The relevant part is the part under the sub-heading "Left shaking".
A woman can LITERALLY accuse you of groping her almost 20 years ago and you'll get convicted solely because of her claims.
This LITERALLY happens.
I've read that it's a misconception that all crimes are solved with CSI / DNA etc, but surely there must be more to this case than just "she claimed it happened, and she claimed it to multiple people, so it must be true"?
What am I missing?
x Turn on thread page Beta
Are my perceptions correct (related to the DJ Travis stuff)? watch
- Thread Starter
- 23-09-2014 19:03
- 23-09-2014 19:08
If you throw enough mud, some of it will surely stick
- 23-09-2014 19:12
'He had been cleared of 12 other indecent assault allegations at that trial.'
Then yes, there clearly is more to the case (well the case that found him guilty) than just a woman claiming it happened with no other evidence,and without the full details of the trial, probably best not to make too many assumptions.Last edited by Olie; 23-09-2014 at 19:14.
- 23-09-2014 19:17
Beat me to it Phoebe.
What a pity they didnt put a fraction of the effort into the investigating the rape of thousands of young girls.
I still havent seen an appeal for any more of those to come forward.