View Single Post
Old 26-01-2013, 13:56
IzzyS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8,256
You've pretty much answered your own question there, as you are referring to cases where the Court has been able to hear all parties and decide which they find the more credible. Exactly what isn't happening here. The complainants that we have heard from, because they have given newspaper and tv interviews, I and many others do not find credible, and I am confident that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a Court. The fact is, they are only making their allegations now that they can't be challenged, and when there is money in it.
I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that in a nation with a population of 50m (or whatever it is), some few hundred are prepared to lie for gain - or because they are mentally challenged. Never heard of crash for cash?
I think its very likely that if he were still around, he'd flatly deny the claims but that doesn't mean that he couldn't still be found guilty. Other people can protest their innocence and still be convicted based on witness testimonies by a jury, as far as I know. What is it that he could have said or proven himself to prove his innocence? if there is no physical evidence...im curious what his legal team would have used to prove innocence? since he's dead and the police presumably have been able to gain access to his properties etc., they could find enough evidence (if such exists) to help them come to their conclusions as to whether there's any substance to the claims but again, sometimes people are convicted without the presence of physical evidence.
IzzyS is online now