Alleged sexual offence

Garry Edwards

Garry Edwards

Moderator
Messages
13,475
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
A bit of a funny one . . .

Over 20 years ago now I made the mistake of entering into a business arrangement with a pro photographer (of sorts). Without going into details, I very quickly became concerned about his behaviour with female models, I spoke to him about it many times but he would never accept that he was doing anything wrong.

So, I ended the business arrangement and moved on, and also reported what I knew to the police. The police spoke to him (don't know whether he was arrested or just interviewed) but it now seems that nothing was done and he apparently continued as before.

Then, about a year ago, I received a phone call from a police officer asking whether I knew this man. After checking her identity I had a conversation with her and made the comment that whatever he was suspected of doing must have affected someone quite severely because a complaint had been made after all this time. The police officer told me that it wasn't one victim, it was many. I then made a statement and the police officer was surprised to learn that this person had been spoken to by the police at the time, as they had no record of it.

Anyway, he has since been charged with "a serious sexual offence" and there is now a Crown Court hearing date. I then found out that he has only been charged with an offence that allegedly occurred about 2 years before I met him and hasn't been charged in relation to any other offences that were complained about.

This seems strange to me, the police apparently have a number of complaints, a number of witness statements and presumably enough evidence to proceed with a number of charges, for which photographic evidence must still exist (indecent photos of underage females - so I can't help wondering why he has only been charged with a single offence.
 
I suppose the police may think there's enough evidence to go forward but the CPS don't. Isn't that the way things work?

I have to say that I don't have a wonderful and unquestioning belief in the police and wider system so I'm willing to be persuaded to believe almost anything, I do believe that some people just aren't to be trusted and that there needs to be eyes open, arse covering and care all around especially if it can be a case of he/she said with little or no other evidence.

Hopefully justice will be done.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Anyway, he has since been charged with "a serious sexual offence" and there is now a Crown Court hearing date. I then found out that he has only been charged with an offence that allegedly occurred about 2 years before I met him and hasn't been charged in relation to any other offences that were complained about.

This seems strange to me, the police apparently have a number of complaints, a number of witness statements and presumably enough evidence to proceed with a number of charges, for which photographic evidence must still exist (indecent photos of underage females - so I can't help wondering why he has only been charged with a single offence.
Click to expand...
"Presumably enough evidence" is not sufficient to proceed with a trial. You need actually enough evidence that will withstand vigorous cross-examination under oath rather than just the police being sure of guilt.
 
john.margetts said:
"Presumably enough evidence" is not sufficient to proceed with a trial. You need actually enough evidence that will withstand vigorous cross-examination under oath rather than just the police being sure of guilt.
Click to expand...
Yes, good point, and I understand that perfectly well. But, as I'm sure you'll understand, there's a lot that I cannot post about here and my own knowledge of what has happened is that there is a clear pattern of consistent behaviour towards multiple victims who don't know each other and so cannot possibly collude with each other. This in itself would amount to very strong evidence, as proved in previous cases of historical sex abuse.
 
john.margetts said:
"Presumably enough evidence" is not sufficient to proceed with a trial. You need actually enough evidence that will withstand vigorous cross-examination under oath rather than just the police being sure of guilt.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've heard something like "enough evidence to be reasonably sure of obtaining a conviction."
 
I’m surprised you have started this thread at this point Garry.
I‘m no legal expert, but bearing in mind your knowledge of the character of this individual, you may be pulled into the legal process.
Perhaps post when the trial has completed?
 
Peter123 said:
I’m surprised you have started this thread at this point Garry.
I‘m no legal expert, but bearing in mind your knowledge of the character of this individual, you may be pulled into the legal process.
Perhaps post when the trial has completed?
Click to expand...
He hasn't been charged with any offences that (may have) occurred after I first met him, and I am not a witness to the offence with which he has been charged. And, obviously, I'm not going to say anything that could possibly identify him.
 
It might be that the other abused women don’t want to be involved in any prosecution or won’t offer any evidence against him? Or it could be the CPS are using the historic case as a test and will take his other offences into consideration if/when it comes to trial.
 
Peter123 said:
I’m surprised you have started this thread at this point Garry.
I‘m no legal expert, but bearing in mind your knowledge of the character of this individual, you may be pulled into the legal process.
Perhaps post when the trial has completed?
Click to expand...
He managed to get the trial delayed several times, with the last arranged date a year from now.

And now I've received a letter from the police, he has died and so avoided facing up to his past altogether - no justice for his alleged victims:(
 
There is also the case of double jepody which to my limited knowledge prevents someone being tried more than once for the same offence so if all charges are brought at once and the accused is equited they can't be tried again, however any outstanding cases can be brought later.
Anyway its matterless in this case now.
 
Laffin at my self here
20 years out of date kinda sums up alot of my life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top