point taken but not sure how you prove some of these things

They leave mental scarring but few physical traces. Absent intercourse or a lucky DNA sample, there is very unlikely to be any physical evidence whatsoever of child abuse even if you got in there right after the event, let alone weeks, months or years later. Even rape is difficult to get evidence for if the woman is too distressed to report it quickly enough.

So other than putting the individuals on the stand and seeing what comes out under interrogation (sorry, cross-examination), you have no hope of ever getting a conviction.

The only evidence you really have is the answers that someone gives, whether its believeable, how they react, whether they are consistent. The only way to test that evidence is to put it to the jury.

It's telling that Saville only came to light because (a) he was dead, and (b) so many people were victims and the weight of (wholly untested, wholly unproveable) individual testimony makes it likely to be true. But what if it had just been one poor girl?

And therein lies the reason why so many of these sick f**kers get away with it, and why so many victims carry the nightmares with them, unspoken, to the grave.

Posted By: CWC, Sep 10, 19:08:26