They can't prove you or I aren't guilty either ...
... that doesnt mean we might be.
We're all innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works
Jack Diamond
- Thread starter Teessidemackem
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
They can't prove you or I aren't guilty either ...
... that doesnt mean we might be.
We're all innocent until proven guilty, that's how it works
I'm well aware of that. I was just correcting your initial post when you said he was proven not guilty which is a misnomer
Thin ice TC. If the jury had found him guilty,it would be said he was proven guilty. As they found him not guilty,isn't he proven not guilty? Don't the jury have the burden of proof,either way?
We really are getting into semantics here but if he's guilty it's because he was proven (beyond reasonable doubt) to be guilty. If guilt cannot be proven then the jury is instructed to find him not guilty. There is no burden of proof on the defendant.
It's essentially the same thing
It's why we need both parties to remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached, and probably afterwards as well. When it comes to celebrities, how you go about keeping it anonymous is difficult but it needs to be done.
Innocent until proven guilty is long gone as a concept now imho, which is why the rules around these cases need to change. It's guilty until proven innocent, and even then a lot of people think you're guilty. An accusation is as good as a conviction to some.
This isn’t a comment related directly to this case as I don’t know the details but, you are correct in saying that, in general, a finding of not guilty only “proves” that there isn’t sufficient admissible evidence to prove a persons guilt. Nobody is ever found innocent as that doesn’t exist in our justice system. It is entirely feasible that somebody who has committed a crime is found not guilty because sufficient admissible evidence cannot be found to prove their guilt.
I agree,it is semantics,but,if evidence is not enough to convince the Court of guilt,then innocence is presumed.That's the way it works. We have to accept that and can't proclaim afterwards we think someone is guilty anyway,if the evidence presented to the jury does not support that claim beyond reasonable doubt. No doubt there are miscarriages of justice with incorrect verdicts being delivered,but,despite that, we can't step ourselves above the legal system and assume guilt in the face of a Court verdict. If that were to happen,what would be the point of the Court? We could just put it out on social media.....all those in favour of guilt vote now.
Or, it shows that all of the evidence presented showed he was not guilty.
There may well not be any further evidence which means he's as innocent as he was before he ever met the woman.
An accusation can be totally false and supported by lies.
Last edited:
It’s both in a way. It means that in the eyes of the law he is not guilty as charged based on the evidence available. That’s why controversial cases require new evidence to be tried against. But you’re right, he is not guilty so didn’t commit the offence for which he was charged and it sounds like there was something clear that exonerated him.
I sat on a rape and a father on son (cannot remember if related) anal penetration cases (when my son was about 5, felt ill and looking to step down, Mrs talked me out of it). Both cases were obviously manipulated by the females and resulted in unanimous not guilty verdicts. The rape claimant had even text a friend saying she thought she'd shagged the office stunner... he had had to move to the other end of Britain to keep his job.... unreal how these two cases made it to court. This was 10 years ago as well, seems nothing has changed.
Jack has been proven to be innocent, so it makes sense to me that he makes a counter-charge against this girl for defamation of character, which could have (and possibly already has had) serious repercussions on his career 
Only a trial for defamation means he needs to actually prove she lied beyond reasonable doubt which is very different to proving there was reasonable doubt that he raped her.
It's a nasty can of worms very few want to open.
Best to move on.
It's a nasty can of worms very few want to open.
Best to move on.
Do we not have this conversation after every rape trial, nothing has ever changed.Wonder how much the lawyers have made.There’s a clue why.
Intricacies of the case aside, I can't help but feel sorry for the lad, his career has been on hold for 10 months with his contract up at the end of this season, he is probably at best a couple of months from genuine match fitness. For what it's worth i think he'll get another chance, he was very popular at Harrogate and I'm sure they'd be pleased to have him back.
I completely agree but my point is someone can commit a crime and be found not guilty. That doesn’t mean they’re innocent. They are found not guilty. No one is ever found innocent as that doesn’t exist in our system. As I say, these comments are not in relation to this case, just a comment on the whole legal system.
Of course there are allegations made which are entirely false. You would hope in that case there is insufficient evidence to even get to a charge being made but that is t always the case.
Defamation is a civil case with a lesser standard of proof than criminal cases. "The balance of probabilities" is the standard of proof required for a person bringing a civil case in the UK.
I agree best move on, civil cases are extremely costly and even if the court finds in Diamond's favour any award is unlikely to cover his costs.
Is this not evidence that there is something wrong with our legal system?
I agree, it makes access to justice only available to the very rich or criminals who qualify for legal aid