No, it's not hearsay when the victim is the person explaining it. Kinda the exact fuckin opposite actually
Why didn't these victims file police reports the day that it happened?
Isn't that something you could look into, if you were truly curious about it
It's because she kept seeing him and having sex with him afterwards and saw nothing wrong with it at the time. As she says in the article.
This is hardly an uncommon move for men to make and having sex with a 16 year old is not illegal in the UK.
I think certainly he's committed some sexual assaults but many of the more serious claims are based around insinuation and shock value.
With no proof it is a baseless accusation, and an accusation from a female is worth less than a lie.
Nah you're wrong. Testimony from a victim is evidence. Medical paperwork showing her getting rape treatment the morning after being raped is evidence
It was a different woman who went to get treatment.
His abuse had multiple victims.
The person who showed The Times her rape treatment paperwork, was not the person who he called The Child.
Thanks for pointing this out, because now I know for certain it's fake.
SueBoyle |4 pointswritten 7 months ago ago
And this is all hearsay isn't it?