does anyone know anything about this? i work near this place and was told that friday or saturday night, a woman was raped on centertainment, and 2 of security gaurds got a beating! what atually happened? how come i have seen no news about it??

Please be careful what you say about this incident as could affect any court case that happens in the future.

I hope that it's not true, but if it is then let's hope that the lady concerned is as well as can be expected after such an awful ordeal.

Originally posted by owdlad
Please be careful what you say about this incident as could affect any court case that happens in the future.

I hope that it's not true, but if it is then let's hope that the lady concerned is as well as can be expected after such an awful ordeal.

well said! it's quite worrying because me and my workmates work late at night. i am unsure if the 2 incidents are connected though

Originally posted by owdlad
Please be careful what you say about this incident as could affect any court case that happens in the future.

I hope that it's not true, but if it is then let's hope that the lady concerned is as well as can be expected after such an awful ordeal.

I've seen comments like this several times. How exactly could our speculation affect a court case???

Originally posted by Cyclone
I've seen comments like this several times. How exactly could our speculation affect a court case???

If you read stuff on the internet about it then get called up for jury duty i guess!!

Originally posted by scottf
If you read stuff on the internet about it then get called up for jury duty i guess!!

if that was the case, all you'd have to do is mention this, and they wouldnt put you on jury duty.

as for anything else, if its not the actuall people involved, then i dont think it affects anything, i maybe wrong though

Originally posted by scottf
If you read stuff on the internet about it then get called up for jury duty i guess!!

best hope it's not reported in the news and make sure you don't talk about it to your friends as well.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I've seen comments like this several times. How exactly could our speculation affect a court case???

agree entirely it has no effect whatsoever.
any perosn naming names etc could be at risk, but any other "information" is in the public domain and therefore not prejudicial .

What about if someone who read our prejudicial comments was on the jury, failed to admit they had read this forum, and along with the rest of the jury found the accused to be guilty.

Later, the accused's lawyers may discover the jury member had read the forum, declare an unfair trial and the accused might be released following appeal.

The accused may really be guilty, but as you can't be tried twice for the same crime, and their first trial was unfair, they would get away with their crime. And we don't want that!

This is just my logical reasoning, I don't know if it's accurate.

Originally posted by Mouse83
What about if someone who read our prejudicial comments was on the jury, failed to admit they had read this forum, and along with the rest of the jury found the accused to be guilty.

Later, the accused's lawyers may discover the jury member had read the forum, declare an unfair trial and the accused might be released following appeal.

The accused may really be guilty, but as you can't be tried twice for the same crime, and their first trial was unfair, they would get away with their crime. And we don't want that!

This is just my logical reasoning, I don't know if it's accurate.

doesnt mean that we cant post it means that the potential jurist is a "liar" and therefore not suitable to be on the jury.

It is not necessarily so much to do with court as to do with the investigation. Obviously names involved should never be mentioned but that is a separate issue.

Police release certain information to the press and keep other information to themselves as it helps to identify which witnesses are genuine etc. There are reasons why police do not release the full details of cases into the public domain, and for these same reasons direct witnesses of such incidents, or other people involved should also refrain from doing so. Speculation is not necessarily harmful to a case but could easily cause upset or offence to those involved, or start off rumours which do not help anybody.

fair enough, we should restrict our conversation to things that are already in the public domain. Presumably the police actually tell witnesses which bits not to talk about because the press will interview them more thoroughly than the forum will.

i know of a fella whos sons best mates girlfriend had an affair with this fella whos daughter went out with the son of the chief of the flyin squad [the sweeney] them boys dont mess around.anyway she told him that the sheffield forum [the chat lines] go straight down line to scotland yard as soon as you hit your keyboard and they scrutonise every last post which they think hold important info and may lead to arrests of individuals they want to question.be ready for the knock on the door , were the sweeney and were hungry[classic tv] john thaw r.i.p :P

You don't have to prove a juror has read something predjudicial to have a case thrown out, and/or an appeal made. All they have to do is prove that there has been material published which the jurors might have read (not did, might), and the judge wil have to work from the assumption that they DID hear as he has no proof they didn't.

