Cliff Richard cleared
 

Cliff Richard has been cleared of the charge of molestation yet the best the CPS can manage to say is 'insufficient evidence' to proceed. This encourages the feeling that he has got away with it.

I'm not a Cliff fan but this suggests a massive injustice. The police raid on his house was covered by helicopters and BBC cameras: how did they know the raid was happening? This should be investigated and the BBC held to account. His name was immediately revealed but his accusers (all adults apparently) have never been named. Why?

The whole process is flawed and needs rethinking; as it stands absolutely anyone could find themselves in the same position, with a permanent stain on their character whatever the outcome.

They can't say he was not guilty because he was never tried.

An accusation (or accusations) was (were) made and after investigation there was insufficient evidence to proceed, so that's all they can say.

As for the coverage of the police raid, however, that's another matter altogether and someone needs to be held to account for that one.

I agree, though. If you are accused of anything you should be entitled to anonymity until there is sufficient evidence to charge you.

I originally thought that there had been a tragedy at the seaside when I saw the headline 'teenager tossed off cliff' ?

However.......................................

One of the people who accused Cliff of sexual assault is being investigated by the police for trying to bribe him, probably one of the reasons they never continued with building a case?

Who ever passed on the info to the BBC should be held to account - however, someone at the BBC made the decision to broadcast it.

The problem with anonymity before charge is that other victims may not feel confident to come forward - as was the case with Stewart Hall. That way, you can get all the victims for the one case.

I you do it after charge, it means that the court case will commence soon after. Any potential new 'victims' will be able to sit in the public gallery, listen to the evidence for and against, the attune their account to match. This obviously is not fair for the suspect and will not allow for a fair trial.

Its obviously passed through a number of 'gates' before it got to CPS, who felt there was in sufficient evidence to proceed. Had it of not passed through those gates, it would have been dropped earlier.

Its always funny that the press and media keep banging on about how badly he's been treat, yet it was them who kept splashing the story around all the time.

almost as inappropriate as top gear rehash :(

and just as costly quite possibly

Wait until he dies, then their will be plenty of evidence a la Savile

I reckon not

Savile I knew about from mid eighties for sure

Horrible that you can be accused and trial by media starts weather you are guilty or not
He should however be locked up for crimes against music no trial required

:D

Wired for sound?

It was South Yorkshire Police that where involved with the raid on one of his houses.

Say no more.....

It doesn't really matter who raided it - it should not have been broadcast by the bbc.
It was early stages of a police investigation which could have compromised the enquiry.

Just earlier in this thread you were saying it was helpful to these types of investigations for the names of those arrested to get out into the press, because it "encouraged other victims to come forward", but now you're telling us it compromises enquiries. If that's not wanting to have your cake and eat it, I'd like to know what is.

The name can be given, but showing searches of houses and the layout of homes etc is not right

It may not be "right", as you put it, but I'm pretty sure it would also be completely and utterly irrelevant to the probity of any investigation, given first of all that he only owned one condo among the dozens in the enormous building where the raid took place, and also that being a multi-millionaire celebrity it's a foregone conclusion that he owns (and has owned) several other homes. A telephoto-shot taken from a helicopter of the top of some apartment building was never going to compromise diddly squat.

And of course, this still doesn't address the elephant in the room question of how the Beeb found out the raid was due to happen in the first place!

I don't think the name of a person should be given until convicted. And whoever named Cliff should be held to account.

I'm not saying Cliff hasn't done anything or not, but the naming of him has opened another avenue of publicity which create "noise" that detracts from the investigation IMO.

Put it this way. Two men tried to burgle my house. They were caught commiting burglary on someone else's. They were caught, partly from my evidence. It is only until they were convicted that I found out their names...from the local paper (well, in truth its only the one guy - 1yr prison...I am yet to find the outcome of the other). During which I have asked and tried to find out their names in the meantime during the charge and before the conviction and been denied.

So if some random theiving scum is given this kind of protection...why not a celebrity?

It depends what the line of evidence was. It could be that a victim has stated that some of the abuse happened at that house, or perhaps a meeting took place between the victim and suspect sometime after - and to strengthen the victims claim, he can describe aspects of the house in detail. A defence solicitor can now state "Well its obvious he can describe it, it was broadcast on TV". This will not be 'fair' for the victim or suspect and hence wont give a fair trial.

How the beeb found out should be investigated - loose lips sink ships. It could have been a simple slip of the tongue to the wrong person or something more serious, either way it was wrong.

You can find out their names before conviction. After charge, they will make their first court appearance at the Magistrates Court (even murders go there first) often within days of the charge. Its at this court appearance that they will confirm their names in front of the public gallery in 99% of cases.

