Not going to defend any rapists on here, I just want to say that anyone knowingly bringing a false allegation against an innocent person for a crime like this, is why so many people demand proof, often when none can exist.
I always want to believe what victims say. I usually go by the mantra of “trust but verify”.
To anyone who is genuinely a victim, all of my compassion goes out to you. I hope you are doing well and that the perpetrator is behind bars. I know they often aren’t, but I can hope.
Take care
For all the rapist defense rhetoric fucks out there in these comments, and there are a lot of you.
Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence. Let’s maybe consider that, maybe, just maybe, of at least 28 women coming forward, with one confirmed rape conviction, that he has raped multiple women/girls. Just fucking maybe. This isn’t about your brother’s/cousin’s/dude from high school’s crazy ex-wife with a brain tumor, it’s about the president of the United States, maybe hold it to a different standard and stop painting everything with the same brush.
Exactly 👏👏👏
No one here is in defense of rapists. Your accusations is exactly why we don’t just “believe women.” Accusations aren’t proof of guilt.
Also, there’s a thing in law that’s called “precedent”.
If you allow accusations to be accepted as legal proof of a thing, the floodgates open to allow this precedent to be applied to ALL things.
We don’t like our boss? Let’s all accuse him of rape! Boom! Prison.
We don’t like the head of our HOA? Let’s all accuse her of embezzlement! Boom! Prison!
There’s a reason proof is required. And it protects everyone. Even the bad guys.
So you saying trump is not rapist? Or you saying trump is rapist but we are not sure? Are you not sure that he is rapist? Are you dumb?
In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.
For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.
Thanks for bring up an example of precedence. It helps a lot.
And look at that statement:
could significantly enhance credibility and probative value.
could significantly enhance credibility.
It’s not evidence to lead to conviction.
“Great job, that definitely shows he’s a rapist, but we still can’t say he’s a rapist!” - You, that’s what you sound like.
I thought you said you were going to block me, whatever happened to that?
I’ll just copy and paste this again.
At least 28 women/girls have come forward, and he has been convicted of rape and bragged about taking advantage of women, his best friend ran an industry of rape, how much more do you fucking need? Stop defending a rapist.
I’ll just copy and paste this again;
That’s certainly proof of character, but it’s not evidence. There’s no way you can frame this that doesn’t end in being thrown out of court without something substantial that puts him there and committing the act.
Blood samples, photographs, surveillance video, admission, etc… these things are proof.
Prior convictions won’t count as evidence. But they help with m proof of character- which can only help the prosecution, but doesn’t close a case.
Imagine if I didn’t like you and I got say, 28 people to accuse you of harassment here on lemmy. As a result, you get banned. Is that fair? Now, imagine you DID harass me and 27 other people. As a result you get banned. Is that fair?
If you’re honest, you’d answer no to the first, and yes to the second.
And that is why we don’t allow accusations to serve as proof.
Wanting something bad enough is not a legal precedent. Everyone has rights.
Everyone other than his victims, it would seem.
Are you saying that no rape victim ever received justice? Or maybe you’re willing to change your statement so that it presets in a way that says you’re pissed of that just HE is able to get away with it.
Because if it’s the latter, understand that you’re willing to change our entire legal system to prosecute anyone based on accusation alone-
Just to incarcerate one person.
Are you being obtuse or are you that stupid?
I’m blocking you now. You’re here to waste time.
Because a list is a smoking gun. This is why we have a system of law that states that an accusation is not proof of guilt.
Believe women? All of them?
Ask Pam Bondi if the files are relevant. Shes a woman, so whatever she says must be true, right?
Fuck this cheap rage bait and let the files speak.
Ever heard of context or do you just interpret everything as a universal statement?
I just interpret this as you assholes interpret others.
Aww, are you just so mad that people don’t like obvious rapists and pedophiles? That strike a nerve for you? You gonna cry?
…because that’s not how our justice system has worked at any point in our entire history? Are you serious? One needs actual physical evidence.
Also, why if you believe them, why did you…cut off all their faces? What the…
That’s not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.
Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.
The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).
Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don’t require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.
The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.
While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.
So while physical evidence can be powerful, it’s not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.
This is a rhetoric, guess who’s rhetoric?
Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.
That would only work if the rapist bragged about raping on tape. Oh, wait…
And yet chuds are still out in force screeching “THAT’S NOT HOW JUSTICE WORKS BECAUSE SOMETIMES WOMEN LIE AND MEN HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!” This country is a fucking joke.
So, there’s a thing in law that’s called “precedent”.
If you allow accusations to be accepted as legal proof of a thing, the floodgates open to allow this precedent to be applied to ALL things.
We don’t like our boss? Let’s all accuse him of rape! Boom! Prison.
We don’t like the head of our HOA? Let’s all accuse her of embezzlement! Boom! Prison!
There’s a reason proof is required. And it protects everyone. Even the bad guys.
