Weird, that just doesn't make any sense. I'd like to read the full facts/judgment. Often in these "shock horror!" reports they gloss over some fairly salient details. Reading between the lines, he denied the iron attack, and it doesn't sound as though there was any proof of it - had the burn healed by the time the police were involved? The article doesn't really say.
Nor, more importantly does it say what exactly he was found guilty of, either. In the absence of any evidence of the injuries, and his denial, it'd be her word against his. Chances of securing a conviction on that are pretty slim; the CPS may have gone for a lesser charge with a higher chance of conviction. Sad, unfair, but not unusual.
None of which makes him any of an odious shit, obviously, but it might make the court's ruling a bit more understandable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-Aug-21, Tuesday 14:09 (UTC)Nor, more importantly does it say what exactly he was found guilty of, either. In the absence of any evidence of the injuries, and his denial, it'd be her word against his. Chances of securing a conviction on that are pretty slim; the CPS may have gone for a lesser charge with a higher chance of conviction. Sad, unfair, but not unusual.
None of which makes him any of an odious shit, obviously, but it might make the court's ruling a bit more understandable.