Was he not guilty then??

[ponderingonthings]

Some years ago I vaguely knew a group of girls (several) who testified against a man that he was a pedophile (and crimes of that nature) at the time I saw in the papers locally that the man was convicted and sentenced, cleared on some charges but sentenced on a lot. I also vaguely knew the man.

Heard nothing. Just kind of forgot about it till the other day I met someone who had also known at the time the girls and the man and they mentioned what happened, it gave me curiosity to google it for some reason

The original articles now says was cleared on all counts at a retrial 3 years later.

Does this mean the girls were assumed to be lying or that most likely he had a good lawyer? Why would a retrial happen?

Just was surprised and thinking I don't understand why that would happen

Do you believe in innocent till proven guilty?
Or do you believe there's no smoke without fire?

One of these leads to the pitchfork.

I'm no legal bod and I might be talking bollocks but maybe when he had his first trial the "evidence" used to put him behind bars wasn't enough to prove guilt and so they've done a re-trial. Of course that doesn't mean he was innocent just that he didn't have a fair trial?

I've no idea. Did quite a few girls who'd been children lie and gang up on a man? Or did a man actually manage to get himself cleared at retrial despite being a child molester accused by multiple girls and found guilty?
Both seem far fetched tbh so no idea

It might be that you would have to speak to a solicitor or the court.

It could be either.

It could be evidence wasn't submitted properly.
They found a technicality so had to throw out the case.
Or they could have been lying

I just googled a bit more and found a comment on a forum by someone claiming to be a relative saying they were abused and the retrial all cases were heard separately so jury didn't know of the other ones and because of that he got off at retrial as they all together I guess made the jury think guilty first time and as stand alone they didn't...

How sad that all those victims seemingly went through getting him jailed for nothing

Annoying.
However makes sense to charge each crime separately, and if the jury doesn't believe he did it then he gets off.

I wouldn't think they would try him with all the people at the same time anyway? I thought each charge would be a separate case?

But we've to remember he could also be innocent and the jury found him so, so at this moment in time he in the eye of the law didn't commit these crimes.

@Defrack in the eyes of the law they haven't managed to convict him but the number of victims and as I read apparent connections to others also guilty of similar crimes I think it's very very slim that he's innocent

Don't know anything about original trial but then comment looked like initially jury knew other girls had made allegations and retrial that was withheld

I'm in the US, but here there could be a retrial for any number of reasons; jury misconduct, prosecutor failed to share information with the defense that they were required to share, ineffective defense counsel. Here retrials don't happen often, so whatever the reason has to be pretty serious.

initially jury knew other girls had made allegations and retrial that was withheld

Other allegations should be withheld.

And yes, if he was doing not guilty, then he's not guilty. Not guilty /= innocent.

Found, not doing. 🙄

Beyond reasonable doubt means there might be some problem with the evidence or the way charges were laid - it's about legal doubt, not just "what reasonable people would think". This is obviously to protect us from being sentenced for crimes we didn't commit especially if we are white, middle class males but it also means people with good lawyers can get away with crimes they did commit.

Under those circumstances, it's kind of best to look on it as a price we pay for a relatively fair justice system. Sex-related crimes are notoriously difficult to prove at law. As there were several complainants in this case, I sure as hell wouldn't be assuming he didn't do anything. I share your sympathy for the victims' second ordeal of giving evidence.

It's likely that his original convictions were quashed by the court of appeal and a retrial ordered. The reasons for quashing overall will be that the convictions were unsafe - there's a whole range of reasons this could be. New evidence, evidence not disclosed at the time, misdirections of law etc. The court of appeal judgments tend to be published online so may be findable depending on whether it was anonymised (sex offenders don't generally receive anonymity unless identifying them would also identify the victim). You could try searching on bailii

Yeah I don't really know why I'm so interested now all of a sudden tbh but I have googled a few other articles and see it even says in the original ones that he was previously years before that accused and charges were dropped, and also suspended, fired, banned, etc from many places so it seems like there was a lot of concern over behaviour but nobody able to really do much until the victims spoke up. So the more I read... the more it really doesn't sound like he was actually innocent after all but rather a good lawyer happened

If you are guilty and plead not guilty your chances of acquittal by a jury are approximately 50/50. In sexual offences cases involving women / girls the odds are usually higher. An acquittal is a statement the jury were unable to accept the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt - it is not a statement of innocence per se. If the victims were to bring a civil action the odds of them winning compensation (before a judge only) would be much better!

ponderingonthings

If you really want to find out what happened got to the court house and look at the actual court documents and not years old hearsay.

Courts and their finds are public, unless held behind closed doors.

An evidential loophole and a damned clever appeal lawyer is most likely.

The evidence to get to charge and a first conviction would be overwhelming. I'm a copper so to me they're all guilty! They all dun it

Absolutely boney. This is just pointless speculation

I was under the impression that accusations didn't constitute evidence. Allowing them to serve as evidence would be a miscarriage of justice surely? The crucible comes to mind. I don't know whether he was innocent or not but allowing accusations of similar crimes to sway a verdict seems like a bad idea.

Desmondo2016

The evidence to get to charge and a first conviction would be overwhelming. I'm a copper so to me they're all guilty! They all dun it grin

I know that this is supposed to be lighthearted but its not as if the police haven't made mistakes and acted illegally to gain a conviction before.

I have to defend my profession and say that whilst clearly there is corruption in every walk of life the times the police have 'acted illegally to gain a conviction' is miniscule.

I did jury service and ended up with a child abuse case that had only come to court 40+ years after it has happened. We found the person guilty. After our verdict we were then told that the person had been found guilty of a similar thing in another country did time in jail and deported but they couldn't use that as evidence.