DJ Dave Lee Travis back in Court : 3 months suspended sentence
 

Another waste of time


Dave Lee Travis is Cleared of 12 counts of indecent assault
but could face retrial over two others


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...wo-others.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1211154/da...-on-12-charges


http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-522x293.jpg

Great stuff!

Just Rolf Harris to go.

Yes could be.

Have to wonder how many of these dismissals are just out of a "lack of evidence"... what evidence is there going to be from 30-40 years ago?

Seems odd that so many cases are being thrown out... I'm sure they weren't started for no reason :shrug:

Of course, this is all just conjecture from a gossippy little bitch on my part...

I think so too, especially in this case where 11 different women made allegations and they thought fit to charge him with 14 offences

This case wasn't "thrown out". He was cleared. If you want to accuse someone of a crime almost half a century after it was supposed to have happened, you better have something concrete. Sadly, even if you haven't people go with the "there's no smoke without fire" attitude. Must be awful to be accused, cleared and then castigated for the rest of your life while your accusers wallow in anonimity. And the scary thing is, it could happen to anyone. Even though the allegations are decades old, people are still more willing to believe the accusers than the accused.

The CPS has a lot to answer for.

more cops and the legal system being incompetent and wasting our money while they look for a scape goat for jimmy saville.
They shouldn't be allowed to ruin lives on no evidence. as is always in this country your guilty until proved innocent and even they will be forever attached to it with. doubts firmly in mind of to their innocence.

Amen to this

I don't normally take the 'no smoke without fire' attitude but at the same time I don't always think that a not guilty verdicted should be taken as gospel in every case and never again questioned (that could also work with 'guilty' verdicts in some cases). It took the jury 20 hours to clear him of 12 charges, they were unable to reach a decision on two of them, there was obviously a great deal of doubt. And with Dave Lee Travis it wasn't an isolated incident he was accused of, there were 11 different women and the accusations spanned four decades, they weren't all from half a century ago. It probably says a lot that with the two accusations the jury couldn't reach a verdict on both were relatively recent; one from the 1990s and one from 2008.

Glad to hear this news, I listened to some of the defence witness testimony and most people that know him say he really is just a very warm genuine guy, very tactile. his behaviour although acceptable in the mood of the times ie in the 70's would probably not be tolerated nowadays as people value their personal space more and unwanted touching however well meaning is not socially acceptable.

But to suggest now almost 40 years later that his behaviour constituted a sexual attack or assault is blatantly wrong and unjust, and for the police and then the CPS to bring this to Court was just plain crazy.

Anyway I'm glad he has been aquitted on 12 charges BUT I'm still surprised the jury couldn't come to a verdict on the final two as it rather leaves Mr Travis with the threat of a retrial for those two charges still hanging over him.

Hopefully the CPS will realise it is not in the Public interest to order a new trial but where does that leave Mr Travis wrt those 2 charges. Is he forever now going to have to live with the knowledge that he was not cleared on those two charges or is there another way the courts can pronounce his innocence so he may try and win back his good name and reputation.

Every single word of this post I agree with, as to the part I have highlighted, something really has to be done about this, as to the accusers anonymity.

But it is gospel. Once a not guilty verdict has been passed you can't be retried for the same crime unless (since 2003) it's a murder trial and new evidence comes to light. So who should question this exactly? And how long should we go on questioning it? If someone can still be assumed guilty even after a not guilty verdict has been passed, what's the point of going to trial?

20 hours for a jury to decide on 12 charges isn't that long. As for the two cases the jury were unable to reach a verdict on, it doesn't necessarily follow that there was a "great deal of doubt". The fact that the two cases they couldn't reach a verdict on are recent simply says to me that there may be some cause for doubt, but not enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty. If there was evidence the judge may have accepted a majority decision of 10-2... but there obviously wasn't enough evidence.

We haven't been privy to evidence the accused himself might have produced in his own defence, where he was at the time the incidents are supposed to have happened, who he was with, etc. etc..

What these cases seem to do is allow people to continue to paint someone as a criminal even after they have been cleared of charges. That's a dangerous area to get into.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...40_964x379.jpg


He had to sell his home to pay the legal fees

I hope commom sense prevails and the CPS decide not to press on with the other 2 charges, clearly it would seem to me pointless to pursue that and waste more court time and costs after the verdicts given for all the other charges.

I don't believe it's possible for someone to be that hairy, and not a sex offender.

you shouldn't have to have evidence to tell the truth.... and don't you think that these guys TARGETTED these girls BECAUSE they wouldn't be believed? it's like they are being raped all over again.

Sexual Predators specifically target girls they know are the most vulnerable. The same way serial killers often target prostitutes and drug addicts because they know that they are less likely to be missed when they go missing.

These predators are not stupid.

First of all Yes you do need evidence to secure a conviction in a court of law. And why are you using language like "sexual Predators" ?? This man has not been convicted of anything so please stop using that sort of language.

and what the hell has Serial Killers, Prostitues and Drug addicts got to do with this Thread ??

Actually it's the smooth skinned ones you have to watch..........suggests premeditated Waxing...

Makes them much more slippery......

Poor DLT lost his home over some cheap allegations. He should have his court costs refunded

you obviously missed my point. My POINT was that the courts are biased against certain people (like people with mental illness, or shady pasts, or drug addicts, prstitutes, etc..) so these women are LESS LIKELY to get justice. but to say that they shouldn't be allowed to tell their stories of abuse is wrong, that they should be told to shut up, or censored, just because there's not enuf evidence to convict their abusers, is like raping them again.

If there's not enuf evidence all these years later, fine, don't convict them, but to deny these women the right to tell the TRUTH as they know it, is even more evil. and it is victimizing them all over again.

Complete and utter nonsense, that is all.

They may have been believed if they reported it immediately. I have said in another thread..and I know it come across harsh, but I think anyone who waits years to come forward shouldnt be believed to begin with. They know there will be no evidence by that time, whereas if it happened, report it straight away and there is likely to be evidence...

He looks guilty to me.

And this kind of thinking is why rape and abuse is so common still. Because the onus is STILL put on the VICTIM. Because people like you will always be saying the victim should do this differently or that differently, and that's why the abusers know they can get away with it. because it's just much easier to believe that bad things never happen, it's easier for everyone except the victim to just say "nothing happened here, look away".

"keep calm, and just carry on" typical British ostrich mentality. stiff upper lip, and pull yourself up by the bootstraps crap.

DLT has been found innocent. anything else said against him is slander and lies. He should sue for damages and the false accusers who lied should be tried for perjury and if proven to have lied , should face prison time. This protects the falsely accused and also discourages liars and false accusers and gold diggers. We can then have a system which concentrates more time and resources on the legitimate victims and the falsely accused.