Reply to: Crank, Hoax, Cruel Joke or Hope?

[ASB]

Is the system currently balanced correctly?.

I didn't say the system was balanced. From an individuals viewpoint having been failed it is entirely reasonable to look individually at those the system has failed.

It should certainly be much easier for the police to get people into court. However since they are only an investigation authority not a prosecuting one there is little they can do. Most of the problem lies with the CPS. They seem very reluctant sometimes to proceed with cases which seem to have solid evidence. This certainly needs to change.

Those whom the system has failed are going to tend to have strong views, they are also going to tend to be diametrically opposed according to which way the system have failed them.

I am sure that if you are on the receiving end of an allegation (of anything) and end up homeless, family less, ostracised and unemployable you will look back on it with good humour and think it's OK. This is the other side of an effective presumption of guilt.

If it is the case that the guy in question had anything to do with the disappearence then he deserves this. If not he doesn't. However he certainly doesn't deserve it "just in case".

[milanbenes]

forgive me for this,

and of course I hope they get their daughter back and reading the story I have a feeling they will and that it will have a happy ending

meantime, the whole story reads like a film script and one wonders if they have sold the rights ?

Wishing them all the best and like I said I have a feeling their daughter will be returned and there will be a hppy ending.

Milan.

[BrilloPad]

But, in your opinion, how many guilty can go free for each one innocent spared before the system is unbalanced? Now factor in all those guilty people who never even get hauled in front of a court.

Is the system currently balanced correctly?

We can only answer these subjectively as we do not have the figures. However, it is subjective opinions that we rely on when we consider how safe we and our kids are.

IMHO it seems that at currently at least 40 guilty go free for each innocent person wrongly convicted. Factoring in those not brought to court then it must be in the hundreds maybe even thousands - say 1000.

Now think about the impact on all those victims and their families weighed up against the impact on the wrongly convicted and their families. Now think about the repeat offences, possibly against the same victims who are now too scared to say or do anything because the system didn't help them the last time.

There was a review done a few years ago by a team of judges. Looked at evidence, jury verdict and judges verdict. Seems 33% of those innocent should have been convicted, but 5% of those convicted were innocent.

Time to employ people whose only job is to sit on juries?

[WotNxt]

There is a lot wrong with our criminal justice system. However it's better (in my view) that the gulity go free than the innocent get locked up or their lives destroyed by trial by media. I too have had a bad experience of the system. I was the accused though.

I have also seen it from a similar perspective to yours. We were more fortunate. It didn't fail us.

But, in your opinion, how many guilty can go free for each one innocent spared before the system is unbalanced? Now factor in all those guilty people who never even get hauled in front of a court.

Is the system currently balanced correctly?

We can only answer these subjectively as we do not have the figures. However, it is subjective opinions that we rely on when we consider how safe we and our kids are.

IMHO it seems that at currently at least 40 guilty go free for each innocent person wrongly convicted. Factoring in those not brought to court then it must be in the hundreds maybe even thousands - say 1000.

Now think about the impact on all those victims and their families weighed up against the impact on the wrongly convicted and their families. Now think about the repeat offences, possibly against the same victims who are now too scared to say or do anything because the system didn't help them the last time.

[ASB]

I am not dishing out hatred, just showing you that from another perspective he could be guilty as hell and yet still walk away without EVER being charged. The press and the police could actually be doing the RIGHT thing by making people suspicious of him. We just don't know - but it is reasonably possible that this is the case.

And I am sick of uninformed or ignorant people making statements about the justice system based on their dreamlike idealistic imaginings of the real world. Their comments and views contribute to the ease with which criminals commit and get away with heinous crimes again and again and again before being treated with kidgloves by the judicial system in case, shock horror, they might have to use a bucket for a toilet and sue the government via the European Court of Human Rights.

There is something VERY wrong in this country in the way we seem to apologise to criminals themselves for the crimes they have committed as if somehow it is the fault of the rest of us.

There is a lot wrong with our criminal justice system. However it's better (in my view) that the gulity go free than the innocent get locked up or their lives destroyed by trial by media. I too have had a bad experience of the system. I was the accused though.

I have also seen it from a similar perspective to yours. We were more fortunate. It didn't fail us.

[WotNxt]

So should none of us have legal representation then?!! Lets just put all our faith in the police to get it right every time? He needed to protect himself from being stitched up, or saying something foolish that could be taken the wrong way.





All horrible stuff to read....and clearly this is from your experience, which is heart breaking. This needs to go into a different thread, because you are using the hatred you feel towards your daughters abuser, and dishing it out on this bloke. This bloke wasn't the one who abused your daughter - we dont know that he abused anyone at all. Thats the point.

I am not dishing out hatred, just showing you that from another perspective he could be guilty as hell and yet still walk away without EVER being charged. The press and the police could actually be doing the RIGHT thing by making people suspicious of him. We just don't know - but it is reasonably possible that this is the case.

