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.

  • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused

    id also add to assume they’re at least somewhat plausible when interacting with people around them who may be effected in the future

    putting people on guard, as long as it doesn’t negatively effect anyone involved is useful: it’s not a good outcome to have information, keep it to yourself to protect people, and then for someone new to get hurt

    it’s incredibly tricky, and imo false reports are just as bad as true reports: false reports hurt real, and future victims significantly