Judge axes trial as victim is 'too honest' to give evidence

Yeah...see this judge needs to be stripped of his title. Obviously my sarcastic second post in this thread holds truth. It's simply more evidence of an abuse of power.

I could not agree more

This Judge Tabor does not know how to use his mouth in a sensitive manner. Take the above source about the choirmaster.

Chronic. How on Earth can you say the victim "enjoyed" it!!! Even if the victim did, sex (and I believe sexual offences of a serious nature, i.e. further than snogging) with somebody under 16 in the UK is statutory rape and a crime regardless because a person under 16 is said to not be capable of "giving consent" to sexual acts.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by george_gaz]

[edit on 14-1-2009 by george_gaz]

Yes, the choirmaster one is the bit that truly got to me. I can't really believe Tabor got away with that one. I mean, the boy was 11. That's a little sick.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick

---

you're watching american court TV not britsh, also TV is rarely acurtate and the legal system is complex.

i don't even think the american legal system allows someone to go to prison based on witness testimony alone but i could be wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: I still stand unwaivering by my previous post position on this judge. 1stly its clear this is not a small claims court verdict where more weight may be given to a individual witnesses unfounded testimony, but this is clearly a higher court as this was a judge and not a magistrate and there was a jury involved so he was right to value her testimony as in self interest BUT he in no way should of set aside the conviction for these credible reasons A) there was other evidence i.e. broken nose (medical testimony) , the brick, the broken windshield, the other witness 26-year-old Jodie Dickinson who was in the car! ... all these may corroborate Her supposedly biased testimony.
What he should of done is after her testimony is direct the jury to be aware that her testimony was in self interest (revenge?) and that they should couch her testimony in that light when deliberating on the defendants guilt or innocence and weighing up ALL the evidence (Not just her testimony). He should of let the jury decide instead of paying her off out of public coffers and letting the alleged criminal escape true justice. I would recommend he be disbarred and the prosecutor appeal.

Personal Disclosure:- Wheres Rumpold of the Bailey when we need him???

reply to post by NatureBoy

---

Fine, TV is rarely accurate but I know a few lawyers as well. But seeing as how you made the point that this is America and we're considering the UK here. It's really a moot point because I am not familiar with the legal system in the UK.

The evidence of a broken nose and another witness don't necessarily point the finger of guilt at the accused. Especially if the other witness cannot say with 100% certainty that the accused was present during the attack.

reply to post by george_gaz

---

Sure that evidence is circumstantial, but it's still extra evidence. Which is all a moot point because the judge himself should NOT be someone in a decision making position.

EDIT: The word "not"

[edit on 1/15/09 by TasteTheMagick]

I thought it was a bit crazy at first. But when natureboy pointed out the only thing to go on was the persons words, then it made a bit more sense.

Natureboy is 100% correct in what he says. And for those of you who are saying otherwise, that kind of thing is what leads to things like witch burnings. Where someone in the community makes a claim on a person and it comes down to 1 persons word against another.

If you ever go to court and the only thing that convicts you is someone saying you did something without proof and you didn't do it, you'll be changing your mind on this judge and wishing you had him.

It sucks if the guy gets away because of it, but as Natureboy also said - it is better to let many guilty men go free than to persecute a single innocent person.

The title of this thread and the content starting out is misleading. I thought there was evidence and so on or something at first, that very important piece of information was left out. The trial was NOT axed because the witness was 'too honest'. It was axed for lack of evidence.

Right, well I will start by asking if that was deemed an attack on me? As if to say I was trying to mislead?
Incorrect, I did nothing in that original post other than state the facts from the source. The headline of the paper, I used as the title and the main content was directly from the news article.

I partly agree that in hindsight the MEDIA have been misleading when it comes to this article. Especially with a name as yours "badmedia" please clarify just who you are pointing the finger at here
Don't shoot the messenger

If you had read through the thread you will see that people agree somewhat with the judges decision, however, the judge himself is a complete [SNIP] and should really stop flapping his gums because the words that come out like "enjoy" and "too honest" do more damage than good.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by george_gaz]

reply to post by george_gaz

---

Not really trying to place blame, it's just a bit misleading for whatever reason is all. When I first opened the thread, I thought there was like other evidence in the case and that a really good case was thrown out because she was too honest etc. I guess you could say it's my own fault for assuming that or whatever. Not that big of a deal.

Can you say farewell to police lineups. It is definitely becoming a criminals world now. Where all the defendants have to do is be them. And not go to trial or get their trials dismissed because they just look guilty. I would be willing to bet that the judge has some ties with the defendant somewhere and that is the reason he dismissed it.

If you put all the criminals behind bars, it would put a huge dent in the income of lawyers.

Their clients would all be in jail.

I think this was a business decision made by the judge.

You need to keep a certain percentage of criminals on the loose otherwise what would the police, lawyers, and judges have to do?

reply to post by george_gaz

---

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: PLEASE READ IT AGAIN! I am 100% sure that you overlooked/missed a VITAL sentence changing word. I quote it here "may" and bigger and in bold "MAY" and now I will use it EXACTLY same context I used it before ...."all these may corroborate Her supposedly biased testimony." and again, bigger and in bold ..."all these MAY corroborate Her supposedly biased testimony.". I really feel like throwing a dictionary at you.
I'm completely astounded how you could miss this and construe that we are not in 100% agreement. Have I offended you or insulted you in anyway that would cause you to take a position opposite me? (re: your post comes across to me that like I was somehow trying to promoting ignorance when in fact, I was clearly trying to deny it [see above for my PROOF of this fact]). If I have please u2u me so we can resolve this in private. I publicly apologize unreservedly to george_gaz for any offence or insult I may (there's that word again ) have caused intentionally or unintentionally.

Personal Disclosure: The judge is still a !

Edited to fix emoticon problem.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by OmegaLogos]