Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How would dates and times being verified, prove anything one way or another. Even DNA evidence is not definitive proof because it doesn't show context. If a criminal wore gloves and left behind no DNA, would that mean that no crime had taken place?  How many abuse and rape convictions have(and could have) verifiable evidence? |
They would help corroborate the statements that Saville abused them .If the women can show they where in the same place as Saville at the same time then it would give some credence to their accusations .Merely stating that Saville abused them in a hotel room is not enough and nor should it ever be
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
How can you effectively prosecute abuse cases then? DNA doesn't last a long time and fingerprints don't really prove anything. Witnesses are rare since the abuser is unlikely to do it in such circumstances.
This is the justice system anyway. The victim's testimony is evidence and the question is if it's reliable or not, if there are many of them and they are dependable then that can be used in court and the jury can decide.
|
That is the problem ,a lot of the time such cases rely on flimsy evidence ,not because the victim is lying but because proving anything is so hard