Translate

Showing posts with label on the balance of probabilities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label on the balance of probabilities. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

An unsuccessful attempt to explain to a pleb the burden of proof

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts

Facebook friend
Poor Rolf.


Claire Khaw
You wouldn't like to be his daughter and watch your inheritance being swallowed up by greedy malicious lying sluts.

 Former Facebook Friend
You lot for real? HE IS GUILTY AS HELL!

Claire Khaw
Is he?

At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.

But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?

Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.

Do you really think the jury understood the difference?

I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.

Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.

I am saying it should never have come to trial.

I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0

Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.

Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.

The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?

http://www.barristermagazine.com/article-listing/current-issue/the-cult-of-victimhood-and-the-limits-of-the-law-part-1.html

Facebook Friend
"A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt." That's right. Has Rolf been convicted of actual rape? If not then surely the judge must give him a non-custodial sentence - he's 84 for crying out loud.

Former Facebook Friend
No he never raped anybody, but he touched them in intimate places? hes been noted for doing this for decades? He is a dirty old man. Id say 12 month jail myself, and a big fine, to compensate the girls.

Claire Khaw
I am saying that logically none of the accusations made against him could amount to proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is just his accusers' word against his.

If you are happy for any man with a bit of fame and wealth to be found guilty on the word of an immoral attention-seeking woman then you are entitled to your preference, but I prefer a different kind of society.

If you were his son you wouldn't like to have these immoral attention-seeking sluts seizing your inheritance and you would definitely be taking a different tone.

Former Facebook Friend
He was convicted by a Jury for god sake? The evidence was over whelming? The man is a sex pest!

Guilty on ALL charges too! You must be the only person in Britain who thinks he is innocent! Get real!

Claire Khaw
I am saying that the UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY of attention-seeking sluts who have messed up their lives is not evidence of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Former Facebook Friend
His daughters friend was only 13 FFS! He groomed her for ages them Molested her! Get lost madam, your off your head!

Claire Khaw
Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

Former Facebook Friend
I like rest of Britain feel cheated, Because I enjoyed this mans talent as a child.

Claire Khaw
It is a shame most people really cannot get what I am saying, or don't think it matters.

Former Facebook Friend
I know little of the Law? But I know that a JURY unaminously convicted Harris! Hes as guilty as hell! Hes been know as "Occtopus Harris in Australia for decades? Get real Clair?

Claire Khaw
Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

You don't know and you don't care?

Former Facebook Friend
Yeah!

Claire Khaw
Plebs don't care and cannot be made to understand these things, I guess.

Former Facebook Friend
And im not spending all nite talking to you about a bloody Paedo!

Claire Khaw 
I am not talking about Harris, I am asking if you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY. You are too lazy to even look it up.

Former Facebook Friend
Don't know which third World shithole you come from, but in ENGLAND we have a Jury system a thousand years old! IT WORKS!

Claire Khaw
I am not saying we should abolish the jury system.

Former Facebook Friend
YAWN!

Claire Khaw 
If you don't know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY, just say so. Ignorant and arrogant, eh?

Former Facebook Friend
Claire! HARRIS convicted himself out of his own mouth? He wrote to his daughters friends Father in 1998, begging forgivness for molesting the child for godsake? Im a man who hates injustice too? That's why im a Nationalist? But Harris is guilty as hell!

I know what it is you argumentive asshol! NOW F-OFF!

Claire Khaw 
Yeah, he said he only had sex with her when she was over the age of consent.

Do you think you might die if you suddenly discovered what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY? You seem to want to avoid even discussing it. It is a very English concept, I do assure you.

You might even learn something of your legal traditions if you asked yourself why I am going on about UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY.

I am not even saying Harris is definitely not guilty. In fact, I am saying he is probably guilty ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

But, hey, did you know that to be convicted of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in this country, your legal tradition requires that you be found guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

It is such a shame that with plebs you cannot even discuss ideas with them without them getting upset with you.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Is the Telegraph gloating that Rolf Harris could die in jail?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10936968/Rolf-Harris-entertainer-artist-and-sex-abuser-could-die-in-jail.html

I would have asked, as a member of the jury:

"I think he probably did do it, on the balance of probabilities, but my understanding of the law is that I have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt, and I am not sure beyond all reasonable doubt. What, therefore, should I do?"

