No, I'll carry on until the Sun Arise.East Level 2 said:Stop it; you're acting like two little boys.Ancient Citizen said:You may not be able to tie us down on that one.happy daze said:Yes I'm afraid you're right,will they have a kangaroo court for rolf harris?
Damn me; and you're a mod. Do you not understand the way the great unwashed think on here? He's guilty; the BM masses have spoken. Fuck the jury; they know fuck all.Ducado said:All he had to do was deny it, how could a jury convict with it happening so long ago, Hall admitted it
To be honest if the jury has found him not guilty having seen more evidence than any of us, that's fair enough he is innocent
Ducado said:All he had to do was deny it, how could a jury convict with it happening so long ago, Hall admitted it
To be honest if the jury has found him not guilty having seen more evidence than any of us, that's fair enough he is innocent
They could & would have found him guilty if the evidence was there or the stories were believable .& backed up .if the "victims" or relatives hadnt gone to the press first ,if the Police hadnt allowed witnesses to write a statment together .if the Police hadnt identified the wrong cottage . The crown Prosecution should have tested the evidence (or lack of it ) more thouroughly before proceeding .The jury which had 8 women on it oviously didnt think much of the Prosecution case & dismissed all charges unamiously in little over 5 hoursDucado said:All he had to do was deny it, how could a jury convict with it happening so long ago, Hall admitted it
To be honest if the jury has found him not guilty having seen more evidence than any of us, that's fair enough he is innocent
I think in Stuart Hall's case, the evidence was overwhelming. There were numerous women who didn't know each other all coming up with almost identical stories. I suspect he only admitted it to reduce his sentence.Ducado said:All he had to do was deny it, how could a jury convict with it happening so long ago, Hall admitted it
To be honest if the jury has found him not guilty having seen more evidence than any of us, that's fair enough he is innocent
The Prosecuction case looked very week .but if they didnt Prosecute they would leave themselves open to the acusation they didnt prosecute because he was famouswest didsblue said:I think in Stuart Hall's case, the evidence was overwhelming. There were numerous women who didn't know each other all coming up with almost identical stories. I suspect he only admitted it to reduce his sentence.Ducado said:All he had to do was deny it, how could a jury convict with it happening so long ago, Hall admitted it
To be honest if the jury has found him not guilty having seen more evidence than any of us, that's fair enough he is innocent
In Roache's case it seems that there were major inconsistencies in the stories. He was known as a serial shagger in the 60s and 70s; he admitted in a TV interview that he didn't know if he'd shagged less than or more than 1000 women. It's entirely possible that some of these women saw the prospect of making a few quid and decided to embellish their sexual encounters with him with a few lies. He does seem like a bit of a weirdo though when he's .Tinterviewed.