At least 28 women/girls have come forward, and he has been convicted of rape and bragged about taking advantage of women, his best friend ran an industry of rape, how much more do you fucking need? Stop defending a rapist.
That’s certainly proof of character, but it’s not evidence. There’s no way you can frame this that doesn’t end in being thrown out of court without something substantial that puts him there and committing the act.
Blood samples. Photographs, surveillance video, admission, etc… these things are proof.
Prior convictions won’t count as evidence. But they help with m proof of character- which can only help the prosecution, but doesn’t close a case.
Imagine if I didn’t like you and I got say, 28 people to accuse you of harassment here on lemmy. As a result, you get banned. Is that fair? Now, imagine you DID harass me and 27 other people. As a result you get banned. Is that fair?
If you’re honest, you’d answer no to the first, and yes to the second.
And that is why we don’t allow accusations to serve as proof.
Maybe read the link I posted and stop defending an obvious and convict able rapist.
Maybe they to learn the smallest iota of law.
Johnnie Cochran would be proud of you.
You can believe women and tend to their psychological trauma while also waiting to condemn the accused until they are convicted in court.
Now, the Epstein stuff is very different, there’s overwhelming evidence and it’s very obvious. But as a general rule otherwise, just ruining a life based on someone’s claim shouldn’t be okay.
But then we’d have to believe Ghislaine. How about “believe women; except Ghislaine Maxwell.”
Because there have been too many cases where women have been proven to have lied. (Which isn’t to imply that people are lying about Epstein. This is a general point.)
Let people have due process and release the Epstein files.
There’s a huge amount of women plus Trump’s comments about women. It makes sense to believe them
I like the version “Take all women seriously” over “Believe all women”.
It addresses both problems - some women false report, but if you take all of them seriously, nobody (theoretically) gets away with committing a crime.
I guess it’s not as catchy, though.
Well then maybe I don’t know…post the rest of this image? Why is it all cropped like this? The fuck?
Conservatives hate women having any rights. They want them to be silent sex toys and house cleaners. That what it comes down to. When the list is published the supreme court will step in and de-risk it for trump and the other pedophiles in our society. That being said, it still needs to come out.
Women voted for trump 45/51 percent in the last election. Not a win, but still way too close for as misogynistic he and conservatives are. Lots of work to be done.
the fuck is this cropping
The only woman Donald Trump wants is to believe Maxwell. He didn’t move her to a better prison for nothing.
i don’t think having evidence will change anything. there’s a lot of stuff with concrete proof that he got away with…
he has repeatedly violated the hatch act, commited multiple felonies, illegally fired several federal employees, bungled diplomatic relations publicly, funnelled billions of dollars to his family and friends etc .
he got away with it all 🙄
And he will probably die without receiving punishment for his crimes, and I think that pisses me off the most.
Makes me wish hell was real
Me too, but at least he will die
deleted by creator
It’s not like a list release it’s going to make anyone fall.
There have been other lists before.
Powerful people never suffer because their name are on a list.
But it’s good for business to keep people talking about it. It keeps them from taking direct actions which would have meaningful impact.
I was going to lead with a snide comment like “Amber Heard has entered the chat”, but here’s the thing… A close friend of mine got absolutely fucked over this way.
One day, out of the blue, his wife went psycho. Divorced him, accused him of abusing the kids, coached the kids to say they were abused, the works.
He lost custody, had court battle after court battle, dealt with the most evil, vile shit said about him, none of which was true.
When he attempted the court mandated visitation she would literally attack him and deny visitation. When he recorded her, she broke the video camera.
Then she up and died from a brain tumor.
He goes to court with the medical evidence for her bizarre behavior, and you’d think that would be it, right? Nope. Court tries to give custody of the kids to HER parents, who are of an age that they can’t care for teenagers.
So her parents have to travel from 4 states away to testify that there’s no evidence to support the accusations, that he should have custody of his kids.
Whole process took 7 or 8 years and he finally got custody just as one of his kids turned 18 and could do what they wanted anyway.
This is why I tend to stay neutral on things like this until evidence credible evidence comes out but if it happened to someone I knew personally and god I hope it never does I’d still support them though unless evidence came out that the person I knew was falsifying the claim
The Internet is not a legal court and never intended to be one and judge’s must remain impartial and neutral
This doesn’t mean you should just deny the claim of someone if they have claimed to he abused online, just stay neutral and give them the resources to report it and get it investigated so it can go to a real legal court
I’m sorry to hear that happened to your friend. I had a family member who went through uncharacteristic and risk taking behavior before they ultimately passed from a brain tumor. It happens and it is very confusing for everyone involved. Especially since that person, a very accomplished (decorated officer) intelligent person (genius IQ) randomly started on hard drugs, which just confused the situation further. We got them away from that life just in time to get them a diagnosis. The strain and chaos with that type of illness can be devastating.
