Obviously, you don't follow the piles upon piles of research on crime victims and why so often, they fail to report the crimes committed against them. In fact, many studies indicate that more crimes are NOT reported, than are reported. The reason? Embarassment & fear are among the top two.
If you had a child who was let's say assaulted and he or she didn't tell you about it for a year, I wonder if you'll tell them they are lying because real victims go to the police immediately. Would you?
Are you among the "Free Jerry Sandusky" troupe because those guys took WAY more than 4 weeks to report the crimes?
You're right. Either he committed the crime or he didn't. I totally agree. So what relevance does the time it took to report it have to do with anything? Either he did it or he didn't, RIGHT? (Or are you arguing that if you take X hours to report it, then it physically could not have happened?)
So, I need to "follow the piles upon piles of research on crime victims" to be able to recognize right from wrong?
Your child example has zero correlation to this situation. She is not a child.
No, I do not want Jerry Sandusky freed. I think both the assistant that observed the one incident and Paterno who received his report should have been held responsible for not reporting the crimes. But again, you are trying to muddy the waters of this issue by comparing it to child molestation. What Hill is accused of doing has nothing to do with child molestation.
The time delay is very relevant. DA's take the time frame of a reported assault into account in their decisions whether to file or not. In a delay like this it becomes a judgment call.
But since you like to consider hypotheticals, consider this extreme example. What if the woman waited five years to file the report? Would you not want to consider what may have motivated her to delay so long from the other perspective? Your presumption that she had a valid reason for the delay is just as knee jerk as the posters that have already pegged her as a gold digger.