I am entitled to an opinion, it is called free speech, I think the jury came to the wrong verdict, it is something that in my opinion should be discussed, it is not muck raking garbage, why was it necessary for it to be a unanilous verdict?
why did the judge emphasise the importance of evidence of a so called crucial witness, this witness jumped to a conclusion based on a brief vision, and not being aware whether the victim was aware of her presence., concluded it was consensual, no it is not satisfactory at all