For example, Ian Huntley had been reported for several crimes on underage girls but they couldn't mention it because he hadn't been convicted.

If someone had posted on an internet chatroom like this what they had heard Huntley had done in the past he may have been able to argue that he had not been able to have an imparital trial and therefore been aquited.

I don't think this is right in all cases but there it is.

Coincidentally:

"Mr Justice Clarke warned them not to look for other information about the case on the internet or in old newspapers.

They were also asked not to visit the scene of the crime."

This is at the start of the third trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4396998.stm) of Sean Jenkins with regard to the murder of his foster-daughter, Billie-Jo.

It is hard to imagine that all of the jury have not heard or read some of the reports from the earlier trials.
They are instructed to disregard anything that they know and try to base their decisions solely on the evidence presented in the new hearing.

if it is true about wot happened think of the person involved? and wot the family are goin through i know if it was a member of my family of friend i would not like to think people are talkin about it on the net

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
You don't have to prove a juror has read something predjudicial to have a case thrown out, and/or an appeal made. All they have to do is prove that there has been material published which the jurors might have read (not did, might), and the judge wil have to work from the assumption that they DID hear as he has no proof they didn't.

For example, Ian Huntley had been reported for several crimes on underage girls but they couldn't mention it because he hadn't been convicted.

If someone had posted on an internet chatroom like this what they had heard Huntley had done in the past he may have been able to argue that he had not been able to have an imparital trial and therefore been aquited.

I don't think this is right in all cases but there it is.

If one of us had posted something about huntley, then the information would clearly have already been in the public domain, so we don't have any effect on the argument that the juror might have heard this information.

I meant before the trial. We were talking about trials being predjudiced - none of that information about Huntley was released until after he had been convicted - until then no-one knew he had a history of abusing underage girls. It wasn't in the public domain until AFTER the trial exactly so it couldn't effect a juror. If it had come out before the trial he might have got off.

If you don't believe me wait until the next big murder trial - during the trial all that's released is said in court - the day after the conviction everything will go crazy as they are allowed to release all the information that they had to withhold during the trial -with Huntley it was the fact that he had that history and also that Carr had provided him with an alibi when he had raped before.

And before I get flamed I'm not saying that I think it's right that this information is witheld from juries, just that it is.

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
I meant before the trial. We were talking about trials being predjudiced - none of that information about Huntley was released until after he had been convicted - until then no-one knew he had a history of abusing underage girls. It wasn't in the public domain until AFTER the trial exactly so it couldn't effect a juror. If it had come out before the trial he might have got off.

If you don't believe me wait until the next big murder trial - during the trial all that's released is said in court - the day after the conviction everything will go crazy as they are allowed to release all the information that they had to withhold during the trial -with Huntley it was the fact that he had that history and also that Carr had provided him with an alibi when he had raped before.

in which case, how would we be posting about it, unless we had inside information?

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
And before I get flamed I'm not saying that I think it's right that this information is witheld from juries, just that it is.

Information like this can be relayed to Juries if it is relevant enough to the case, it is called 'similar fact' evidence. However, in the Huntley case, some kind of bargain was struck to allow some evidence in court as long as those previous allegations were kept out. I can't remember the exact circumstances.

Originally posted by Cyclone
in which case, how would we be posting about it, unless we had inside information?

Um, because Huntley's been tried and convicted after which you are allowed to report any information which may not have been allowed at the trial - as I said in my post.

It's only before the conviction you can't do it.

Originally posted by Twiglet
Information like this can be relayed to Juries if it is relevant enough to the case, it is called 'similar fact' evidence. However, in the Huntley case, some kind of bargain was struck to allow some evidence in court as long as those previous allegations were kept out. I can't remember the exact circumstances.

Actually you're wrong on that one. If (as Huntley was) you are reported for a crime and not convicted they cannot tell a jury because as far as the legal system is concerned you have been proven innocent.

There is absolutely no way a 'bargain' was struck as it was touch and go whether he was convicted or not. There was little forensic evidence. Also English Courts don't do 'bargains', that's America.

