I mistakenly believed; any allegation must have some evidence in its support. Under English law, the allegations are the evidence. No evidence is required. The man must prove his innocence. So, when an allegation is made (i.e., Mr Joe Bloggs sexually fondled me between 2000 and 2005), the man must prove he didn't commit this alleged offence in the period given.
District judge Cooper presided over my divorce application. He later made many speculations regarding the allegations.
- The burden of proof is on the Wife. It is agreed between the parties that she has to prove the allegations, not beyond reasonable doubt, but on a balance of probabilities.
In law, PROVE does not equate to exculpatory evidence that establishes a fact. Prove means the mind accepts the testimony of the complainants as being reasonable.
District Judge Cooper believed the rantings of my wife and her two daughters. later I was able to challenge District Judge Cooper's reasoning with spectacular results.
How it all works
False allegations are made the defendant can only disprove those allegations with EVIDENCE. It’s a totally fucked up system. Is that true? Well not exactly.
I met one guy who was adamant about his innocence. He told me that because she (stepdaughter) was lying, so would he. Adding if he told the truth, all he could say was "it didn't happen". Off to Crown Court, he went. The jury acquitted him. So we have two liars standing in court telling lies. His lies were better than the stepdaughters.