JamesW wrote:
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > Irrespective of your views of what he has done or has now
> been
> > charged with, is it possible to find 12 people who can hear
> the
> > case and judge fairly or is there too much prejudicial
> material
> > already out there?
>
>
> Why don't you tell us what your stance is?
>
> If you were selected for the jury Essex Lad, would you give
> Glitter a fair hearing or not?
>
Well, I've managed to get out of jury service each time I've been selected.
I don't believe that Gary Glitter can get a fair hearing because of all the prejudicial views people have about him already.
I also think justice delayed is justice denied.
He was on bail for 20 months ? he was re-bailed at least five times ? so the police were obviously on a fishing expedition.
As I've said before, in the olden days a complaint was made/crime was committed the police would investigate. if they found sufficient evidence they would arrest and usually within 48 hours bring charges. Now, a complaint is made followed by an arrest and THEN they go looking for evidence while the person is left to swing on bail (Gambaccini, Tarbuck, Osman, Davidson, Starr, Le Vell, Roache, etc) until the police pack up their rods and go home. Even then, there is always the suspicion that there was something behind the allegations.
Unless the accused admits it (Hall), I don't see how anyone can be found guilty on the word of someone from 40-odd years ago.
It is a difficult decision but I would probably grant anonymity to those accused of sex crimes until they are found guilty. Yes, in the case of Stuart Hall more women came forward to make accusations but that is a one-off as most of the accused are not famous.
However, if the accused is not granted anonymity then I would favour the names of the accusers being made public IF the accused is acquitted. I'm sure some people still harbour doubts over the Roache and Le Vell cases but why should their identities be made public and not those of the women who lied about them? I can see that might deter some women from coming forward but it would also deter the malicious and vindictive from making false accusations.
And to answer your question: I wouldn't be selected for Gary Glitter's trial in any case because I've met/interviewed him too many times to produce an unbiased view.