And I am sick of uninformed or ignorant people making statements about the justice system based on their dreamlike idealistic imaginings of the real world. Their comments and views contribute to the ease with which criminals commit and get away with heinous crimes again and again and again before being treated with kidgloves by the judicial system in case, shock horror, they might have to use a bucket for a toilet and sue the government via the European Court of Human Rights.

There is something VERY wrong in this country in the way we seem to apologise to criminals themselves for the crimes they have committed as if somehow it is the fault of the rest of us.

[ASB]

They didn't just bring him in, he ended up with arguido status which as I understand it means that he is allowed to refuse to answer questions.

In Portugal you have NO rights unless the authorites make you a suspect or you declare yourself one. Specifically you have no rights to any form of legal representation whatsoever. The Portuguese legal system is somewhat different to ours. Any inference drawn from somebody making themselves arguido is probably wrong.

My personal view of the guy in question is that he was brought to he attention of the authorities on fairly flimsy circumstantial evidence. The whole reason for doing this was because they knew he would be investigated (formally - there is a legal obligation for that to happen). The press also knew that in order for him to get any representation he has to declare himself a formal suspect. Curiously the press now have a ready made scapegoat they can hound as much as they like on the boundaries of libel without actually crossing the line.

Of course there is a very slim chance our press are not that cynical.

I'm sorry to hear about your kid. I've been in a similar position.

[SallyAnne]

Protection from what? There is no evidence if he didn't do it and therefore nothing to fear. He was keen to help the investigation before this point so why get protection so he can legally stop doing so?

So should none of us have legal representation then?!! Lets just put all our faith in the police to get it right every time? He needed to protect himself from being stitched up, or saying something foolish that could be taken the wrong way.

Actually, I did think about what I was saying. I know for a fact that sometimes when at least 3 children aged 5 to 8 individually and independently each describe in video-taped police interviews how the same person fiddled with them in similar ways and circumstances over the course of a few days, there is still "insufficient evidence" to bring charges - according to the CPS.

Yeah, if you're thinking WTF then imagine if one of those kids is yours. Now imagine the perp will do it again and again and again to other kids until eventually, possibly by some miracle, the CPS might decide to charge him with an offence. Oh and it'll only be the latest offence and therefore the first offence and he'll get a non-custodial sentence and told to keep away from kids - as if that's going to make him stop!

All horrible stuff to read....and clearly this is from your experience, which is heart breaking. This needs to go into a different thread, because you are using the hatred you feel towards your daughters abuser, and dishing it out on this bloke. This bloke wasn't the one who abused your daughter - we dont know that he abused anyone at all. Thats the point.

[WotNxt]

Mate, it's absolutely horrible that your child suffered abuse. We all feel for you there. I cant believe you think I would come out and say "was it you?" like - what a complete over reaction.

It might amaze you but "it was you" is exactly the first thing that many people would say in such an open, online forum.

I believe your personal trouble has clouded your judgement over this one.

I believe it has informed my judgement.

We dont know whwther it was the police or the British guy himself who asked for that status. I would imagine it was him, as he's entitled to more rights with it. He knows the stigma of something like this, and he was probably rightly advised to get as much protection as possible. The press (and the world at larged) had already tarred him as a suspect, even when he had witness status...so why not formally make himself a suspect and get himself protected?
Thats what I'd do (and what you would do asell in that situation).

Protection from what? There is no evidence if he didn't do it and therefore nothing to fear. He was keen to help the investigation before this point so why get protection so he can legally stop doing so?

Lets not forget, theman was released without charges because there wasn't enough evidence. This could also mean here wasn't ANY evidence!!

It could also mean many other things. e.g. They wanted to see what he would do next, maybe he would ring/txt/email someone or go somewhere that would give them a clue. Maybe it just means they couldn't continue to hold him while they looked for more evidence.

Why are you interpreting that as meaning "he still must be guilty"? Are you saying that every person who has ever been questioned by police about child abuse (or any crime for that matter) must automatically be guilty of that crime? Else why would the police question them?

Just think about what you're saying for a second.

Actually, I did think about what I was saying. I know for a fact that sometimes when at least 3 children aged 5 to 8 individually and independently each describe in video-taped police interviews how the same person fiddled with them in similar ways and circumstances over the course of a few days, there is still "insufficient evidence" to bring charges - according to the CPS.

Yeah, if you're thinking WTF then imagine if one of those kids is yours. Now imagine the perp will do it again and again and again to other kids until eventually, possibly by some miracle, the CPS might decide to charge him with an offence. Oh and it'll only be the latest offence and therefore the first offence and he'll get a non-custodial sentence and told to keep away from kids - as if that's going to make him stop!

[SallyAnne]

I just hope she is found safe.

