Comments

1
According to the quote you included from the detectives, they are NOT saying, as you claim, that he didn't commit those crimes. They are NOT saying he didn't express a threat or force someones head down.

According to that quote, they say they couldn't find enough EVIDENCE of those acts to be confident of proving them in court.

So your headline is blasted by your own quote. It really seems like a cheap attempt to drum up controversy. Yes, sometimes prosecutors go with lesser charges when they don't have enough evidence to convict for higher ones.

Until and unless you can argue that they are ignoring or concealing evidence or something, there's nothing more to see here.
2
So now testimony doesn't count as evidence? Bullshit, Reymont.
3
From that quote, the detectives are obviously saying that it is not ENOUGH evidence to convict.

If there are no other witnesses, no other evidence that it happened, and it's just her word against his, than that would certainly seem reasonable.

Unfortunately, both Blogtown posts have gone for strident hysteria and disingenuous slander, and haven't explained whether there IS any other evidence.

Go bullshit yourself.
4
So, don't question that, eh? Since you don't know anything more about the case, let's just trust it! Good little sheep! Or pig, or whatever.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.