not have any bearing on the decision of a jury when they are making the decision. Angry, if you're a QC and you bring up a claim about an entirely DIFFERENT person when you're defending the defendant in the case of 'Crown against Evans' then the judge would throw the evidence out. It would be inadmissible and the jury would be instructed not to consider it. I know what I'm talking about here.

This is even more pertinent when there is zero evidence that this woman has EVER made a false rape claim. Yes, she made a rape claim that did not lead to a conviction. That does not equate to a false rape claim. To get a rape conviction, the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape occurred. 99% won't cut it. Similarly, to get a false rape accusation conviction the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape did not occur. In the vast majority of cases, there is not enough evidence for the jury to be certain either way and it falls in the bracket of '1 to 99%'. The burden of doubt always lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

In that '1-99% bracket', there would be no grounds for either a rape conviction or a false rape claim conviction. Ergo, there are no grounds to claim this woman ever made a false rape claim. Ergo, the previous rape claims that she made have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this case.

no clue have you other than what google tells you.

Just out of interest, does your glittering legal career consist of anything other than just insulting people for disagreeing with you?

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Previous rape claims both do not and should not have any bearing on the decision of a jury when they are making the decision. Angry, if you're a QC and you bring up a claim about an entirely DIFFERENT person when you're defending the defendant in the case of 'Crown against Evans' then the judge would throw the evidence out. It would be inadmissible and the jury would be instructed not to consider it. I know what I'm talking about here.

This is even more pertinent when there is zero evidence that this woman has EVER made a false rape claim. Yes, she made a rape claim that did not lead to a conviction. That does not equate to a false rape claim. To get a rape conviction, the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape occurred. 99% won't cut it. Similarly, to get a false rape accusation conviction the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape did not occur. In the vast majority of cases, there is not enough evidence for the jury to be certain either way and it falls in the bracket of '1 to 99%'. The burden of doubt always lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

In that '1-99% bracket', there would be no grounds for either a rape conviction or a false rape claim conviction. Ergo, there are no grounds to claim this woman ever made a false rape claim. Ergo, the previous rape claims that she made have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this case.

no clue have you other than what google tells you.

Name me one thing in that post that was inaccurate. Go on, just one.

Btw I don't WANT a career in law but I can grasp the bare essentials like that. Additionally, I don't want a career in physics but I know the earth goes round the sun.

It surprises me that any previous indiscretion is not allowable. Especially when there is a similarity in the case. I understand the jury not being told but surely the judge should be in on the secret. So much so that his closing statements might lead the jury to a sensible decision.

Oh and I have noticed that Greensam is the font of all knowledge. No idea what his qualifications are but he talks a great game.

I'm not the font of all knowledge I'm just the font of very basic, rudimentary knowledge.

And as I've said, there was not enough evidence to prove whether her previous rape claims were true OR false. The fact that there was no conviction either way goes to show that there was no proof either way. Therefore, on the principle of innocent until proven guilty we must assume that the young woman was innocent of any indiscretion. We must of course also assume the man was innocent but that's not relevant in this case.

Although even if someone had made a previous rape claim that was actually PROVEN to be false, I am sure that it wouldn't be admissible. That may not stop the information from leaking out but the judge would instruct the jury not to consider it. Because even if she lied before, that wouldn't stop her from actually being raped on a separate occasion. The boy who cried wolf is a good fable for everyday life but it doesn't always hold water for rape cases. I know that things such as character reliability are generally considered to be relevant factors and in some situations they are, but when it's the case of 'crown against Evans' the cases of 'crown against whoever else this girl may have been involved with' are not meant to be brought into it.

A lot of people seem to struggle to grasp the function of a forum, it's a discussion, a talking shop, one man or woman's views are just that, his or her views or opinion.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

It surprises me that any previous indiscretion is not allowable. Especially when there is a similarity in the case. I understand the jury not being told but surely the judge should be in on the secret. So much so that his closing statements might lead the jury to a sensible decision.

Oh and I have noticed that Greensam is the font of all knowledge. No idea what his qualifications are but he talks a great game.

It is not allowable for good reason, the jury is there to decide on the facts of the current case, not 'this person has been nicked for this before loads of times, so must be guilty'

It is allowed and taken into account when the sentence is given.

I said that I understood why the jury didn't need to know but that it surprised me that the judge wouldn't know or if he did then why, when summing up, he never led the jury towards a certain direction.

Cornish Chris wrote:

Angry wrote:

GreenSam wrote:

Previous rape claims both do not and should not have any bearing on the decision of a jury when they are making the decision. Angry, if you're a QC and you bring up a claim about an entirely DIFFERENT person when you're defending the defendant in the case of 'Crown against Evans' then the judge would throw the evidence out. It would be inadmissible and the jury would be instructed not to consider it. I know what I'm talking about here.

This is even more pertinent when there is zero evidence that this woman has EVER made a false rape claim. Yes, she made a rape claim that did not lead to a conviction. That does not equate to a false rape claim. To get a rape conviction, the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape occurred. 99% won't cut it. Similarly, to get a false rape accusation conviction the jury need to be 100% won over that a rape did not occur. In the vast majority of cases, there is not enough evidence for the jury to be certain either way and it falls in the bracket of '1 to 99%'. The burden of doubt always lies with the prosecution, not the defence.

In that '1-99% bracket', there would be no grounds for either a rape conviction or a false rape claim conviction. Ergo, there are no grounds to claim this woman ever made a false rape claim. Ergo, the previous rape claims that she made have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this case.

no clue have you other than what google tells you.

Just out of interest, does your glittering legal career consist of anything other than just insulting people for disagreeing with you?

who have i insulted other than suggesting sam doesnt understand the law and shouldnt think of being a lawyer?

You're entitled to say it but you can also back it up any time you like too which I'm yet to see

Green Sam - you are pasoti's legal expert and I claim my free ice cream