He simply corroborated statements that other victims had given before him.

"It's not like his victims can give an eyewitness description."

In one case, his victim had given him £500, but he gained nothing from the other two victims.

She questioned how a victim could truly give her consent.

In a libel case, all his victims could give evidence.

Some victims would give the crowd no such satisfaction.

The victim gives the money along with his own business card so that the "loan" can be returned.

Nor is it necessary that the 'victim' should give evidence.

Previous victims also gave enough detailed information for police to draw up a sketch of the suspect.

Did the victim ever give any hints as to who might have wanted to see him dead?