egafd.com

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 bother with a trial? Let's just say he's guilty and be done with it.

Works for Blair!

Well, with the appropriate guidance from the judge, I don't see why jurors can't play their part in a fair trial.

After all, the Stuart Hall jury must have learnt a lot about his arrest prior to the trial and they found him guilty of some charges and not of others. And the same could be said about the jury that gave their verdict on a subsequent batch of charges at a second trial.

You're slightly mistaken. There wasn't a first trial. Stuart Hall pleaded guilty before the trial started.

And yes, he was found not guilty of some of the second lot of charges although judging by the er judge's comments in sentencing, he would have preferred to throw the book at him.

I doubt he'll get a fair trial, someone like that will be viewed as guilty from the get-go, so the Jury will likely have decided straight away that he's guilty. I heard 5 accusations have been dismissed and he is being tried for just 2 others. Not sure how it was decided to try him for 2 out of 7, and not all 7.

max_tranmere wrote:

> I doubt he'll get a fair trial, someone like that will be
> viewed as guilty from the get-go, so the Jury will likely have
> decided straight away that he's guilty. I heard 5 accusations
> have been dismissed and he is being tried for just 2 others.
> Not sure how it was decided to try him for 2 out of 7, and not
> all 7.

It's eight accusations from two women he is being tried over and five accusations from two other women have been dropped as there isn't a likely chance of conviction, which must mean given that they have been trying to find something since October 2012 the other two women must be complete flakes.

But I agree with you, I don't see how he can get a fair trial.

Yep, you are right about the first set of cases. I was mistaken.

My point still holds though that admission of guilt on previous sex offences does not make it a forgone conclusion that someone will be found guilty of all subsequent charges.

Rolf Harris is a paedophile.

I can say this because some police people and a few lawyers think he is......so he is.

I laugh at your longing for fair trials you bloody hippy.

What Rolf did with his didgeridoo is no one's business but his own...

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?