Gravity.

[Just-Jude]

It's been proved before that juries won't convict celebs, so why was Stuart Hall stupid enough to plead guilty?

Now watch the rest of them walk free from court!

[jeffa]

Maybe his legal team believed that he would almost certainly be found guilty anyway because the weight of evidence against was such that there was very little chance of acquittal, and that an early guilty plea would reduce his sentence.

[Gromit]

None of these cases are the same. Just bcause DLT has been found not guilty does not mean Freddie Starr will get the same verdict. OK, we have had two or three acqittals, that is not necessarily the pattern. The next 3 that are heard might be guilty verdicts.

Historical cases are very difficult to prove and to gather evidence for.

[albaqwerty]

Wasn't Stuart Hall's 8 month sentence increased?

Where is your proof that juries won't convict celebs? I think Gary Glitter might like to have found out.

[woofgang]

I do love a good sweeping statement!

[mikey4444]

Stupid enough ? Honest enough might be a better phrase.

[Old_Jim]

It didn't help Gary Glitter or Jonathan King. Perhaps they were has-beens and had slipped off the z-list. I suspect that Stuart Hall comes into the same category.

[youngmafbog]

No doubt the evidence against him was more competing, so much so his brief told him to cough.

[ludwig]

I was a naff entertainer who molested people in the seventies, but I won't be pleading guilty, that's for sure.
There were no witnesses.

[youngmafbog]

Oh dear, I can hear the size 12's of the yewtree plod kicking your door down from down here Lud !

[andy-hughes]

Each case is brought to court, and tried on its merits - so the notion that 'celebrity = aquittal' is nonsensical.

If two burglars were aquitted on two separate days, would you post saying 'It's been proved that juries won't convict burglars'?