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.

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    “Just believe them” is shorthand for “Believe them long enough to actually press charges and hold a trial instead of dismissing them by default”.

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Between charges and a trial is a criminal investigation. If that doesn’t give enough reason to proceed to trial, charges are dropped.

      A better stat would be %age of accusations that result in an investigation. That should be a lot higher, but police shouldn’t be trying to prosecute cases that have nothing but an accusation to court.

        • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          More capacity to process rape kits is something I can get behind. More evidence is good. It would stop people clamouring for convictions based on accusations alone.

      • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        2 months ago

        So if you are assaulted with no witnesses then having bruises, stab wounds, and other injuries shouldn’t be enough for the police to take any action?

        Because that is the physical evidence that the police routinely dismiss.

        • brown567@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          2 months ago

          That’s because they’re not looking for evidence that shows a crime was committed, they’re looking for evidence of who committed the crime

          Your injuries are evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence of a specific perpetrator

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I think a lot of people are completely missing the point. Very similar to how saying “black lives matter” doesn’t imply that non-black lives do not matter, or that black lives must somehow be considered more important than any other life, the phrase “believe women” doesn’t imply that we should start doubting men, or that a woman’s testimony should be held as a higher form of evidence than anything else. It’s pointing out the clear systemic bias against women in a system controlled and dominated mostly by men who do not want to cede their power and authority.

      One of the many flaws of the English language is how difficult it is to condense a very complex sociopolitical message down into a catchy one-liner without losing a ton of the context that got people there in the first place.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        I’m not sure how you square that definition with what the OP wrote in the headline.

        They said that we wouldn’t need the Epstein files (the evidence collected by the FBI in order to prosecute this child sex trafficking ring) to prove DJT’s guilt if we just believed women.

        I hope you can, at least, see how that appears to be saying that “the evidence isn’t needed if we believe women.” and not “we should take womens claims seriously.”

        You’re right that there are two vastly different interpretations of that statement: (1). Take women seriously and (2). A woman’s accusation is a higher form of evidence.

        OP’s headline is, at best, poorly written but it’s very easy to understand why it appears to be using (2).