Search results

probably

If it's all as straightforward as people are saying notwithstanding the known aspects seem less clear, why is his innocence still being discussed. If he was convicted then he would have been guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Why can nobody explain the rationale behind the decision. I don't...

he was acquitted of 7 charges

pedantic of me Dr Watson, I know but it's not 'slightly obvious'

I think you've missed out part of the equation ………………………………………………….. the sex

are you sure?

I suppose I should be glad that I'm not very good looking, boring and get brewers droop. That covers most angles.

I still don't know if he forced her to have sex and I'm not sure anyone else is.

The moral seems to be 'be very careful with who you try and have rumpy pumpy with'

really?

the trouble is, the media seem scared to discuss what actually did happen in case they get it wrong and get sued for libel

I wasn't there when whatever happened and did not even know what came out of the trial.