Stuart Hall arrested/charged/prosecuted

[SqueakyPete 10]

Does Stuart Hall strike you as the kind of individual who would plead guilty to a sex crime he didn't commit?

Again, can you imagine Stuart Hall accepting responsibility for an act of paedophilia he didnt commit?

 

 

 

All cases from the USA where the system of justice is entirely different from our own. We also don't know about the emotional/mental faculties of the defendants in these cases.

 

Exactly.

And not just comparing 2 systems here,but different state jurisdictions too.

[redfox 10]

There are many reasons why people admit crimes. The most obvious being they did commit the offence and the evidence gathered by the police would lead on any view to a conviction.

People in my experience do not admit criminal offences particularly of this nature that they simply have not committed.

If there was a possibility of a not guilty verdict (and not one that was fanciful) they will run the case before a jury.

There are many plainly guilty people who commit this type of offence who will no matter what the strength of the evidence is or the advice they get from the people defending them, run the case before a jury because it continues the abuse and forces the victim to repeat the circumstances of the offending. That is why particular discount is given to those who spare the victim the ordeal of reliving it all again and in the glare of a trial.

[sand_dollars 10]

There will be a few pop stars of the 60s and 70s squirming at the moment ..................x

[quisquose 10]

There will be a few pop stars of the 60s and 70s squirming at the moment ..................x

 

Only if they've got things to squirm about I would suggest ......

[MrSmith 10]

Does Stuart Hall strike you as the kind of individual who would plead guilty to a sex crime he didn't commit?

Again, can you imagine Stuart Hall accepting responsibility for an act of paedophilia he didnt commit?

 

I don't know the man so couldn't comment.

All cases from the USA where the system of justice is entirely different from our own. We also don't know about the emotional/mental faculties of the defendants in these cases.

 

Just demonstrating that innocent people will plead guilty if there is sufficient evidence against them. Someone must have accused them of rape for them to plead guilty of rape and it turned out the accuser was either lying or mistaken.

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2013 at 13:00 ----------

 

Only if they've got things to squirm about I would suggest ......

 

If you was accused of raping someone twenty years ago, would you have 100% faith in the system we have to find you not guilty? Or would you be just a little worried that you could be found guilty despite being innocent.

[boyfriday 21]

If you was accused of raping someone twenty years ago, would you have 100% faith in the system we have to find you not guilty? Or would you be just a little worried that you could be found guilty despite being innocent.

 

Hall had a QC defending him, he would have had a jury of 12 ordinary people deciding his fate. They would have been a cross section of the community, maybe some with views similar to yours. His barrister would have been well prepared to challenge any inconsistencies or 'weak' witness statements.

 

Hall, given the nature of the offences would not have considered pleading guilty unless he was, in some respects he would have been better off being found guilty at trial, at least then he could have maintained his innocence post release.

 

No doubt innocent people do worry about the outcome, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour..but there was no reason for Hall to plead guilty unless he WAS guilty, this isn't some feeble minded individual with a defence team of also-rans.

[SqueakyPete 10]

I don't know the man so couldn't comment.

 

 

Just demonstrating that innocent people will plead guilty if there is sufficient evidence against them. Someone must have accused them of rape for them to plead guilty of rape and it turned out the accuser was either lying or mistaken.

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2013 at 13:00 ----------

 

 

If you was accused of raping someone twenty years ago, would you have 100% faith in the system we have to find you not guilty? Or would you be just a little worried that you could be found guilty despite being innocent.

 

If there is "sufficient evidence",then I would bet my bottom dollar they are not that innocent after all.

I hope to god you never get called for jury service,especially if the judge requires a unanimous decision from all.

Some paedo could just walk free,going by some of your reckonings!

[MrSmith 10]

Hall had a QC defending him, he would have had a jury of 12 ordinary people deciding his fate. They would have been a cross section of the community, maybe some with views similar to yours. His barrister would have been well prepared to challenge any inconsistencies or 'weak' witness statements.

 

Hall, given the nature of the offences would not have considered pleading guilty unless he was, in some respects he would have been better off being found guilty at trial, at least then he could have maintained his innocence post release.