Now one problem with anonymity until conviction is that one victim will come forward, if it is one word against another then the chances are it will not go anywhere, especially with historic offences. But if more and more potential victims come forward (like they did with Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall) with similar accusations, then the evidence becomes stronger. Even circumstantial evidence will become compelling if there is sufficient. And it is reasonable that with celebrities having access to the globe, it will be difficult to anticipate people coming forward unless the celebrity's name is 'out there'

Another thing to consider that if that first victim has enough evidence to go to court, then the evidence will be heard in front of the public gallery. So, people can sit and listen to the evidence on both sides and think to themselves - "Aha, that's what I need to say when I go to the police to state my case". Genuine other victims may also be less likely to be believed if they have similar accounts as the first.

The result will be that Cliff may be found not guilty by the first victim's trial, but will then be re-arrested soon after for victim number two.

Throw into this pot the vast number of false claims that would have been reported to the police about Cliff that would need to be investigated and collated together - and the evidence stream generated from the original 9 victims and the thing becomes quite complex - hence the length of time it took.

Which footage were you watching when this raid happened? There wasn't a single interior shot of his house at all in any of the news reports I saw, and anyone in the world with 20 minutes to spare searching the internet could easily have found out where Richards lives and got pictures of the outside of the place from Google maps. And I'll repeat one more time, the footage didn't even identify which specific apartment in the building was actually Richards'. If that's your idea of detailed, I seriously worry for the state of policing in the country.

QED

this for example. http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/09/29/cl...r-police-raid/

There were other shots too looking through the windows into various rooms. It doesn't need to specify which apartments in the building are Richard's. Richards has access to the building and the victim can introduce the specific rooms in their evidence. This evidence is then backed up by the description of it. This description of the 'room' is then compromised by the fact that it has been broadcast on TV. Now in interview, Richards may say that he doesn't have any access to that part of the building. In a trial it will come down to who's evidence is believed - I would suggest that the defence will use the broadcast to negate the victims description and cast doubt on his evidence.

So, you're back to running a trial with one victim. When his name is broadcast and more victims come forward you will not be able to delay the first trial. So, the new victims can listen to the evidence of the first case and then make their statements. So, if Cliff is acquitted for the first trial, he will be re-arrested for the next victim and his home searched again etc etc. Hardly efficient and again the defence will be able to cast doubt on the evidence.

Yeah, but as said **** sticks. Esp. In this social media/information age. As also said, because of this naming before charging, some contemplate - and do - commit suicide. How can that possibly be right?! Even if they don't, many feel the rest of their lives are ruined, regardless.

The 'naming in the public interest' is like throwing the accused to a pack of wolves and the authorities/police/CPS simply walking away.

So much for our innocent until PROVEN guilty bedrock.:rolleyes:

We don't want 'trial by public opinion'.

Also, get rid of the public gallery... After all, the case is (supposed to be) decided by a judge, barristers, and 12 jurors. The gallery is designed for the public to see UK justice in action, nothing else. But if you reckon that any further potential accused use it to glean knowledge to help their case should they get arrested, then just get rid of it.

If you were trying to prove my point for me, congratulations. Those pictures don't show the inside of his flat, they show the inside of another one for sale in the same development. QED, the Beeb's live footage didn't reveal a damn thing that anyone with a computer, internet connection and a half hour to spare couldn't have found out for themselves, as soon as it was made public by the Police that Richards was being investigated. You have to face the fact here that you can't pick and choose. If you're going to make these sorts of celebrity investigations public, you simply cannot avoid the possibility that crackpots or malicious scum might use the mass of information in the public domain about that celberity to fabricate false accusations.

They may not show the inside of his flat, but its a part of the building that he had access to. The people in the building have latex gloves on, so I suggest they are searching it. And they can only search in areas which he has control or access to.

So, something as insignificant as that silver fan, description of the building, description of the windows, the driveway; may be important as part of an evidence line by the victim on scene description. I'm not saying it will prove the offence, but if you get enough circumstantial evidence together, the weight of evidence will tip the balance. And since it is being searched any potential 'crackpot' will see the premises being significant as apposed to the many other homes owned by Mr Richards.

If you seek a proper, sterile investigation then this footage should not have been shown

Yes or no, do you believe that once it was made known that Richards was under investigation, any random member of the public determined enough to do so would have been capable of finding out where he lives, with or without the BBC's long-distance camera shots?

Find out where he lives - possibly. To get the camera angles they got - possibly not. Either way, if the footage compliments the evidence given then the defence will have an argument against it. Fine if it is some crackpot trying to jump on the band wagon - but what if this is a genuine victim who is now seeing their evidence getting binned as a result

You can't just get rid of the gallery - its a public trial so it can be heard in front of people to show it has been done fairly. That way if the accused is found guilty, they can't state that the trial was unfair. And you can't just arrest the potential victims if their evidence is similar to that heard in the trial - you have to prove they were lying and know that they were lying at the time.

I believe Stuart Hall's case was initially a couple of victims, but more came forward as the investigation went on. He initially denied everything, but went guilty at court at his trial.