Yes more weight but how much of that weight will translate into safe prosecutions? We're talking about decades ago and reliance, in large part it seems, on people's recollections of events. I'd really like to know, from someone operating in the field, how the evidence is being assessed and how they determine the truth from what amounts to differing sets of recollections, some of which may well have been subsequently influenced by other allegations (true or false) which have been made public in one way or another. Evidence such as that can't be beyond all reasonable doubt can it?
---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
However anyone wanting to sue his estate will have to be able to prove their case surely?
|
That'll be a civil matter in which the weight of evidence required is much reduced. Failure of any legal action wouldn't preclude a civil one.