I didn't say it was but

its clearly relevant and here there was a lack of ANY evidence whatsoever other than the girls own testimony.

On what basis did anyone at the CPS think there was a prospect of securing a conviction for something so serious on the basis of little more than her word against his? I'm not even saying she was lying (although I think based on what i've read she probably was) but they originally decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute so it makes you wonder why they suddenly changed their mind and brought a prosecution. Sure its just a coincidence that it was right around the time operation yewtree was at its height.

Posted By: Jim, Sep 10, 16:16:59