Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is an insane verdict

297 replies

DancingNotDrowning · 29/10/2024 13:33

pilot who takes lost girl back to his hotel not guilty of kidnap and assault.

unbelievable verdict, poor girl.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o.amp

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
bombastix · 30/10/2024 18:39

prh47bridge · 30/10/2024 18:35

There are circumstances in which it is allowed, but in general it isn't. The purpose of the trial is to see if the prosecution has proved its case. It is for the prosecution to show that the defendant is guilty. If we allow bad character evidence, it can result in the burden of proof being effectively reversed, so that the defendant has to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution proving their guilt. That would result in more wrongful convictions. We have too many of those already.

Show quote history

Seriously we don’t in the matter of sex offending.

BlueBerryBad · 30/10/2024 21:16

ChillysWaterBottle · 30/10/2024 07:55

It's a terrible verdict. It's ok - important - for normal people to acknowledge that. Juries are often not given all the information. I wish people could see some of the tricks Defence use to withhold relevant and important information (in at least two of my cases, confessions). Even when they have enough information to make a good choice, juries often make utterly stupid and baffling decisions. Especially the case when it involves any sort of MVAWG or sexual assault. I've seen some of the worst men you'll ever meet acquitted.

This verdict is a travesty and he will do it again.

Quite. How tedious it is when people who have no knowledge of legal systems and who deny how heavily weighted they are against women, children and people of colour, rattle on about it being fair and just. No legal system is fair and just, they are simply systems founded on sexism, racism and all the other crap that has been the way for centuries.

ItsTheGAGGGGGGGG · 31/10/2024 04:47

Awful awful situation. Why on earth would he take her back to his house if he genuinely wanted to help? He called of called 999 on the spot if he really didn’t know what to do.

I believe the poor girl. I hope she’s well supported

Original poster
DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 07:58

Gosh, this is surprising! Is any else surprised? I'm surprised

At least the “maybe he had dementia” and “the jury clearly had more evidence than you” crowd have piped down

OP posts:
fashionqueen0123 · 31/10/2024 08:05

The bbc article says he’s now back in custody!

fashionqueen0123 · 31/10/2024 08:07

Remaker · 29/10/2024 23:51

I’m glad some people read the article through to the end. At least we can be reassured he didn’t walk free.

Having been on a jury I can’t share the confidence that the right decision is always made. It was in the case I was involved with and the convicted man did eventually admit he’d been lying about his innocence prior to sentencing. But we had more than one person on my jury who was ready to say not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence purely because they didn’t want to be responsible for someone going to jail. The accused was a man in his 40s who led a sophisticated drug importation ring, not some kid who’d been led astray.

Surely people like that should be weeded out in jury selection

BigBoysDontCry · 31/10/2024 08:15

When I was on a jury (Scotland and case stopped just as it began) the Jury selection was pretty random. No one asks you questions like in the movies.

It's just a number crunch and by the time you are in the final group through your number coming out of a hat, the only way you are then out is if you declare you know the accussed etc. E. G. One woman left because the relatives of the accussed who were sitting in court frequented the pub she worked in and this was a crime of violence.

No one knows your character etc, the know what you've selected for lunch at most.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/10/2024 08:19

ItsTheGAGGGGGGGG · 31/10/2024 04:47

Awful awful situation. Why on earth would he take her back to his house if he genuinely wanted to help? He called of called 999 on the spot if he really didn’t know what to do.

I believe the poor girl. I hope she’s well supported

One of the reports says that after they'd been in the park he told her to go and knock on the door of a house and say she was lost. So he was happy to leave her alone at that point despite claiming at the outset he was concerned about her being on her own.

I believe her. Even if you (general you) believe older girls or women lie about rape or assault (and yes, some do) why on earth would a child this young do so?

BigBoysDontCry · 31/10/2024 08:27

Well, any non predatory bloke would either not notice the girl at all, or when noticing would ask a woman to deal with her. I'm old, I've been asked twice by men if I'd help a lost looking child as they didn't want to approach them as a lone male. I think that's quite sad but also very sensible.

GoldenPheasant · 31/10/2024 08:29

DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 07:58

Gosh, this is surprising! Is any else surprised? I'm surprised

At least the “maybe he had dementia” and “the jury clearly had more evidence than you” crowd have piped down

And yet the jury did have more evidence than anyone on this thread. Shouting people into silence for the crime of not agreeing with you doesn't change that.

Original poster
DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 08:54

GoldenPheasant · 31/10/2024 08:29

And yet the jury did have more evidence than anyone on this thread. Shouting people into silence for the crime of not agreeing with you doesn't change that.

Show quote history

No one - especially not me - has claimed that the jury didn’t have more evidence.

But that riposte missed the point. Sometimes juries make shit decisions. They believe shit excuses and disregard first had evidence for shit reasons.

and calling out posters how make absurd assertions about dementia is not “shouting people into silence” it’s pointing out that some women will do anything to give a sex offender the benefit of the doubt. Frankly that’s traitorous.

