Spend all you have, consume all you want, act as you see fit, the world has officially gawn mad.

Judge axes trial as victim is 'too honest' to give evidence | Metro.co.uk

Words fail me.

Originally Posted by HeyWayne

Spend all you have, consume all you want, act as you see fit, the world has officially gawn mad.

Judge axes trial as victim is 'too honest' to give evidence | Metro.co.uk

Words fail me.

speechless for once

"At Tuesday's trial, Judge Tabor said: 'Denise Dawson was a partic*ularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest.'

But he told Bristol Crown Court it was her word against Perks' and that was not enough to support a conviction."


Surely that seems fair enough - it may not seem like justice but what else could you do?

You have to consider what would have happened if the person in the dock had been equally honest (just the victim of a genuine mistake), but did not come across well due to poor social skills. It's this that the judge was trying to defend against, even though at first sight it seems mad. I'm surprised this even came to court, I know from a family member who is a barrister that it's almost impossible to bring these her-word-against-his cases anywhere near a courtroom.

Ok, so let's say the judge had the same two people, only this time the alleged crime was rape.

The answer is still the same! Lets say it was you in the dock...your word against theirs?

Originally Posted by smallblueplanet

The answer is still the same! Lets say it was you in the dock...your word against theirs?

I'd hope our police/legal system could come up with more than simply his/her word against mine. Forensic science being what it is these days (TV dramas aside).

Hang on there was someone else there the woman was giving another woman a driving lesson at the time what happened to her evidence, surely that would mean two against one

Originally Posted by HeyWayne

Ok, so let's say the judge had the same two people, only this time the alleged crime was rape.

The rules are the same, without any real evidence - sadly in this case we'd probably be talking about injuries - there's not much they can do. How many cases have there been where she says rape and he says consent? Virtually every one. And unfortunately there have been, and continue to be, cases where a woman alleges rape, for whatever reason, against a perfectly innocent bloke. The law is set up to allow the guilty go free in preference to convicting the innocent. This sounds all wrong, but suppose you or a member of your family were the accused-but-innocent party? Then you'd be pleased that the law protects you in this way.

I have neighbours who, frankly, drive me insane. What would there be to stop me inventing some 'crime' that I said they'd committed in the hopes that they'd be put away for a year or two? I'm educated, my brother is in a position to coach me for the courtroom, whilst their command of English is minimal. I could wipe the floor with them. Fortunately the law protects them. Unfortunately, in doing that it sometimes protects the guilty too.

Originally Posted by HeyWayne

Ok, so let's say the judge had the same two people, only this time the alleged crime was rape.

The judge may well have asked her what she was wearing!!!
cynical? me?