Even if we take into consideration that 90% (out of 25) could be lying (they aren’t), that’s still ~3 women he assaulted.

Edit: Damn y’all, thanks for that old internet feeling I keep coming back to Lemmy for. Not a girl in sight in these comments.

Is testifying under oath not considered evidence? There have been so many credible lawsuits against this guy for sexual assault. Honestly what are these files going to prove that we don’t already have plenty of evidence for?

And lastly, do you have any idea what going after a rich powerful man for sexually assaulting you does to your life? Why the fuck would anybody put themselves through that if they weren’t absolutely sure they had a credible case? Some of the plaintiffs in these cases had their lives and their family’s lives threatened and disrupted.

Welp, to the bottom with me I suppose.

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    83·
    11 days ago

    I don’t care who is accused - I refuse to convict anyone on anything just from an accusation.

    More people making a similar accusation isn’t evidence, at best that’s a witch hunt.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 days ago

      I also that, but I’m also in support of massively reforging the legal system so that everyone can and will use it appropriately.

      Which a large part of that will be changing how it is funded and expanding it all that appearing before a court to have your case heard is as easy as possible.

      Any issue before a court shouldn’t be swayed so easily by how much money you can spend on it, or how long you can tie up the issue to delay and it avoid resolution.

      It’s a weird situation where I think more is better

    • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      01·
      10 days ago

      You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 days ago

        You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        This is pretty ironic.

        Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.

        Cross examination is where the opposing council questions the witness in an attempt to poke holes in their testimony, point out inconsistencies and otherwise discredit the witness.

        While corroboration means:

        To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. synonym: confirm.

        Cross examination, be definition, is the exact opposite of corroboration.