Tony Eccles

[Neilly1986]

It's absolutely sickening to be honest.

My heart goes out to his partner but Eccles can rot for that really appalling stuff.


Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

[Murphio]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

[Dicie]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive cunt takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

[Gringo]

Surely they had some concrete evidence other than the supposedly victims word against his?

[Krispy]

I read about the appeal.. but as it was at crown court you can't just appeal because you didn't like the outcome.

There has to be an appeal based on a flaw in the trial, or new important evidence is found.

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sente ... rt-verdict

They may want to appeal, but it may be turned down out of hand.

[Murphio]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

That is the nature of the justice system mate - it's not infallible. There are plenty of victims of injustice - a famous one who spent 15 years in jail for something he didn't do passed away at the weekend. But what is the alternative? Do away with the courts because someone says they didn't do it? Abandon all cases of historical sex abuse against children because all they have is their word?

[Dicie]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

That is the nature of the justice system mate - it's not infallible. There are plenty of victims of injustice - a famous one who spent 15 years in jail for something he didn't do passed away at the weekend. But what is the alternative? Do away with the courts because someone says they didn't do it? Abandon all cases of historical sex abuse against children because all they have is their word?

I see where your coming from murph and I know you also see my point. No more can really be said about it

[Murphio]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

That is the nature of the justice system mate - it's not infallible. There are plenty of victims of injustice - a famous one who spent 15 years in jail for something he didn't do passed away at the weekend. But what is the alternative? Do away with the courts because someone says they didn't do it? Abandon all cases of historical sex abuse against children because all they have is their word?

I see where your coming from murph and I know you also see my point. No more can really be said about it

It's a really tough one for sure.

[TheFlash]

Can't just be from her word alone? She must have identified a mole on his arse or something?

[robdave2k]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

To be fair Dicie you called TT a racist on the basis of a witness account, so it cuts both ways.

The court will have seen more evidence that the public and the judge is there to sum up and direct,  the emphasis is on proving reasonable doubt.

They proved it here. based on the evidence.


It's a jury of your peers. Did he do it - only 2/3 people truly know.

[ChrisW]

I recently spoke to someone who did jury service in Teesside Crown Court. They shocked me with some of the conversations that went on in the jury room. Most of them wanted to come to a decision to get home so had to agree on a verdict.
The whole system can be flawed. Not saying justice has been done or not done.
But I just feel uneasy about this. The mobile text evidence and the car evidence. All doesn't add up so why would the girl say it.
I am even pretty sure about the mobile evidence as i stood with the guy here in Holland in 2006. Told him the footy score which i had got by text and he was shocked that I could do that. He was no texter.

[Dicie]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

To be fair Dicie you called TT a racist on the basis of a witness account, so it cuts both ways.

The court will have seen more evidence that the public and the judge is there to sum up and direct,  the emphasis is on proving reasonable doubt.

They proved it here. based on the evidence.


It's a jury of your peers. Did he do it - only 2/3 people truly know.

You are mistaken m8, the jury have proved nothing, nor has the lady in questions solicitors, what has happened is, the jury got handed 2 storys and got asked to choose which one they believed.

[trotter]

It's ridiculous that people can come on here and basically say a judge and jury is wrong , basically because Tony Eccles throws a decent dart..
It's very hard to get a guilty verdict in these cases and if you weren't sat in court and listened to EVERY bit of evidence then nobody can say he is innocent, as plenty seem to be saying
For a jury to unanimously find guilty and a judge not to direct otherwise then it doesn't look good and you can't appeal because a few friends don't agree with the verdict

[robdave2k]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

To be fair Dicie you called TT a racist on the basis of a witness account, so it cuts both ways.

The court will have seen more evidence that the public and the judge is there to sum up and direct,  the emphasis is on proving reasonable doubt.

They proved it here. based on the evidence.


It's a jury of your peers. Did he do it - only 2/3 people truly know.

You are mistaken m8, the jury have proved nothing, nor has the lady in questions solicitors, what has happened is, the jury got handed 2 storys and got asked to choose which one they believed.

