Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTank77
First of all, they must not have had any evidence other than her verbal testimony.
Second of all, seeing as how he was not convicted, he is therefor presumed innocent.
The bias in this article is horrible.
|
Were it hinging solely on her testimony, the case would not have got to trial. "He says, she says" is no grounds on which to base a criminal prosecution, and there would have been police reports, medical evidence and other elements which could have been brought in instead. The only grounds I can think of which would be valid for dismissing the case would be the lack of ability to cross-examine the victim, but that would have been heavily curtailed given her age and in any event would not have been critical to the case. I am struggling to comprehend the logic behind this decision aside from expediency.
It should also be noted there is still the possibility of action being pursued in the civil courts, so speculation on his culpability or otherwise is best left until all avenues are exhausted. It is not fair on either party to do so in the meantime.