boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Or create false memories, its very common to have memories of events that didn't happen. Indeed and if they're false they won't be corroborated by other victims statements. ---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 17:21 ---------- 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. He decided to plead guilty because he committed the crimes he was accused of, the evidence against him was overwhelming and he wanted to secure the sentence discount for making admissions. What would have been the outcome if he'd not plead guilty? The same as it would be in any trial, there's nothing remarkable about Hall or the weight of evidence that would have been required to convict him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 It is very common to have "false memories" - I can't wait to see you provide evidence of this "very common" fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Indeed and if they're false they won't be corroborated by other victims statements. Its possible for many people to form the same or very similar false memories. Let's say you've just witnessed a crime, later, you talk to other witnesses and read the news coverage about it. The police ask you leading questions. Each of these acts has the potential to alter the information you initially stored in your brain. If another witness mentions the criminal's blue jacket, you may very well work that jacket into your own recollection. Likewise, a suggestive question such as "Did you see the man's gun?" could make you believe you observed him brandishing such a weapon even if you didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Its possible for many people to form the same or very similar false memories. Let's say you've just witnessed a crime, later, you talk to other witnesses and read the news coverage about it. The police ask you leading questions. Each of these acts has the potential to alter the information you initially stored in your brain. If another witness mentions the criminal's blue jacket, you may very well work that jacket into your own recollection. Likewise, a suggestive question such as "Did you see the man's gun?" could make you believe you observed him brandishing such a weapon even if you didn't That's why the witnesses should be independent to each other. The police also won't release all the information to the press relating to the offences, but you can imagine the light bulbs will come on when a number of compelling witnesses start disclosing the same information that was hitherto unknown..what would you think if you were a member of a jury hearing their accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 If the witnesses do not know each other, made separate and independent witness statements about it and there were no discussions presumably before they made those statements where does that leave your theory - I asked for evidence not guesswork - and ill thought out at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 That's why the witnesses should be independent to each other. The police also won't release all the information to the press relating to the offences, but you can imagine the light bulbs will come on when a number of compelling witnesses start disclosing the same information that was hitherto unknown..what would you think if you were a member of a jury hearing their accounts? The witnesses could all be linked in the fact they all met Stuart Hall at some point in the past, all got reasonably close to him and all read the same information relating to other cases in which celebrates abused people. The brain then fills in the blanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The witnesses could all be linked in the fact they all met Stuart Hall at some point in the past, all got reasonably close to him and all read the same information relating to other cases in which celebrates abused people. The brain then fills in the blanks. Well obviously if they're all victims of him abusing them then they will have encountered him in the past! But just meeting him would not give them knowledge of his offending behaviour unless he assaulted them. Also don't forget for all the foolish scenarios you keep producing, Hall had a defence team that's seen it all and would devour inept, coerced or false witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 (edited) Well obviously if they're all victims of him abusing them then they will have encountered him in the past! But just meeting him would not give them knowledge of his offending behaviour unless he assaulted them. Also don't forget for all the foolish scenarios you keep producing, Hall had a defence team that's seen it all and would devour inept, coerced or false witnesses. Or they are all people that encountered him in the past have because of media coverage have formed false memories of being abused by him. ---------- Post added 19-06-2013 at 18:09 ---------- Also don't forget for all the foolish scenarios you keep producing, Hall had a defence team that's seen it all and would devour inept, coerced or false witnesses. How would they set about proving a memory from many years ago is false. Much easier to plee bargain and get him a lighter charge. Edited June 19, 2013 by MrSmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 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. . You are right I used the wrong wording. Have you read the remarks and details of the offences ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Or they are all people that encountered him in the past have because of media coverage have formed false memories of being abused by him. But as I said not all the detail of his offending style and behaviour is in the public domain. How would they set about proving a memory from many years ago is false. By challenging the account in court..it's not rocket science. If I said something about you and it went to court I'd be expected to provide a three dimensional account of my allegation against you, not something I dreamt up on the back of a fag packet. Much easier to plee bargain and get him a lighter charge. Really? How do you suppose a 'false memory' fills in the gaps of an indecent assault allegation if the facts were never known to the witness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts