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.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 months 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.