Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh.
Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.
I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent
Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/ |
So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to
prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.
Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.