Lord Janner

He evaded trial for a long time whilst he was fit to plead. There should still be some kind of closure available to the victims. People can be as fit as a fiddle and drop dead the next so his death today has no bearing on his fitness to stand trial then, only the dimension of his dementia.

The right decision was made. A trial of sorts was scheduled, I don't believe the CPS had arranged that, I could be wrong though. I would have thought the family of Janner would look forward to clearing his name. But it seems not.

I think what was planned by the authorities was some sort of formal enquiry into the facts, which would not have involved Janner being asked to give evidence.

My point though was not a comment on his guilt or otherwise, or the need for closure for the alleged victims. Rather that he was diagnosed with a disease sometime ago that rendered him unfit to stand trial and was also terminal.  The CPS would have been given the medical advice and based its decision upon it.  The Press chose to challenge this, printing emotive and in my view hysterical headlines, trying to make the head of the CPS appear to be negligent or worse.  I thought at the time those papers were wrong to do so and I'd like to think that in the Press coverage of Janner's death there might be some sort of vindication of the CPS's earlier decision. I suspect I'll be disappointed.

I was unaware he was also diagnosed with a terminal illness, the only one I was aware of was the Dementia. As for the CPS, I'm sure it does a very good job on the whole, but that head had made some questionable decisions and Janner's seemed like one where a second opinion would be worthwhile.

Alzheimer's disease is fairly predictably progressive so may well have been considered a terminal illness.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Alzheimer's disease is fairly predictably progressive so may well have been considered a terminal illness.

I've seen material from the Alzheimer's Society and NHS describing it as such.

I looked after my wife's mother for some months before her dementia became too much for us to cope (the property was unsuitable for certain safety adaptations) She was in her early eighties and was diagnosed with progressive vascular dementia. She lasted nine years, not one ounce of muscle wastage or single hair lost in that time. No one ever spoke to us in terms of 'terminal' care, she could have lived to 110, but obviously there was no way she could have lived that long without help. Being left with a mother who no longer knew her daughter was a real strain (especially dreading the Xmas visit, where she would not know why she should unwrap a present, and who were all these people?) Not going meant basically treating her as if she was dead already.

Now my own mum was diagnosed (late) with a different illness, COPD, and we were all given to understand it was terminal. We were given a best guess. My mum lasted a little longer than that guess. Then she died of the disease that was killing her.

I do not doubt that certain disease classifications and pathologies are in flux and the 'best guess' scenario operates. Dementia wreaks havoc with the brain and its worst effect is the degradation and removal of memory and reasoning. In effect any untreated or untreatable disease is potentially terminal. My diabetes could kill me but I'm not 'terminally' ill in the normal usage of the word.

My concern has always been the CPS effectively doing nothing about the allegations, not the man's Dementia. The CPS decision was upheld but the High Court Judge ordered a "trial of the facts". The CPS cannot be vindicated in any way by this man's death as they took the option of doing nothing, which was found to be not in the public interest.

Vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease are not the same condition. The latter is a progressive condition that usually follows a fairly predictable arc. The former is defined by periods of decline (caused by small strokes) and then plateau phases that can be significantly extended.

Their is overlap and variation but the underlying pathology is different, even though the presentation can be similar.

It was a vascular (and later on) lewy body diagnosis. The later diagnosis was prompted only because of funding issues. Diagnosis is somewhat rough and ready (not my words, the experts!) and it is common for sufferers to have more than one type of condition prevailing. Whether it is recognised or not is another matter.

My mother in law has late stage Lewy Body. Awful for all concerned.

MDS posted:

Lord Janner passed away today.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35142675

Given the Press's 'outrage' at the CPS's decision a few months back that he wasn't fit to stand trial due to his dementia, I wonder if there will now be some acknowledgement that the CPS was right and Press wrong?  

There won't be. But the real issue is wether or not the families of those who see themselves as victims of this individual feel that justice has been done. Many, I suspect, will feel that it has not (I believe that at least six victims will be pursuing their cases, even though Janner is now dead). If the CPS is at fault, it is that it has consistently failed to investigate the allegations against Janner, which go back to  at least the early 1990s.

Well credit to The Independent. This morning's article by Andy McSmith acknowledges that Janmer's death vindicates the doctors who diagnosed his mental state and by implication the DPP's decision that he wasn't  fit to give evidence.

Janner being diagnosed in 2009 and subsequently found unfit does show that the doctors did their job correctly. However it does not show, by implication or in any other way, that the CPS dealt with the matter in anything but the most simplistic manner. A trial of the facts could have been considered, the High Court decided it should be and it was rightful to do so. It seems that the matter is still very much 'alive'. The CPS will be desparate for this to 'go away' given their historical track record as Kevin-W mentions.

Why anyone is angling to see the CPS vindicated is beyond me. The CPS, Janner, Police, anyone who may have given a false alibi, even the accusers need to be held to scrutiny. A back-slapping exercise because an old man died? No, I can pass on that one.

You can't stand trial in a criminal court (whether or not a trial on the facts if you are medically unfit to stand trial in the first place) if you are dead. End of.

The alleged victims will be able to give evidence to the Goddard child abuse inquiry.