If you asked me before I'd have said no he didn't do it.

However if it is a "he says, she says" then there will be an appeal.

I really hope he didn't and as you say there can be miscarriages is justice.

[Dicie]

It's ridiculous that people can come on here and basically say a judge and jury is wrong , basically because Tony Eccles throws a decent dart..
It's very hard to get a guilty verdict in these cases and if you weren't sat in court and listened to EVERY bit of evidence then nobody can say he is innocent, as plenty seem to be saying
For a jury to unanimously find guilty and a judge not to direct otherwise then it doesn't look good and you can't appeal because a few friends don't agree with the verdict

Ok trotter, an example. My last comment on this thread.

You head out for a night down the local, you hook up with a bird in the boozer, head to a club, few more drinks, and you piss off home for yourself, alone.
6 months later, bang on the door, the auld bill.

Lady in question has said you have raped her.

It goes to court.

Now, all along you have claimed to be innocent.

COurt case takes place, and the jury find you guilty.

Does this mean you've raped her?

[trotter]

What other 'evidence' would an adult who suffered sexual abuse as a child need to present other than their own sworn testimony? Are we just to abandon historical sex crime trials altogether since 99.9 per cent of them rely on nothing other than someone's word presented to a jury? Those who know Tony Eccles are entitled to believe what they like. The vast majority though will be fairly confident that a jury - which passed a majority verdict - seen enough in the victim's testimony to choose to believe her. In every single one of these cases you have someone standing beside them claiming they were stitched up'. Every single one.

Lets just hope no vindictive fraggle takes a disliking to you murph and claims you raped her then eh...... God forbid you mightn't have done it...

To be fair Dicie you called TT a racist on the basis of a witness account, so it cuts both ways.

The court will have seen more evidence that the public and the judge is there to sum up and direct,  the emphasis is on proving reasonable doubt.

They proved it here. based on the evidence.


It's a jury of your peers. Did he do it - only 2/3 people truly know.

You are mistaken m8, the jury have proved nothing, nor has the lady in questions solicitors, what has happened is, the jury got handed 2 storys and got asked to choose which one they believed.

If it was just my story vs your story then it would never have got to court and if it did then a jury would never unanimously convict in a case like that and the judge would direct them to find him innocent....there was obviously more evidence , and the jury would have heard it all

[trotter]

It's ridiculous that people can come on here and basically say a judge and jury is wrong , basically because Tony Eccles throws a decent dart..
It's very hard to get a guilty verdict in these cases and if you weren't sat in court and listened to EVERY bit of evidence then nobody can say he is innocent, as plenty seem to be saying
For a jury to unanimously find guilty and a judge not to direct otherwise then it doesn't look good and you can't appeal because a few friends don't agree with the verdict

Ok trotter, an example. My last comment on this thread.

You head out for a night down the local, you hook up with a bird in the boozer, head to a club, few more drinks, and you piss off home for yourself, alone.
6 months later, bang on the door, the auld bill.

Lady in question has said you have raped her.

It goes to court.

Now, all along you have claimed to be innocent.

COurt case takes place, and the jury find you guilty.

Does this mean you've raped her?

I don't think a story like that would hold up at all and basically all the crap on here is probably my a lot of rapes are never reported because a lot of people blame the girl which in most cases is pretty shocking..
Girls who cry false rape are lower than low but without evidence it rarely gets that far to be honest

[spaceman70]

Well then you need to bring in a timescale for reporting such crimes, I don't think there is the same stigma for victims now as there were 18 years ago.
I also realise there are exceptions to this rule like domestic rape, but they should be treated exactly as that exceptions.

[Astonvilla]

I didnt realise that so many people were completely naive about our criminal justice system.

Believing someone is guilty just because a British court has found them so is as idiotic as believing someone who is found not guilty must be innocent. Getting the correct result is far less important than the legal profession enriching themselves and showing they are cleverer than the lawyer opposing them.

[ChrisW]

There was another case in Teesside Crown Court today. 2 guys who murdered a boxer. The evidence was pretty conclusive. So to say that the justice system is totally not correct is wrong.