There was a big case in London where a rapist had struckabout 5 times by luring women back to his flat and had been aquited five times. Even though he was arrested for each of these rapes he was tried and aquited for all of them. He was arrested for the sixth rape and convicted only because passers by saw him push her out of a window, as he convinced the jury all 5 women had consented. The other 5 cases were only revealed to jurors and the public arena after he'd
been convicted.

Will try to post some links regarding both this and the Huntley thing.

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
Actually you're wrong on that one. If (as Huntley was) you are reported for a crime and not convicted they cannot tell a jury because as far as the legal system is concerned you have been proven innocent.

There is absolutely no way a 'bargain' was struck as it was touch and go whether he was convicted or not. There was little forensic evidence. Also English Courts don't do 'bargains', that's America.

There was a big case in London where a rapist had struckabout 5 times by luring women back to his flat and had been aquited five times. Even though he was arrested for each of these rapes he was tried and aquited for all of them. He was arrested for the sixth rape and convicted only because passers by saw him push her out of a window, as he convinced the jury all 5 women had consented. The other 5 cases were only revealed to jurors and the public arena after he'd
been convicted.

Will try to post some links regarding both this and the Huntley thing.

I'm afraid I'm not wrong, similar fact evidence is a legal principle where if a crime they have committed previously is so similar to the one being tried where the probative value of the evidence exceeds its prejudicial effects. For example, if the rapist you mentioned previously had committed some unusual act during the previous rapes that he also performed in the one being tried, the previous allegations could be brought up in court.

'Bargains' are not struck here in the same way as they are in the States but judges can certainly allow pieces of evidence into court on condition that others are not mentioned. Perhaps 'bargain' was the wrong word to use. The jury did in fact hear that there had been one rape allegation against him previously see here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3295123.stm) and I'm sure that this was allowed on condition that the others were not. I can't find another link at the moment, it may not actually be common knowledge that this occurred.

Rather than arguing for 2 pages over the finer points of the British judiciary system, should we not be showing concern for the person who may have got raped, for their family, and sharing advice about safety to try to avoid such a thing happening again?

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
You don't have to prove a juror has read something predjudicial to have a case thrown out, and/or an appeal made. All they have to do is prove that there has been material published which the jurors might have read (not did, might), and the judge wil have to work from the assumption that they DID hear as he has no proof they didn't.

For example, Ian Huntley had been reported for several crimes on underage girls but they couldn't mention it because he hadn't been convicted.

If someone had posted on an internet chatroom like this what they had heard Huntley had done in the past he may have been able to argue that he had not been able to have an imparital trial and therefore been aquited.

I don't think this is right in all cases but there it is.

On this point my mum did jury service for a trial and was unable to reveal any details for this case - I assume any details in the press would not be 'for her eyes and ears' - after the verdict was read they found out that person had been convicted of X crimes in the past and that was not raised in court.

I'm unaware of the full details as she's never told us them. BUT I would assume that jurors should be impartial and a 'group of the same mould' as to the defendent (moral people from the comunity) and should be deliberating on what is stated INSIDE the cout not be swayed OUTSIDE the court (papters, TV, internet ect)

Just think if you read details on past crimes you may think he's guilty - but imagine if that bit of DNA on the floor is hours old and he fits the profile, no alibi? (OK - closet CSI fan/freak. ;) )

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
And before I get flamed I'm not saying that I think it's right that this information is witheld from juries, just that it is.

If I realise the law - it's because the crime in hand is the one which has all the evidence to be presented in the court of law.

Also past crimes may influence the jury when innocent. Read my other post just above.

Originally posted by SallyLaLaLa
Um, because Huntley's been tried and convicted after which you are allowed to report any information which may not have been allowed at the trial - as I said in my post.

It's only before the conviction you can't do it.

when I say "how would we" that is in the past tense.

So my point stands. Before the trial had taken place, we would have no way of prejudicing it unless we had some sort of inside information. As I said in my post.

My original point was that there is no need whenever a thread like this is raised to suggest that the thread be closed as our discussions cannot prejudice the jury unless we have some information not already in the public domain.