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/in-defence-of-rolf-harris-even-if-he.html

Is any male lawyer protesting about this blatant and insidious change to the burden of proof when you are accused of the worst crime you can possibly be accused of?  Nope, these emasculated jerks are leaving it all to Barbara Hewson, who has blocked me on Twitter, for some reason.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/why-if-english-are-to-remain-true-to.html

Tweeter who gloated over guilty verdict of Rolf Harris.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415122/Twitter-troll-unmasked-Father-Britains-vilest-internet-trolls-exposed-posting-sick-jokes-Hillsborough-disaster.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

The criminal standard of proof has been lowered for the worst crime you can be accused of

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27371573

Poor old Rolf Harris. Things aren't looking too good for him.  The verisimilitude with which the complainant paints such a sordid and detailed picture of what she claimed he did to her makes us see it all in our mind's eye, as if we were a fly on the wall.

It used to be the case that the accused was given the benefit of the doubt in cases when it is clear that the evidence cannot, logically speaking, be more than one person's word against another's.  In such cases, the matter would never reach trial because the Prosecutor would know that uncorroborated evidence can never by itself satisfy the standard of proof required to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt.

By making admissible the uncorroborated testimony of alleged offences committed decades ago, the court is in fact inviting the jury to decide who is speaking the truth ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

Readers are asked to note that if proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is 75+%, then proving a case on the balance of probabilities - the civil standard of proof - is only 50+%.

The powers that be have unilaterally decided to make it easier to convict you if you have been accused of the worst crime there is - paedophilia.

Only the intellectually degenerate do not understand this.  That would appear to be all of the legal profession apart from Barbara Hewson.

And only the morally degenerate look the other way and pretend they do not understand this.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U3FZnvldVqU

In a case called DPP v Boardman in 1975, the House of Lords acknowledged that offences could ordinarily only be tried together if the offender’s modus operandi showed a ‘strikingly similar’ method, such as a rapist who always wore a Batman costume. This enabled the defence to keep out evidence that might be prejudicial, such as cases where witnesses have colluded to give false evidence, or cases where one witness has simply been influenced by contact with another witness.

Unfortunately, in 1991 and 1995, the Lords took a different approach, and relaxed this rule. That has led to the current practice of ‘bundling’ of multiple sex allegations in the same trial. It’s called ‘corroboration by volume’, or ‘no smoke without fire’. And it is hugely effective, which is why it has become the prosecution’s favourite tactic.

This development coincided with the practice of police ‘trawling’ for complainants, which unfolded as a result of the ‘paedophile ring’ theory of abuse that police and social workers were following when investigating children’s care homes in the 1990s. The consequences for our justice system have been very serious. Time after time, juries are faced with extremely grave accusations of an historic nature, where there is no supporting independent evidence (such as medical evidence), but which turn simply on one person’s word against another’s.

As the historian Richard Webster pointed out in his Memorandum of Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which examined this problem in 2002: ‘When defendants are compelled to face large numbers of allegations of sexual abuse made by different complainants in a single trial, the presumption of innocence is almost inevitably destroyed.’

The emotional impact on a jury of a whole sequence of tearful complainants speaking of sexual violation cannot be underestimated. The obscenity and, sometimes, violence involved makes their stories extremely powerful, even where the vague nature of historic allegations (usually without any specific dates) make them well-nigh impossible to rebut convincingly, unless by chance some contemporaneous document is unearthed, which gives the accused a convincing alibi.

To make matters more complicated, it is now received wisdom among the victim/ survivor movement and the therapy industry that rape and other forms of sexual assault invariably scar victims for life, causing them years of torment. This reflects decades of feminist campaigning.

But the standard use of the ‘trauma model’ is problematic in some ways. It means that such offences are seen as uniquely heinous, because they involve a kind of ‘murder of the soul’. So both lawyers, and the public, feel honour-bound to demand that the accused be dealt with very severely indeed.

The jury will convict Rolf Harris under these conditions and the nasty, stupid and brutish will cheer and jeer, always delighted to spit on and kick at someone lower than they are if they can find him.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...