Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Disambiguation, Dec 20, 2015.
As the quote says, he would not have faced (personal) trial anyway.
No, but the cases were to be weighed before a jury as a 'trial of facts' in a fortnights time I believe. Although this process would not allow him to be held to account, it would have provided the accusers the opportunity to have their stories tested and verified or not. This exercise alone would have likely been cathartic for them. This leaves the only path for recourse, a civil suit against the estate. It seems notable to me that he signed over his greatest asset, his London property to his children after the allegations were raised. I would consider it manifestly unjust if this transfer were not assailable by the participants of a civil suit were they to win a judgment.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!