Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Casting doubt on a victim given the evidence they appear to have certainly seems to have merit if what they're saying is true.
Were the jury allowed to see all the evidence? Again if the site is correct (and its authenticity is what should be questioned and not that Evans and his family are commenting on it) it seems that they were not.
|
I have no idea about the credibility of the website. It's get up in his defence so it's really only going to show his side in the best possible light.
What we do know is that this case was tried in full inside a court and in front of a jury. They decided he was guilty and then so did an appeals judge. It is not the job of the internet to rejudge the case on the basis of a advocacy website set up in his defence or to decide what is admissible in court. If there has been a miscarriage of justice then that can be taken up with the judicial system and I believe that what is happening at the moment. We can wait and see what becomes of that.
Until then I think it's pretty reprehensible to have internet campaigns against the victim when there was clearly enough about the case to warrant a guilty verdict. Hell, even if there was no guilty verdict it would be still be wrong for a bunch of internet detectives to take it upon themselves to undermine this woman's credibility.
She has apparently been forced to move 5 times. This is disgusting.