wallitron

Thank you for giving your insights. Much has been made of the evidence hinging on the testimony of one victim. What evidence outside of the testimony of the victim was most compelling? Did the judge issue directions similar to a Murray direction, for example "Where there is only one witness asserting the commission of the crime, the evidence of that witness must be scrutinised with great care before a conclusion is arrived at that a verdict of guilty should be brought in."?

I know the court was closed during the victim testimony. Were you able to view the transcripts? Is it possible for journalists to make those transcripts public? If the victim's testimony was the most compelling evidence, I wonder why more about it hasn't been published?

I guess the root of my question is, have we reached a time in history where the compelling testimonial evidence from a single person, relating to a very serious crime is now more likely to lead to a conviction. This seems like a cosmic shift in how judicial systems work, because previously, the convictions for these types of crimes was extremely low. I'm positive that reasonable doubt often set monsters free, due to the lack of corroborating evidence. I suspect that this aspect is likely going to be the basis their appeal.

Can you link to something that shows the free license options? I'm only seeing the Free 30 day trial.