Yeah we all do man.

[lfc69]

<QUOTE> .....I can real off a list of about 10 different things....The only thing which doesn't add up against this bloke is 1 phone call.....</QUOTE>

I am sure if we check back over the story we can find more than 1 thing to line up against him - lives with his mam, got himself deeply involved in the investigation (just like Huntley and others), and I am sure there is stuff if I could be bothered to read what his ex-wife said against him in the papers.

I haven't a clue if this guy is or is not involved, just like I haven't a clue if the parents are or are not involved. (mmm.. my plan B should be the Portuguese (sp) police - I would fit in so well)

I just hope she is found safe.

[SallyAnne]

Sally - You seem to be defending this guy on the basis of "look no proof - innocent until proved guilty and all that ", yet on the other hand pointing fingers and insinuating the parents are in on it because "it doesn't feel right".

You maybe a fat bird who likes to have her cake and eat it, but not in this scenario I'm afraid.

P.S. This is nothing against you, I normally find your posts charming and funny.

I dont think thats really fair actually - when asked what my reasons are for pointing the finger at the parents, I can real off a list of about 10 different things...which all together haven't added up.

The only thing which doesn't add up against this bloke is 1 phone call to another deemed innocent bloke.

How is that the same?

(ps - you can pretty much get away with any answer you like now that you've called me charming and funny)

[lfc69]

Sally - You seem to be defending this guy on the basis of "look no proof - innocent until proved guilty and all that ", yet on the other hand pointing fingers and insinuating the parents are in on it because "it doesn't feel right".

You maybe a fat bird who likes to have her cake and eat it, but not in this scenario I'm afraid.


P.S. This is nothing against you, I normally find your posts charming and funny.

[freakydancer]

Mate, it's absolutely horrible that your child suffered abuse. We all feel for you there. I cant believe you think I would come out and say "was it you?" like - what a complete over reaction.

I believe your personal trouble has clouded your judgement over this one.

We dont know whwther it was the police or the British guy himself who asked for that status. I would imagine it was him, as he's entitled to more rights with it. He knows the stigma of something like this, and he was probably rightly advised to get as much protection as possible. The press (and the world at larged) had already tarred him as a suspect, even when he had witness status...so why not formally make himself a suspect and get himself protected?
Thats what I'd do (and what you would do asell in that situation).

Lets not forget, theman was released without charges because there wasn't enough evidence. This could also mean here wasn't ANY evidence!! Why are you interpreting that as meaning "he still must be guilty"? Are you saying that every person who has ever been questioned by police about child abuse (or any crime for that matter) must automatically be guilty of that crime? Else why would the police question them?

Just think about what you're saying for a second.

You are Miss Marple and I claim my free weekend in some stately home in Devon.

[SallyAnne]

Well, clearly, you do.

They didn't just bring him in, he ended up with arguido status which as I understand it means that he is allowed to refuse to answer questions. So, I'm a human being then with normal reactions to such things.

Based on my (up close) personal experience of how such investigations work (NOTE: my kiddie was fiddled with and it wasn't me doing the fiddling before you ask!) there is far more to his involvement or prior history than we are being told. Additionally, "innocent until proven guilty" may apply in the eyes of the law - not necessarily in the reality of the crime. If the Portuguese equivalent of our CPS are anything like our CPS then they will want A1 cast-iron proof and a full written confession before they charge him. Don't expect this anytime soon.

Do you really think he would have got arguido status simply because he was "helping to (sic) much"? You really are naive, aren't you.

Oh come on! Wake up and smell the sh1t - it stinks! He didn't simply "not remember" it. He didn't remember it when specifically asked about recent contact with the computer guy during an offical police interview - there is a huge difference. This could have been a mistake by him but ask yourself would you have made such a mistake when being put int he frame for such a crime?

Maybe he IS innocent in this particular crime but he seems to be hiding something he doesn't want the police to know about - ask yourself why that is ...

Mate, it's absolutely horrible that your child suffered abuse. We all feel for you there. I cant believe you think I would come out and say "was it you?" like - what a complete over reaction.

I believe your personal trouble has clouded your judgement over this one.

We dont know whwther it was the police or the British guy himself who asked for that status. I would imagine it was him, as he's entitled to more rights with it. He knows the stigma of something like this, and he was probably rightly advised to get as much protection as possible. The press (and the world at larged) had already tarred him as a suspect, even when he had witness status...so why not formally make himself a suspect and get himself protected?
Thats what I'd do (and what you would do asell in that situation).

Lets not forget, theman was released without charges because there wasn't enough evidence. This could also mean here wasn't ANY evidence!! Why are you interpreting that as meaning "he still must be guilty"? Are you saying that every person who has ever been questioned by police about child abuse (or any crime for that matter) must automatically be guilty of that crime? Else why would the police question them?

Just think about what you're saying for a second.