harvey19 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 So you almost answer your own question. In cases where the passage of time has withered the memory and recollection of the key facts the case will proceed no further because the 'victims' would be eaten alive by the defence in the witness box. Hall plead guilty because advance disclosure of the evidence against him must have been sufficiently compelling for him not not want to chance it. Remember the evidence has to convince a jury of people just like you and me, they won't be bamboozled by a couple of ropey allegations. I believe he pleaded guilty to avoid a rape charge which would have attracted a custodial sentence if found guilty and expected a non custodial sentence for pleading guilty to indecent assault. As you state in your first paragraph the witness would have had an hard time in the witness box proving a case on their word alone after such a passage of time. The verdict could have gone in either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 i also believe he pleaded guilty to lesser charges to avoid an escalated charge of rape etc and i am guessing he was advised to plead guilty by his counsel due to his age and the length of a full trial, however as yet we dont know the full scale and details of these "assault" charges as far as i am aware?/ and this could range from patting someone on the back side to god knows what? he is obviously guilty of something BUT!!! what exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 As you state in your first paragraph the witness would have had an hard time in the witness box proving a case on their word alone after such a passage of time. The verdict could have gone in either direction. People are regularly convicted on eye witness testimony alone-if 10 people saw you shoot somebody, you'll be going to prison, DNA and other forensic evidence merely gilds the lily! So if 10 (independent) people claim, with total clarity, certainty and tell the same story about Hall's offending behaviour then it's likely to be believed by a jury. The passage of time is only relevant because it might dull the memory ie result in fewer prosecutions, it doesn't mean a jury are going to make any concessions in that respect. So cases of this nature are harder to bring to court, not easier. Hall plead guilty because he is GUILTY of the charges laid against him, he isn't sort of guilty because he fell on his sword due to a spurious rape allegation hanging over him. i also believe he pleaded guilty to lesser charges to avoid an escalated charge of rape etc and i am guessing he was advised to plead guilty by his counsel due to his age and the length of a full trial, however as yet we dont know the full scale and details of these "assault" charges as far as i am aware?/ and this could range from patting someone on the back side to god knows what? he is obviously guilty of something BUT!!! what exactly So you believe he was guilty of the rape allegation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Again: none of us has heard the evidence, only journalists' limited reports of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 People are regularly convicted on eye witness testimony alone-if 10 people saw you shoot somebody, you'll be going to prison, DNA and other forensic evidence merely gilds the lily! So if 10 (independent) people claim, with total clarity, certainty and tell the same story about Hall's offending behaviour then it's likely to be believed by a jury. The passage of time is only relevant because it might dull the memory ie result in fewer prosecutions, it doesn't mean a jury are going to make any concessions in that respect. So cases of this nature are harder to bring to court, not easier. Hall plead guilty because he is GUILTY of the charges laid against him, he isn't sort of guilty because he fell on his sword due to a spurious rape allegation hanging over him. So you believe he was guilty of the rape allegation? Or create false memories, its very common to have memories of events that didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 People are regularly convicted on eye witness testimony alone-if 10 people saw you shoot somebody, you'll be going to prison, DNA and other forensic evidence merely gilds the lily! So if 10 (independent) people claim, with total clarity, certainty and tell the same story about Hall's offending behaviour then it's likely to be believed by a jury. But here we are not dealing with one offence where there are several witnesses we are dealing with separate assaults with only one witness to each assault. I have read the judges transcript and the offences vary. The passage of time is only relevant because it might dull the memory ie result in fewer prosecutions, it doesn't mean a jury are going to make any concessions in that respect. The passage of time will be an important factor in the cross examination of any witness in determining relevant factors in relation to the allegations. So cases of this nature are harder to bring to court, not easier. Hall plead guilty because he is GUILTY of the charges laid against him, he isn't sort of guilty because he fell on his sword due to a spurious rape allegation hanging over h No one is saying he is not guilty of the crimes he pleaded guilty to or of the rape allegation which was not proceeded with what is being discussed is what the outcome would have been if he had pleaded not guilty and why he decided to plead guilty. ---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 16:49 ---------- Again: none of us has heard the evidence, only journalists' limited reports of it. There was a transcript of the Judges summing up posted on here earlier this week, I don't know if it is still on or has been removed. I don't think it appropriate to discuss it in detail on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 A summing-up is merely part of directions to the jury; it too is not 'the evidence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 A summing-up is merely part of directions to the jury; it too is not 'the evidence'. I fully appreciate that but it outlines the alleged offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I fully appreciate that but it outlines the alleged offences. Well, yes- the charges brought, against which the defendant is found guilty or not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 There was no trial ! He pleaded guilty - there was no summing up only the sentencing remarks. I have no doubt at all he pleaded guilty to make sure he was given credit (discount) for pleading guilty - that's the law after all. As to why the rape complaint was not pursued I think it is obvious that in a high profile case such as this that it will have been done with the consent of that alleged victim. The fact these incidents occurred a long time ago makes it more difficult both to prosecute and defend than say incidents last month. It does not stop them being prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts