http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23291465

Either it was brown envelopes all round, or there was next to no evidence whatsoever

I suspect the latter. Though why prosecute if that is the case?

There's a continuing complaint that rape cases aren't prosecuted frequently enough. Maybe somebody wanted to get the stats up?

That is true but the majority of rapes are from people that the victim knows, and those are quite hard to get prosecutions for.

It's a rape case reported years after the event. I'm wondering what you are expecting in the way of evidence.

Well, enough for it to go to court with a reasonable chance of not everyone walking away?

I'm wondering what the CPS (still called that?) thought they had.

a high profile person with a complaint made against him in a climate of we must be seen to be doing something. No physical evidence and just one persons word against another.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

And again. What do you think that would be? Perhaps it is only rape if you get a receipt.

And yet they are looking at Stuart Hall's sentence with a view to increasing it. Looks like personal words carry some weight.

Corroborating statements? Journal/ledger entries? Mr IT's computer and life online and off (they were able to track him down after all this time)? Statements from friends of the girl, for talk's sake?

Three alleged rapes of the girl and the jury still threw it out... All I'm suggesting is the evidence such as it was quite possibly should never have gone to court in the first place, and Eddy has certainly been playing up to that at least. But then I'm wondering what the CPS used of what the police brought them too.

And yet they are looking at Stuart Hall's sentence with a view to increasing it. Looks like personal words carry some weight.[/quote] in Stuart hall's case he admitted it (in the end)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Circumstantial evidence in other words.

That's not for you or me to decide, that's why there was a jury. That's why I'm left wondering at all the trouble to even bring this case to court if there really was so little to it.

i believe that this case was a warning shot over the bows of the other investigations being carried out at this time that go back 50+ years
they are stating to the victims, little chance of conviction, so forget it. get over it

its seems the system(s) is protecting the abusers of these children
care homes, hospitals, TV studios and many unnamed and unknown places that still need to found and investigated

these abusers were in positions to carry out these abuses, and at the time never found out (covered up), even if it was known at the time. but are now in very powerful positions (50+ years later) are able to control the investigations and the outcome of the results of these investigations and the direction of these investigations (it just may be me but the courts seem to protect these abusers when brought to trail and if found guilty, sentenced)

there will be no justice just a complete cover up using the weakest/flimsiest case evidence for some cases, to ensure no conviction, which will enable the serious abusers to get away scot free for the more/most serious of other offences of this kind that need to be brought before the courts, they seem to be controlling/directing the system and investigations and the results/outcome of any judgement(s) reached

do not underestimate the resolve of these abusers, they will go to any, and i mine any, lengths to avoid being found out so evade facing the full force of justice ...

this is IMHO and MHO only ...

There was no possibility of any other evidence. Somebody decided that the case had to go ahead with testimony only, and guilt was for the jury to decide. Not you or me.