Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="david.garrett84" data-source="post: 1261141" data-attributes="member: 8949">20 years old? What a laugh. At least we’re in no doubt now as to why she wanted the attention of being someone whom a Good Samaritan would supposedly rape.<img src="https://i.imgur.com/8tFpya7.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />News.com.au reveals the following:<a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-20-in-court-after-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/cc3242a840621d28aea42f0ab74191ca" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-20-in-court-after-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/cc3242a840621d28aea42f0ab74191ca</a>The woman, foul as she is, is NOT the only one at fault here.Certain elements of the police and prosecutors treat the testimony of the accuser as being as infallible as CCTV or copious amounts of DNA evidence.Testimony, whether in court or to the police, is not officially circumstantial evidence but it is often as (un)reliable as circumstantial evidence. I hate when it is called direct evidence. The idea that the lynchpin of a likely conviction would be mere accusation is sickening. But it’s the norm!The conduct in locking Basic up goes beyond moronic and reprehensible.The idea that CCTV or similar proof is needed to prevent a) an accused being put in remand/jail indefinitely pretrial and b) a conviction for sexual assault or rape is morally and legally repugnant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="david.garrett84, post: 1261141, member: 8949"] 20 years old? What a laugh. At least we’re in no doubt now as to why she wanted the attention of being someone whom a Good Samaritan would supposedly rape. [img]https://i.imgur.com/8tFpya7.jpg[/img] News.com.au reveals the following: [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-20-in-court-after-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/cc3242a840621d28aea42f0ab74191ca]https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/caitlyn-gray-20-in-court-after-accusing-good-samaritan-of-indecent-assault-stalking/news-story/cc3242a840621d28aea42f0ab74191ca[/url] The woman, foul as she is, is NOT the only one at fault here. Certain elements of the police and prosecutors treat the testimony of the accuser as being as infallible as CCTV or copious amounts of DNA evidence. Testimony, whether in court or to the police, is not officially circumstantial evidence but it is often as (un)reliable as circumstantial evidence. I hate when it is called direct evidence. The idea that the lynchpin of a likely conviction would be mere accusation is sickening. But it’s the norm! The conduct in locking Basic up goes beyond moronic and reprehensible. The idea that CCTV or similar proof is needed to prevent a) an accused being put in remand/jail indefinitely pretrial and b) a conviction for sexual assault or rape is morally and legally repugnant. [/QUOTE]

Verification