Lord Janner

I think it did have to be sent. Can you imagine the furore the press would create if he was to turn up at the House of Lords.

I'm not defending him as such. Just the British justice system.

I take your points Ana but in that case why has 'someone' got involved in the letter? I suppose a possible explanation is that he was getting distressed about wanting to go to the House and that this was a way of placating him. When I think about it, when my MIL was in a home with dementia, some days she asked to go home and was very upset and we would reassure her and tell her that would happen soon and describe the flowers in the garden ( the house had been sold for her fees). I never felt that was wrong - but in this case, the letter didn't have to be sent did it if it was about making him feel better.

I doubt, in fact I am quite sure, that he wouldn't have typed the letter himself.

I would have thought that some with dementia would still be able to sign his name. It doesn't require much thought. Practically automatic.

'by someone he trusts'

As for the letter, it could have been typed by anyone and Janner may, in his present state of mental health, be prepared to sign anything if instructed to be someone he trusts.

I'm not making excuses for him, I'm just wondering why the fact that he has signed a document puts the diagnosis of dementia in question.

I'm not suggesting anything, Iam64. Just pointing out that the only question being asked is whether he should stand trial, therefore his name is already besmirched.

I can understand why his family would not want to put him through a trial even if they believed him to be totally innocent, is all I'm saying.

I was absolutely horrified to read about the letter he signed and sent in the past few days. I had completely believed that the 4 psychiatrists could be relied on, especially given the whole climate and context of historic child abuse. Now I feel sort of duped because I really don't see how that letter can be explained given his supposed diagnosis. It had to be typed, printed, signed, posted. What also is awful about it, is that there are genuine cases of unfit to plead and this sort of thing makes it harder for them. I really am finding it hard to believe now that he is unfit although any attempt to overturn that decision will be difficult as, if he is fit, he will no doubt know how to play the dementia card.

Are you suggesting he is an innocent Ana?

Why would anyone want to put their 86 year old relative, suffering from advanced Alzheimers disease, through a court case which could last for years?

His name's already been besmirched - the only question being asked on this thread seems to be whether or not he should stand trial, not whether or not he is guilty.

Exactly, Soutra. I would be banging on the crown court doors demanding to have the case heard so his name wasn't besmirched before he died, if I was so confident about him being blameless.

It is that niggling feeling that facts are being manipulated or exploited to make one rule for some, another for others . Fair enough if you have access to legal advice from top legal "brains" you are going to use it, but he can't use a diagnosis of dementia as a get-out when he has quite recently applied to keep his seat in the Lords. Either you got your marbles or you ain't. Like Ernest Saunders in the Guinness affair, it all seems very convenient and denies justice to those affected. It also frankly leaves a slur on his name and no hope of clearing it, however unlikely that may be. If he were genuinely blameless, would he and his family not want to salvage his reputation?

It's simply too late. You can't try someone who is without his faculties.

what about justice for his victims?

And here's another perspective:

forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/psychiatrist-accused-of-faking-dementia.html

diagnosis for altzheimers isn't completely hit and miss

Given that there is emerging evidence of Janner's recent active involvement in his usual lifestyle eg his personally signed letter requesting his seat be kept for him in the house of lords, just a fortnight ago, I think scepticism about his diagnosis is justified. Rather embarrassing for his family, who cannot explain this. And to quote Janner himself, age and distance in time have no bearing - prosecution should still be undertaken.

I have e just skimmed through this thread for the first time. I would say I am amazed, but no, it is typical Gransnet out-for-blood-any-old-way stuff.

You do know what dementia is I suppose? Surely you must do! How could he possibly defend himself? He probably doesn't know what he had for breakfast yesterday. It wouldn't be a trial. It would be a witch hunt. That's not justice.

Thank the Lord jess has shown some commonsense.

Is it fair to wonder who the doctors are? They should be briefly looked into as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact

Good. That would bring up a lot of things.

I reads that there can be a trial of the facts , which would give his victims the chance to be heard and that a judgement can be made as to whether these assaults took place.

All this fuss about Lord Janner is detracting attention from who else might have been involved.

Could further investigation of LJ turn up others who are fit to stand trial?
Have there been other complaints that have been brushed aside and should now be reopened?

I think it suits many people to have public attention focused on LJ and not on them.

Neat little statement in The Guardian today from Deborah Orr; incredible that a person can be fit enough to make the law but unfit to face it' I do agree though, that there is little point in the expense of a criminal trial, it will only take a couple of questions from defence team to establish that Janner doesnt know what day it is to get the case thrown out.However, i do believe that there should be a case heard by the public enquiry team, it would certainly appear from Alison Saunders and Leicestershire Police statements that there is very strong evidence against him. I would also be finding out how he was able to attend the House of Lords and claim the substantial allowances for doing so when he was unfit to understand anything going on. This is fraudulent representation and was presumably organised by his family who continue to deny his guilt. They should be ashamed of themselves.

petra My husband pointed that out to me this morning - I hadn't been aware of it. Apparently he attended the Lords and made a speech in 2013 re Israel/Palestine (he was a "Friend of Israel"). It does make one suspicious doesn't it.

POGS You can't resist making even a subject such as this party political can you - pointedly referring to "Labour Lord Janner", but to "Leon Brittan" (not Conservative Lord Brittan).

In the I yesterday was a "background report" and, referring to the strong support Janner received from his political colleagues when these allegations were made previously, which included:

"This was not just a case of the Labour Party protecting one of its own. Though Labour's Keith Vaz rose to deplore the "cowardly and wicked" slur on a "distinguished" colleague, the majority of the MPs who spoke in Janner's defence that evening were Conservatives."

I agree, there is definitely a ratty smell about this. The establishment protecting the establishment?