IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
In The Know wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.
... and it certainly is not the accused's fault !!
Absolutely!
Nobody should be expected to defend themselves years after the alleged incident.
In The Know
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.
... and it certainly is not the accused's fault !!
honey!oh sugar sugar.
hedda wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: In The Know wrote: JK2006 wrote: So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.
... and let that examination be based on fact and evidence, not hysteria.
(and if the evidence has disappeared - because the complainant waited 40 years to complain !!! - whose fault is that ???)
I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.
I cannot understand people not complaining...but all 500 ???
I know. It is as if we have suddenly slipped into a Brian Rix farce. And nobody even thinks it is odd.
They said he did it "in plain sight" Well, why the heck did nobody see him then? Unless of course, it never happened.