I mean they didn't even get anyone to back up Rose's statements that it was only eyes forward never daring to look around while he was in the changing room. Surely if he was innocent that would have been an easy witness to get.Nor was the trust's legal team so confident that they engaged a legal expert of their own to contradict her. Why not, I wonder? Is it that everything , anecdotal or not, points firmly to Jo being right? And that even for big money, nobody in the field who's equally expert, was prepared to sell their soul, and their academic integrity, toliefudge evidence?
Can you imagine an expert trying to say women aren't scared of men in confined spaces and don't fear being compelled to undress in front of them