OP posts:
evelynevelyn · 31/10/2024 09:50

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 29/10/2024 18:52

man with history of violence snatches a girl, packets of Benedryll found hidden in his flat to back up her story, 2 hours of unaccounted for time in his flat- the jurors are scum I hope they know they’ve let a monster free.

What? You'd rather that he's a monster, and that the jury freed him knowing that? Why on earth.

Remaker · 31/10/2024 10:09

fashionqueen0123 · 31/10/2024 08:07

Surely people like that should be weeded out in jury selection

Show quote history

I’m in Australia. There is no jury selection it is all random. We were told the names of the person on trial and the main witnesses/police so we could excuse ourselves if we knew them. Then they pull numbers out of a hat to create the jury. The prosecution and defence can object to a limited number of jurors but they know nothing about you.

AmberAlert86 · 31/10/2024 10:10

evelynevelyn · 31/10/2024 09:50

What? You'd rather that he's a monster, and that the jury freed him knowing that? Why on earth.

Show quote history

Well he is a monster. I hope jury do realise what they've done.

prh47bridge · 31/10/2024 11:07

bombastix · 30/10/2024 18:39

Seriously we don’t in the matter of sex offending.

Show quote history

I would agree that we don't have enough convictions, but getting more wrongful convictions is not the way to achieve that.

evelynevelyn · 31/10/2024 11:10

@AmberAlert86 He may well be a monster. It looks pretty likely from his history.

But it’s clearly possible this didn't happen. Wouldn’t you wish that? And wouldn’t you wish that if he was wrongly acquitted, that the jury did it because they were trying to reach the right verdict to the best of their ability, not that they did this knowingly because they are scum (all 12 of them: unanimous verdict).

ChristmasisinManchester · 31/10/2024 11:19

user47 · 30/10/2024 14:30

It's madness - his wife had a restraining order against him after he sexually assaulted her. Britain is a shamefully dangerous place to be a girl.

What the fuck.

Every step I read about this just gets fucking worse.

What the fuck is happening!

Fucking men and the fucking justice system that lets them away with it. Fuck.

ChristmasisinManchester · 31/10/2024 11:19

Fuck fuck fuck

ChristmasisinManchester · 31/10/2024 11:24

evelynevelyn · 31/10/2024 11:10

@AmberAlert86 He may well be a monster. It looks pretty likely from his history.

But it’s clearly possible this didn't happen. Wouldn’t you wish that? And wouldn’t you wish that if he was wrongly acquitted, that the jury did it because they were trying to reach the right verdict to the best of their ability, not that they did this knowingly because they are scum (all 12 of them: unanimous verdict).

Edited

No.

I think in central London, at HARRODS, there’s enough people of good standing you would seek to get support for a lost child.

Maybe, MAYBE, in a residential area at a quiet time, if you found a child without an adult you could possibly take them inside your home to phone police.

But in central London? TWO HOURS without speaking to police?

I might have some doubt whether he sexually assaulted her, but he fucking kidnapped her. No question about it in my mind whatsoever.

LiceoDolce · 31/10/2024 11:31

Well let's face it you would just go into Harrods and find a member of staff wouldn't you? And they would active their lost child procedure.

If I found a lost child near where I live I'd ask them where their parents were. If they didn't know I'd wait with them for about ten minutes or so to see if they came back and then I'd call the police and wait with the child while they arrived.

This is the only thing a normal person would do (or some variation of the above)

Original poster
DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 11:35

I’m actually inclined to think if you are so stupid (dementia notwithstanding - natch) that you take a girl off a busy street, walk her away from one of the biggest, busiest stores in the world and take her to your flat and fail to seek any help for two hours then you deserve what ever (wrong or right) conviction comes your way.

OP posts:
LiceoDolce · 31/10/2024 11:38

DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 11:35

I’m actually inclined to think if you are so stupid (dementia notwithstanding - natch) that you take a girl off a busy street, walk her away from one of the biggest, busiest stores in the world and take her to your flat and fail to seek any help for two hours then you deserve what ever (wrong or right) conviction comes your way.

But obviously it's just excuses
Same as Michael Jackson and sharing hotel rooms with little boys.
Some people will believe anything.

TitusMoan · 31/10/2024 11:40

evelynevelyn · 31/10/2024 11:10

@AmberAlert86 He may well be a monster. It looks pretty likely from his history.

But it’s clearly possible this didn't happen. Wouldn’t you wish that? And wouldn’t you wish that if he was wrongly acquitted, that the jury did it because they were trying to reach the right verdict to the best of their ability, not that they did this knowingly because they are scum (all 12 of them: unanimous verdict).

Edited

More likely that the judge directed the jury that way.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 31/10/2024 13:19

DancingNotDrowning · 31/10/2024 11:35

I’m actually inclined to think if you are so stupid (dementia notwithstanding - natch) that you take a girl off a busy street, walk her away from one of the biggest, busiest stores in the world and take her to your flat and fail to seek any help for two hours then you deserve what ever (wrong or right) conviction comes your way.

Exactly. Harrods - of all places where you're faced with the problem of a lost child. Harrods own security swung into action as soon as the parents alerted them.