Justice is done?

No.....................Just a good judge of character.

 

Have you ever even met the former defendant or his accusers?

 

Steady good people, its all too easy to get carried away in cases like this.

We don't know, and probably never will.

 

No...............I know he has some very weird beliefs though.
That alone doesn't make him guilty.
I just think six women who didn't know each other can't all be lying.

 

I have a feeling that what might have possibly gone on back in the late 60s early 70s in this case, is going on today with others.
Its only when time passes, and people get older regrets maybe come to the fore.

Add to that the jimmy saville thing and ...................

 

I think this is going to get tried, outside of the courts, over and over again.

 

Twelve people decided they were. Case closed.

 

Why? What makes you believe that? I'm not saying that they are lying, but they could be.

My point is that we don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Its not our job to know. That's why over the past thousandish years we've built up a good legal system involving as close as you can get to a fair trial.

A man nearly had his life destroyed by some very serious accusations. Some of the accusations were quickly thrown out after the most basic of scrutiny, when the accusers could not be consistent in their story.

The court has ruled that he is not guilty. They had access to far more detail than the rest of us. They got to hear from witnesses and the accusers, as well as the defendant himself. People with actual training in the art of probing for facts will have done so, and ultimately, the court found the man not guilty, so he is not guilty. If there is someone who knows or has good reason to believe otherwise, they should have offered their evidence to the court before the verdict was reached. To point fingers now is morally and quite possibly legally wrong.

 

That's probably what he meant when he said "there are on winners".

Mud sticks.

 

It's highly unlikely that any of the accusers will be named or prosecuted for wasting police time either.

 

That seems unfair to me Ziggy. Why can they not be named? There are so many "unfairs" in this scenario,
Jenny

 

I can agree that its not fair to name someone accusing someone else of sexual assault, wouldn't want to put off folk coming forward. But I don't agree with naming the accused party before the verdict.

Otherwise, well, just look at this thread

 

I agree that they should not be named before the case is concluded. However, afterwards, if the implication is that they have caused a whole load of trouble by making false, malicious or misguided accusations then it doesn't seem unreasonable. If they have lied, I would like to know more about their motivations. If, if, if. No winners!

 

Innocent by Jury so this is the end of it. Or is it.. lots of folk will think he is guilty and got away with it. One thing for sure only he and his accusers know the real truth the rest of us are just bystanders with opinions.