Jim Stark Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The problem is, how to find out who is actually trying to use this as a gravy train and which people really did have terrible acts happen to them. Their will be some making stories up to get a few quick quid, their is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. Deffinately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The problem is, how to find out who is actually trying to use this as a gravy train and which people really did have terrible acts happen to them. Isn't this why we put defendants through a trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The problem is, how to find out who is actually trying to use this as a gravy train and which people really did have terrible acts happen to them. Their will be some making stories up to get a few quick quid, their is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. And they will soon be discredited if their versions do no corroborate with Hall's established MO, many facts of which will not be out in the public domain. They will be investigated as any allegation would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtom66 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Isn't this why we put defendants through a trial? But like already said how many people can really remember what happened 20 years or so ago, and yet have any proof to back their stories up..... ---------- Post added 04-05-2013 at 21:39 ---------- And they will soon be discredited if their versions do no corroborate with Hall's established MO, many facts of which will not be out in the public domain. They will be investigated as any allegation would be. How could you possibly know where people are and what they are doing 24hrs per day, if that was the case none of these situations would have happened in the first place would they ?, the fact is these things have happened in private so their is no evidence on any side to prove who is wrong and who is right is their. Only people's word can be taken into account, and as far as being discredited how would any one find out ?, the police aren't going to walk out of the interview room and call the sun saying so and so's nose is as long as pinocchios are they. We don't know if some on the Seville case were lying and I doubt we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 But like already said how many people can really remember what happened 20 years or so ago, and yet have any proof to back their stories up..... If there isn't any evidence to back up the claims, then surely the defendant will be fond not guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stark Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 If there isn't any evidence to back up the claims, then surely the defendant will be fond not guilty? If there isn't any evidence then surely there should be no trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 If there isn't any evidence then surely there should be no trial Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtom66 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 If there isn't any evidence to back up the claims, then surely the defendant will be fond not guilty? on that logic everyone of these claims coming out could be found not guilty, simply because their will not be much hard evidence after such a long time. Will their ?, the fact is someone makes a claim and that has to be investigated but if the other person says never happened then evidence has to be found, if these things happened in private and no one else was their to witness then how do you know which side of the story is true ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 on that logic everyone of these claims coming out could be found not guilty, simply because their will not be much hard evidence after such a long time. Will their ?, the fact is someone makes a claim and that has to be investigated but if the other person says never happened then evidence has to be found, if these things happened in private and no one else was their to witness then how do you know which side of the story is true ? You seriously do not believe that people would be found guilty if there wasn't any evidence to back up the accusations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 I doubt you'd take that tone with him, or anyone else, to their face, so don't be like it on here. Why? coz eez an ard man?..I VERY much doubt that. Personally I don't give a toss what you do or don't doubt regarding me. If you wish to discuss "tone" then I suggest you read "Its" posts. Apologists and those they apolgise for are exactly the type of person that hide their tone/actions away from public view..it's how they operate, they do it behind closed doors with people that have no defense, and they do it with no other thought than to feed their hungry perverse lust. When caught? they cry victimisation..how ironic huh ---------- Post added 04-05-2013 at 22:02 ---------- on that logic everyone of these claims coming out could be found not guilty, simply because their will not be much hard evidence after such a long time. Will their ?, the fact is someone makes a claim and that has to be investigated but if the other person says never happened then evidence has to be found, if these things happened in private and no one else was their to witness then how do you know which side of the story is true ? Admission of guilt...or is that just circumstantial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.