 

No doubt innocent people do worry about the outcome, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour..but there was no reason for Hall to plead guilty unless he WAS guilty, this isn't some feeble minded individual with a defence team of also-rans.

 

And maybe some with views the same as yours, he is accused so must be guilty, I don't like celebrates so he must be guilty, I don't like rich people so must be guilty, going to court is a gamble, its quite possible he chose the less risky option which was offered by the prosecution.

 

I know that I wouldn't want a jury made of some of the members of SF. Guilty people are sometimes found not guilty, innocent people are sometimes found guilty, witnesses sometimes lie, witnesses are sometimes mistaken, juries are sometimes biased.

 

You don't know Stuart Hall and you don't know what evidence there was against him, you don't know the witnesses or the what state of mind he was in, you don't know what advice he was given or why he chose to plead guilty to the lesser offense, you don't even know why he was offered a lesser offense, yet you blindly say he must have done it.

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2013 at 14:21 ----------

 

If there is "sufficient evidence",then I would bet my bottom dollar they are not that innocent after all.

I hope to god you never get called for jury service,especially if the judge requires a unanimous decision from all.

Some paedo could just walk free,going by some of your reckonings!

 

Been there, done that and there wasn't enough evidence to convict, now a jury made up of some of you lot would be a worry for any innocent person.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

....................yet you blindly say he must have done it.

 

I'm basing my opinion of his guilt on his admission of guilt.

[boyfriday 21]

And maybe some with views the same as yours, he is accused so must be guilty, I don't like celebrates so he must be guilty, I don't like rich people so must be guilty, going to court is a gamble, its quite possible he chose the less risky option which was offered by the prosecution.

But my view isn't the sensational one, I'd listen to the evidence impartially and form an opinion based on the requirement of proof being beyond reasonable doubt, that's what a jury's required to do. To be perfectly honest, before Hall made his admissions I was fairly confident he'd be exonerated because I didn't believe he'd do such as he was accused of, so if anything I was pre-disposed in his favour.

I know that I wouldn't want a jury made of some of the members of SF. Guilty people are sometimes found not guilty, innocent people are sometimes found guilty, witnesses sometimes lie, witnesses are sometimes mistaken, juries are sometimes biased.

..and most people are capable of being balanced in their approach to these things and celebrities are able to afford the very best in defence barristers to put their case and challenge witness statements.

You don't know Stuart Hall and you don't know what evidence there was against him, you don't know the witnesses or the what state of mind he was in, you don't know what advice he was given or why he chose to plead guilty to the lesser offense, you don't even know why he was offered a lesser offense, yet you blindly say he must have done it.

 

But what I absolutely do know is that he's pleaded guilty to a serious range of offences, that'll do for me.

 

I don't need to speculate on the possibility he might have pleaded guilty to crimes he didn't commit, that is totally disrespectful to the victims, some of whom were children at the time.

 

Incidentally if you want to see the evidence against him, there's a summary in the link redfox posted earlier, it makes disturbing reading.

 

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-stuart-hall

[MrSmith 10]

I'm basing my opinion of his guilt on his admission of guilt.

 

And in doing so you have ignored the possibility he is innocent and only admitted guilt of a lesser offense because he didn't want to risk being found guilty of a more serious offense.

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2013 at 14:33 ----------

 

But my view isn't the sensational one, I'd listen to the evidence impartially and form an opinion based on the requirement of proof being beyond reasonable doubt, that's what a jury's required to do.

 

Yet you choose to ignore the evidence that demonstrates some peoples willingness to plead guilty despite being innocent.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

And in doing so you have ignored the possibility he is innocent and only admitted guilt of a lesser offense because he didn't want to risk being found guilty of a more serious offense.

 

Yea he accepted the lesser offence of being labelled a predatory pedophile, the admission has ended his life as he knew it. He will be ostracised from everybody, friends and family and because of his fame he will not be able to show his face in public again. There is no way that he has accepted this lesser offence because of the other allegations, the price that'll he'll have to pay is too great.

 

So do you believe that we should hold every possiblity open at the moment, and not draw any conclusions?

Edited June 20, 2013 by JFKvsNixon