spirit of league said:
actually reefy, seems to me that's exactly what you're saying.
i'm not saying you haven't got your facts squared away vis a vis evidentiary requirements, but axiomatically speaking ie "acording(sic) to your logic" dreary has summarised you're argument both correctly and succinctly.
the illustration given of ivan milat is not an accurate exemplum as in his case there was sufficent evidence to disprove his claims and a verdict was achieved, whereas in the case of the girl related in the article above there is insufficent evidence to prove (or disprove) her claims and no verdict will be achieved.
Ohh very good, a legal representative.
Why weren't you around to answer real questions like the many posed about Opes's case? Pick & choose your cases?
Now in regards to a verdict never being acheived, well I don't think that is really the case is it.
For if the bulldogs took out proceedings against the Coffs Harbour Liar, for the damages her actions have caused, they would surely win. & have been told as much.
& I for one wish they they would forget about the PR damage it would cause them & just go ahead & slaughter her, to deter these multitudes of false accusations being lodged by disgruntled, spurned & vengeful women.
Interesting article today in the telegraph aswell about the Gasnier liar.
Seems she has a contract with the Telegraph & is furious that the Herald did that report & photographed her yesterday.
Well done the Herald to expose this most recent disgusting piece of trash for what she is.
