Stuart Hall Arrested
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
Motive/means/opportunity, corroborating witnesses & circumstantial evidence vs alibis I would imagine. What else was there to go on? Defendants previous character I suppose, sounds awful.
Last edited:
Forensic science has been around for a while longer than 100 years.
Well then, why not just get on with their lives, instead of having to bring it all up again?
Its absolutely pathetic. I cannot believe we have women coming forward after 30 years saying someone touched their breasts!
A quick feel is hardly the crime of the century. Certainly not anything that you would be TRAUMATISED for for 30 years for crying out loud.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
OK Mr Pedantic, you know what I meant. When most people hear 'forensic science' they think of the kind of stuff on CSI and not some Chinaman solving a murder case in the 13th century but seeing who's sickle attracted the most flies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why are you assuming that these women came forward? Three woman walking into a policestation saying Stuart Hall touched me 30 years ago isn't the only way this could have come up you know.
No your are right, they probably phoned the papers first, to see how much they would be paid for the story, then walked into the police station.
There should be a time out crimes so people cant drag this nonsense up and ruin and old guys life.
The only exception to this should be something like murder etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You do realize that making wild and cynical accusations just makes you look silly don't you?
Given that none of the papers reporting this have their names or interviews with them I'd say your theory is unlikely.
I'd say it's far more likely that Hall's name was mentioned in the ongoing investigation into the BBC generally and the three women have been sought by the police (i.e the police went to them not the other way around) who have corroborated the allegations.
You sound like someone that doesn't want to believe it (regardless of whether it's true or not) because you like the guy. Generally people aren't charged without a decent amount of evidence against them, you make it sound like anyone could walk into a police station accuse a former BBC star and the next day they'd be arrested, charged and be all over the papers.
It's not as simple as that.
Last edited:
Having never seen CSI I'm not sure I do. In general, I'd credit people on here with more intelligence then assuming forensic science = CSI, but each to their own.
It's more likely that the names of people they are now investigating are cropping up in interviews with people from the BBC, or those already accused, than the individuals themselves calling the papers or walking into the police station.
The "time out" is called the Statute of Limitations. However it does not apply to crimes that are "deemed exceptionally heinous".
PEDO TROLL IS PEDO
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Jesus, you know what was meant in my original post. Would it make you have felt better if I'd have said we didn't have the same level of forensic science 50 plus years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Rampart, you are (or a relative of) a 70/80s BBC presenter and I claim my £5
It's Max Clifford starting his PR campaign.
Let me clarify my position.
Its not even rape. If it was rape I could understand and they might have my limited sympathies after such a long time, but it was not even anything remotely close which is being alleged.
I'm sure we have all had a bit of a fumble in the jungle at some point in the past.
Its not even rape. If it was rape I could understand and they might have my limited sympathies after such a long time, but it was not even anything remotely close which is being alleged.
I'm sure we have all had a bit of a fumble in the jungle at some point in the past.