Are you able to summarise her point for us tdf? The video is over 2 hrs long!!

As for her being able to "prove" Andrew is "innocent" of course she can't. She wasn't there. Just as all those who say they know he is guilty can't prove it and don't "know" it either; except in a meaningless subjective emotional sense.

I think society has lost the understanding of what "proof" or even "knowing" something is. People mistake their instincts or desires for it.

Sadly, procedurally, some parts of the Criminal Justice system at the best encourage this thinking and at the worst procedurally embody it.

One glaring example: re-naming complainants victims pre trial outcome.

I agree that she can’t prove he is innocent and to be fair to her from the bits I listened to in it she doesn’t precisely say that. She says these girls were legal aged prostitutes basically, ie everything that happened to them was voluntary, consensual etc. she says ‘human trafficking’ is an absurd phrase to use in this context and trivialises the crimes committed against genuine victims of human trafficking. Must say I agree with her on that.

If they were all of legal age and were there of their own volition - I agree "human trafficking" would seem an odd description. I don't know how she can be so confident about this, though. Unless she was personally involved or had knowledge of all the young women being couriered to the rich and famous. In which case, she would be sharing a cell with Maxwell, rightly or wrongly.