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.
All the time? Like once a week? Or like every day? Or maybe like roughly every minute of every day of the year?
Can you think of an answer to your question would justify the removal of due process or need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
The legal system errs on the side of letting some guilty people go free in order to try to protect against innocent people being unfairly punished.
That’s why the standard for criminal conviction is that the accused is innocent if you have any reasonable doubt.