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.
Not true.
Not all witness testimony under oath is admissible.
Just because someone is under oath doesn’t mean their testimony is automatically allowed in court. There are rules of evidence (like hearsay, relevance, competence, etc.) that still apply.
Testimony under oath can be evidence, but it’s not automatically admissible. Courts have strict filters for what testimony gets presented to a jury. Being under oath isn’t a magic pass.
Stop litigating definitions to avoid confronting your misogyny. I’m not talking about hypothetical scenarios. I’m talking about real court cases in which the judge accepted women’s testimony as admissible.