Amadd wrote on Jun 12
th, 2014 at 11:42am:
cods wrote on Jun 12
th, 2014 at 9:28am:
I am sure some find it funny you find child abuse funny..and think you are witty.. sorry but your not..
I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a bit of humour. It's an under-exploited tool for dealing with difficult situations.
On the balance of evidence given, I'd say it's about a 65/35 probability that Rolf has at least overstepped the mark with a girl/girls not of legal age. I'd also reckon it's about a 90% chance that he was nowhere near the monster that the prosecution is trying to portray.
It will be a difficult decision for the jury either way,
but the lack of hard evidence gives cause for doubt. its only the males on here though have you noticed??...perhaps they have a few dark secrets of their own who knows..
what do you call a monster..
if he just let his hands rove over her body the fact she was a child shouldnt matter...
is that what you think??...
just what sort of HARD EVIDENCE do you guys have in mind.. when a child is involved and that child has since grown up and found the courage to speak out????
what sort of HARD EVIDENCE should that child have had....to prove a dirty old man thought it was his right to run his hand over her body???..
I am just interested and this has come up before regarding evidence in cases of child sexual abuse
perhaps you can tell me what evidence was/is being produced at the Royal into child abuse...
I am scratching my head to think of something
to think what would sway the judge in the "Court of Amadd".. thats all