Apologies - no offence was meant to anyone and I don't condone the behaviour the man has been charged with. I just have a dark sense of humour at times is all.
I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?
Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?
"I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".
Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.
Not true.
Today's Guardian says: 'The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.'
So that is 10 / 11 women potentially giving evidence against him, plus any witnesses.
There will possibly be physical evidence in terms old diaries, letters, contracts, DVDs of TV shows, etc.
This.
He may not recollect anything (if it happened) but, with this many people involved, and a young girls penchant for keeping secret diarys etc, and the prosecution able to place him at certain times and locations due to his TV/radio and celebrity appearance work/schedule, they may not necessarily need forensice evidence to persuade a jury to convict.
And as we have seen it may well be that some of these women had made complaints and giving evidence at the time of the alleged offences.
We don't know so better to let justice, hopefully, take its course.
Agree about the jokes being OTT but good to read what GWE and Siralan posted. Lesser men would have hid behind "banter" but shows class to apologise.
A spokesperson for Lancs police said "an 83 year old man has been charged..."
Seems a bit late for them to be affording him a bit of anonymity!
Oh blimey not this again. I haven't checked but I would be very surprised if they have come out and named him previously as a suspect. Please don't confuse what's reported with what's the official police response to press enquiries.
My joke was made when practically every male celeb from 70s/80s were being brought in, but now Hall has been charged, I too apologise for any offence caused.
I would never make a direct joke regarding rape, I hope that is clear. Sorry Lifers!
I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?
Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?
"I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".
Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.
Not true.
Today's Guardian says: 'The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.'
So that is 10 / 11 women potentially giving evidence against him, plus any witnesses.
There will possibly be physical evidence in terms old diaries, letters, contracts, DVDs of TV shows, etc.
This.
He may not recollect anything (if it happened) but, with this many people involved, and a young girls penchant for keeping secret diarys etc, and the prosecution able to place him at certain times and locations due to his TV/radio and celebrity appearance work/schedule, they may not necessarily need forensice evidence to persuade a jury to convict.
Think if I were a juror I'm not sure if I could convict a man on that basis.
There is a case here in Oz which is similar to the Stuart Hall case, it concerned a State MP who was found guilty in 2000 of offences which took place in the 1960's and 1970's.
It was basically his word against the complainants and he got sent down for seven years.....
....the man in question strenuously denied all wrong doing and is a friend of my Father-in-Law who was very, very suspicious all along about the whole process.
In short, the guy here D'Arcy held the safest Labour seat in the state parliament but would not play ball with the powers-that-be in the party and hand his seat over to one of their trade union buddies.
They warned him they would come after him and it was not long before people started coming forward against him and making the claims about sexual abuse.
I am all for coming down as hard as possible against rapists but I still don't see how you can possibly prove anything 20 to 30 years after the event.
I dont know how they can possibly get a conviction. Whether he is guilty or not, how on earth can they prove it other than someones word against his?
Depending on your age, could any of you remember a bird you did 40 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 10? Somebody famous like him must have had loads of women. So what is his defence going to be?
"I have no recollection whatsoever of this person or event".
Prosecution evidence will be one person's recollection of events. It's extremely unlikely that there is any physical evidence 30-40 years after the alleged offences.
Not true.
Today's Guardian says: 'The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.'
So that is 10 / 11 women potentially giving evidence against him, plus any witnesses.
There will possibly be physical evidence in terms old diaries, letters, contracts, DVDs of TV shows, etc.
This.
He may not recollect anything (if it happened) but, with this many people involved, and a young girls penchant for keeping secret diarys etc, and the prosecution able to place him at certain times and locations due to his TV/radio and celebrity appearance work/schedule, they may not necessarily need forensice evidence to persuade a jury to convict.
Think if I were a juror I'm not sure if I could convict a man on that basis.
Mine is just a theory on what the CPS could have, they, I believe would have more detail and facts.
There is a case here in Oz which is similar to the Stuart Hall case, it concerned a State MP who was found guilty in 2000 of offences which took place in the 1960's and 1970's.
It was basically his word against the complainants and he got sent down for seven years.....
....the man in question strenuously denied all wrong doing and is a friend of my Father-in-Law who was very, very suspicious all along about the whole process.
In short, the guy here D'Arcy held the safest Labour seat in the state parliament but would not play ball with the powers-that-be in the party and hand his seat over to one of their trade union buddies.
They warned him they would come after him and it was not long before people started coming forward against him and making the claims about sexual abuse.
I am all for coming down as hard as possible against rapists but I still don't see how you can possibly prove anything 20 to 30 years after the event.
