A lesson to the public on why a 'fair trial' does not exist *a thread*

1. Evidence is edited before it goes to court. A single person such as a judge can decide if something is 'relevant' or not and you have to argue to keep it if you think it helps you.

Therefore the jury do not always hear everything that could possibly clear the accused.

2. Disclosure issues mean that even the accused and team do not know all of the evidence that could help them because the corrupt police and CPS withhold the evidence to get a conviction.

3. The accused is often named and photographed in the press from as early as arrest up until trial. People and potential jurors are aware of the case, often sensationalised in the press anyway and they form an instant negative opinion of the accused. This doesn't mean it's true.

How many times have you seen a case in the press and before the trial people are already asking for them to be hung, shot and killed, called a monster or a creep? This forms an opinion based on the 1 side you read in the press.

4. It takes 10 seconds to judge someone. As a juror when you see the accused sat in a glass dock, handcuffed and with security, you instantly think guilt. They LOOK guilty because of the constraints around them. They then have to fight back from this idea throughout the trial.

It is supposed to be for the prosecution to prove guilt not for the accused to prove innocence, but when you already have the lower hand it takes a lot to climb back up into the juries good books. They are automatically trained to hate you from the get go with the way trials are.

5. The public believe that people would not lie about a crime. The accuser (when false) can stand in the box sob, forget their story, lie, change details and yet they are given the same protection as the real victims because no one dares say they are lying.

Yet there are a lot of reasons people lie. Look at how many people lie about an affair, a mistake at work, how many children lie to their parents. People go to the police and lie for money, revenge, divorce, to basically get their own way with protection from the law.

It's not uncommon, yet we are force fed statistics to say no one lies, our justice system works and barely fails. I would argue the contrary, I would say it is complete luck of the draw what happens, it also depends on the crime you've allegedly commited.

6. Targets. Cases that wouldn't normally have been pushed so far are now being taken forward because the police have arrest targets and the CPS have conviction targets. Check out their latest claim where they're going to magic more sex offence concoctions from thin air!

You simply cannot create numbers that currently don't exist. You can't increase convictions if the crime didn't happen. How is this a fair trial if they are openly saying they are gunning for you & will take anyone accused down as far as they can to secure their precious targets.

7. Basic human error or incompetence from basically anyone involved. I have heard so many stories of attempted appeals because Solicitors missed something or didn't bring evidence forward that would have helped. Or the police not doing their duty, mishandling evidence etc.

8. Historic crimes have no time limit. People, mainly men, are scrambling for their lives trying to defend actions from 10-50 years ago. How can you collect evidence from that long ago if there is none? Why is a simple allegation enough to send someone to prison?

If you were told you had to explain your whereabouts 20 years ago, I bet you couldn't. Even if you could the accuser can change their mind on when it happened at any point. If they can't remember you'll be charged for it happening over months and years so you simply can't escape.

9. The pressure to convict. Although you're meant to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt, juries, especially on cases linked to the metoo movement and high profile cases, feel pressure to convict rather than let a potential criminal go free because they were not certain.

It's human nature to want to play the hero, they want to protect the victim at all costs and it would take a lot to bring the victim down in the juries eyes and think higher of the accused. If the scales aren't balanced to start with, how can you expect them to be reversed?

10. My last point for now is the dismissal of potential witnesses simply because they are family. The system expect families, partners and children to always lie to defend the accused. I do not think this is the case. But their testimony is often dismissed or not used.

Imagine your only hope to win a case is evidence your fiance could give, but you get told not to call them to the box because "the jury will just think she's defending you and they won't listen." Yet the accuser can invite every family member and their dog even just to say...

"oh yes she told me about this incident that happened 20 years ago, she only told me last year though but it definitely happened".

As the accused you are always at a loss. And God help if you don't 'look' pleasant enough for the jury to like you. That can work against you too.

So the next time you jump to comment on an article to tell the accused to rot in hell, take a moment to think what would you do in that situation because I'm sorry to say, you are not safe from the system. No one is. You could be the next falsely accused. Bear that in mind.