Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night.

 

Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. :lol:

 

CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it."

 

Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his.

 

Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If either of you can cite a case where a sexual assault conviction has been secured purely by the victim's testimony only, which has been contested by the defendant, let's hear it. Been waiting since last night.

 

Racist incidents, ffs. Wake up, man. :lol:

 

CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it."

 

Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his.

 

Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

 

Hers too

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've brought a banner about Byrne? :lol:

 

This is proper cringey like, they've been singing Johnson's name for a year despite the accusations of him being a crabby nonce, suddenly they're not as willing to listen to Byrne's side of the story though, she's guilty and needs to go now! Fucking morons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyson's case involved DNA if memory serves. With the Hairy Cornflake there was a plethora of allegations/witness testimony. Taylor was two words against one, too.

 

I think the Tyson one was, he said they had consensual sex, the lass said they didn't. Not really sure how DNA would prove it either way. Not looked in depth at it to be fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...