Stuart Hall arrested/charged/prosecuted

[harvey19 541]

You do not have to prove your innocence in court, the Crown has to prove your guilt. Hall probably pleaded guilty because he realised that the evidence against him being a predatory pedophile was overwhelming and he had no chance of winning the case.

 

What evidence do you refer to ?

There were allegations and it would appear this is what he pleaded guilty to presumably expecting to get a non custodial sentence.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

What evidence do you refer to ?

There were allegations and it would appear this is what he pleaded guilty to presumably expecting to get a non custodial sentence.

 

How am I meant to know what evidence that persuaded him to plead guilty?

 

Do you really think that his solicitor advised to to plead guilty to being a predatory pedophile even though there wasn't any evidence against him? The truth was he vigorously maintained his innocence right up to he saw the case the police had.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

What evidence do you refer to ?

There were allegations and it would appear this is what he pleaded guilty to presumably expecting to get a non custodial sentence.

 

Maybe some of Halls ex colleagues threatened to testify against him.

[Old Tom 10]

You do not have to prove your innocence in court, the Crown has to prove your guilt. Hall probably pleaded guilty because he realised that the evidence against him being a predatory pedophile was overwhelming and he had no chance of winning the case.

 

No. The court only has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So when someone accuses you of a crime that happened 40 years ago and it is your word against their's then that's likely to mean no conviction. However if 6 people jump on the bandwagon and make similar allegations that reasonable doubt gets rather skewed. As you cannot defend yourself in such cases it is probable that a solicitor would recommend a guilty plea even though you were innocent. That is where the system breaks down.

[harvey19 541]

How am I meant to know what evidence that persuaded him to plead guilty?

 

Do you really think that his solicitor advised to to plead guilty to being a predatory pedophile even though there wasn't any evidence against him? The truth was he vigorously maintained his innocence right up to he saw the case the police had.

 

Maybe he was advised to plead guilty and would get a non custodial sentence because he avoided the defendants the trauma of testifying and because of his age.

If he had pleaded not guilty and the case had gone against him he probably expected getting a more severe sentence.

The point is you referred to evidence against him whereas it appears to me that there were allegations without corroborating or forensic evidence.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No. The court only has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So when someone accuses you of a crime that happened 40 years ago and it is your word against their's then that's likely to mean no conviction. However if 6 people jump on the bandwagon and make similar allegations that reasonable doubt gets rather skewed. As you cannot defend yourself in such cases it is probable that a solicitor would recommend a guilty plea even though you were innocent. That is where the system breaks down.

 

I don't think that you can prove a case based on hearsay beyond reasonable doubt, look at the John Terry case.

 

Remember if you are a jury member and you have a doubt that is reasonable that defendant did not commit the crime you have to record a not guilty verdict. You may think that he/her did it, but if that reasonable doubt exists, then it's not guilty.

[Old Tom 10]

Maybe he was advised to plead guilty and would get a non custodial sentence because he avoided the defendants the trauma of testifying and because of his age.

If he had pleaded not guilty and the case had gone against him he probably expected getting a more severe sentence.

The point is you referred to evidence against him whereas it appears to me that there were allegations without corroborating or forensic evidence.

 

Exactly. When several folks come forward and make allegations where any evidence is long gone the chances of a conviction increase with the amount of folk who are prepared to make accusations.

How many women claim rock stars fathered their child. Fortunately paternity testing proves most are made up nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 18-06-2013 at 16:05 ----------

 

I don't think that you can prove a case based on hearsay beyond reasonable doubt, look at the John Terry case.

 

Remember if you are a jury member and you have a doubt that is reasonable that defendant did not commit the crime you have to record a not guilty verdict. You may think that he/her did it, but if that reasonable doubt exists, then it's not guilty.

 

I don't know how many folk were pointing a finger at John Terry.

 

A jury member faced with several accusers all claiming the same would have a different impression of reasonable doubt to a single accuser. If each individual allegation were tried separately then a fair indication of reasonable doubt would prevail.

 

By the way this was not hearsay. These were people coming forward after several decades, all of whom failed to mention the incidents at the time they are supposed to have happened.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Old Tom

[Halibut 12]

These were people coming forward after several decades, all of whom failed to mention the incidents at the time they are supposed to have happened.

 

A sensible and reasonably intelligent jury will of course understand that there are many valid reasons that can account for that.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Yes, true; but there are also dangers in spurious claims being manufactured purely for personal gain.

[Old Tom 10]

Yes, true; but there are also dangers in spurious claims being manufactured purely for personal gain.

 

And in this case there are already those looking at compensation claims againt the BBC.

[harvey19 541]

Yes, true; but there are also dangers in spurious claims being manufactured purely for personal gain.

 

After this sentence I d not think there will be any more guilty pleas in future cases.

[LeMaquis 10]

Yes, true; but there are also dangers in spurious claims being manufactured purely for personal gain.

 

And there's also something called justice. Are you defending a paedophile who's pleaded guilty to paedophilia? Why otherwise would you talk about spurious claims rather than justice for children who've been sexually abused?