Without us being in possession of the evidence we cannot judge if you can prove anything after 20 to 30 years.The CPS are in possession of the evidence and they must be confident they can bring a prosecution,otherwise they will not bring it to court.
I don't like all this "the CPS must be confident of a conviction if they've charged him". It means nothing.
In my (admittedly limited) experience of court cases through two spells of jury service, there were cases where it was apparent straight away that the accused was innocent and the case shouldn't even have made it to court.
I was speaking to a copper mate of mine yesterday as I needed advice about a friends situation (take caution although innocent or go to court and risk losing) and he said he still finds it unbelievable that so many ridiculous cases with very little evidence still get to court. Keeps people in work I guess. I too have done jury service a couple of times. Once the judge stopped the case after about an hour and said to the CPS brief something like "..Is this really the extent of your evidence?" He immediately discharged the accused and apologised to us for wasting our time. He was fuming. The CPS are nothing special, despite their grand name.
This is not one person that has made this accusation it's a good few and they were little kids at the time of offence . Lots of people make things up but when it's more than a couple it's not looking good for the accused
There is a case here in Oz which is similar to the Stuart Hall case, it concerned a State MP who was found guilty in 2000 of offences which took place in the 1960's and 1970's.
It was basically his word against the complainants and he got sent down for seven years.....
....the man in question strenuously denied all wrong doing and is a friend of my Father-in-Law who was very, very suspicious all along about the whole process.
In short, the guy here D'Arcy held the safest Labour seat in the state parliament but would not play ball with the powers-that-be in the party and hand his seat over to one of their trade union buddies.
They warned him they would come after him and it was not long before people started coming forward against him and making the claims about sexual abuse.
I am all for coming down as hard as possible against rapists but I still don't see how you can possibly prove anything 20 to 30 years after the event.
Without us being in possession of the evidence we cannot judge if you can prove anything after 20 to 30 years.The CPS are in possession of the evidence and they must be confident they can bring a prosecution,otherwise they will not bring it to court.
What hard, physical evidence can there be after 30-40 years?
These cases are often little more than the victims word against the defendant, there are sometimes witnesses but not always by any means.
The guy in question here in Brisbane Bill D'Arcy was offered a lenient sentence in return for pleading guilty and he refused, preferring to spend seven years in jail and losing everything (including a lifetime golden parliamentary pension) rather than admit to crimes he did not commit.
Even once he was inside they kept offering him 'deals' to admit his guilt but he never did.
The 'justice' system can be very, very murky at times and Dave Jones is a good example of that.
Also they will interview him with certain techniques and listen to the interview and how he answered things . Regarding conviction it's quite common for the accused to be convicted without dna
Comments
We don't know so better to let justice, hopefully, take its course.
Agree about the jokes being OTT but good to read what GWE and Siralan posted. Lesser men would have hid behind "banter" but shows class to apologise.
I would never make a direct joke regarding rape, I hope that is clear. Sorry Lifers!
Just when I think you can't sink any lower or be more crass and offensive you prove me wrong.
And after other people have all agreed rape is no topic for "humour". Sick, sick, sick mind you have.
It was basically his word against the complainants and he got sent down for seven years.....
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bill-darcy-out-of-jail/story-e6freoof-1111115119037
....the man in question strenuously denied all wrong doing and is a friend of my Father-in-Law who was very, very suspicious all along about the whole process.
In short, the guy here D'Arcy held the safest Labour seat in the state parliament but would not play ball with the powers-that-be in the party and hand his seat over to one of their trade union buddies.
They warned him they would come after him and it was not long before people started coming forward against him and making the claims about sexual abuse.
I am all for coming down as hard as possible against rapists but I still don't see how you can possibly prove anything 20 to 30 years after the event.
In my (admittedly limited) experience of court cases through two spells of jury service, there were cases where it was apparent straight away that the accused was innocent and the case shouldn't even have made it to court.
I too have done jury service a couple of times. Once the judge stopped the case after about an hour and said to the CPS brief something like "..Is this really the extent of your evidence?" He immediately discharged the accused and apologised to us for wasting our time. He was fuming.
The CPS are nothing special, despite their grand name.
These cases are often little more than the victims word against the defendant, there are sometimes witnesses but not always by any means.
The guy in question here in Brisbane Bill D'Arcy was offered a lenient sentence in return for pleading guilty and he refused, preferring to spend seven years in jail and losing everything (including a lifetime golden parliamentary pension) rather than admit to crimes he did not commit.
Even once he was inside they kept offering him 'deals' to admit his guilt but he never did.
The 'justice' system can be very, very murky at times and Dave Jones is a good example of that.