From the BBC article today:
"All gave full statements to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), she said, but the remaining eight were told their cases would not be progressed as there was already enough evidence against Worboys."
"The CPS said 83 complaints were made during the initial investigation, but many did not pass the evidential test."
So it looks like the authorities were interested in a conviction rather than getting a long time / making sure all the victims saw justice done.
The idea that the evidence of about 70 women did not pass this test is a bit nuts. Is there no weight in numbers? Loads of women, unrelated, all reporting the same story? I know they kept some details out of the press so they could see if the stories matched up when people came forward.
Seems like they thought oh well we've got enough for a conviction, let's stop there, anything else is just a waste of time and money.
Of course if he had been convicted of raping more than 100 women, would he have been out in 10 years?
Why has he only got 10 years when he was convicted of NINETEEN offences, isn't that enough?
Our justice system is fuck all use with crimes against the person. If he'd committed ONE armed robbery he'd have got more, even if he hadn't hurt anyone. At least I think so, they used to clobber people for armed (gun) robbery. Not rape though, obviously.