That being said, I think the number of women in this case, and the context clues, are sufficient that we can conclude that this guy isn’t innocent. We have multiple different testimonies and his own words about young girls and his own daughter to conclude he was involved in that lifestyle at a time when he was high on money, power and a circle that was judgment free. He ran pageants in the 90’s which just… ewww. Also, I mean who calls Epstein at 5am in the morning and leaves messages? Not exactly normal operating hours. If he wasn’t insulated with limousines and a real estate empire this guy would have been drug through the mud in any podunk town for being a total creep. No one would be questioning when word came out, they’d be saying, “oh yeah, that guy, I can see it”
“oh yeah, that guy, I can see it”
Definitely the vibe, for sure 🤮
Your friend has told you a very unusual set of circumstances that sounds awful. Has he had as many women accused him of abuse as Trump has?
Two separate things, if not even three.
The first point is rule of law, and that’s what the “believe women” statement generally refers to. “Believe women” is a nice and simple statement that completely ignores all complexity in a minefield of legal complexity. Relationships (especially ones that end bad) are incredibly complicated and there are ample cases where women lied for some benefit and ample cases where men actually did what they were accused of. Turning that into blank “believe women” or “disbelieve women” would be terrible either way. It would be just as smart as “believe employers” or “believe employees” in work-related lawsuits. So rule of law dictates that judgements need to be evidence-based.
The second point is Epstein. There’s ample evidence, ample victims and ample witnesses. If Epstein was still alive, there’s very little doubt that he’d be convicted. Sadly he is not and the USA doesn’t prosecute dead people, which in cases like this is a real issue since that also means there’s much less research into potential co-perpetrators.
Third, there’s Trump. In a somewhat decent time line any politician politician worthy of their position accused of a fraction of what Trump was accused (and convicted) of, Trump would have resigned years ago. Sadly Trump is not decent and the US has jack squat of safety mechanisms when it comes to top politicians that are grossly unfit for the office. That’s where the Epstein-files come in. They need to be released, but not to convict Trump for anything because it just won’t work. There’s no justice when it comes to high-ranking politicians in the USA. It’s too much of a legal backwater country to hold actually powerful people accountable.
But Trump’s followers were sworn in to the Epstein files for years now. That was one of the really big topics during Trump’s campaign and it has become much more than just a list of rapists/criminals. If the Epstein files are released and Trump is on them, that could actually turn his base against him, which would be much more valuable than getting him not convicted one more time.
Nope, just the one. He since passed away himself. 😟
His kids ended up being pretty maladjusted for several years, but came out the other side OK. I did lose track of them after he died though, I would imagine that hit them hard. Like their mom it was equally sudden.
I have a friend with a very similar story, but he’s one of the kids.
It took him easily 10 years after he moved out to manage to trust any women at all. He was seriously scarred from that.
What a tragic childhood. I can’t imagine living with the mom would’ve been easy either. 😞 Rest in peace, both mom and dad. I hope the kids take solace in the (perhaps fact?) that it was the tumor that caused this mess, and that they don’t think it was in any way their own fault.
Can I ask what your friend/their dad died of?
Massive sudden anyurism. No suffering at least.
After all that fighting, to go so suddenly. I’m sorry to hear this, even if it might have been a long time ago.
He did end up having a good life. Re-married, a few more younger kids. The funeral was epic.
🥹🥰😭😘
In some ways, the point isn’t just convincing people on here that Trump Is a paedophile and rapist. Generally, anyone on Lemmy capable of exhaling and inhaling knows he is.
The point is also whether you can convince such a huge male population to alter their viewpoint by women’s testimony. Though it should make sense, men have had to build up an intense emotional reaction to the possibility of “women’s testimony” and how much more powerful it is societally than theirs.
I’d definitely agree that’s fucked up. And as someone in a more stable life situation, I’d say two or three is all it takes to answer your question. But for so many people who feel out of control of their lives, whether or not I agree with the silly idea “Men are under attack” I can actually understand the sentiment of “Oh, just their word against his? It’s a conspiracy.”
Abusers generally back up other abusers IME. And so they maintain the narrative of “the women made it up” cos it suits them
I dont know if its any solice to you, but the courts are changing. This story feels like its at least 20 years old, if not more so. My wife is a Family Law attorney, and shes shared story after story where the courts biased is slipping away. There are even entire national law firms dedicated to mens divorce/family law that thrived because they knew how to navigate the bias.
Id like to think your buddy’s story would have a different ending if it happened today
It definitely is.
While I agree that your friend’s story sucks, custody cases are handled very differently from rape cases. The justice system is prejudiced against men in that case, whereas in rape cases it is prejudiced against women. In both cases it would be nice if the prejudice is somehow removed.
It’s less bias against women (demonstrated by male accusers of female perps having even worse odds), but rather that it’s an accusation of a serious crime and thus has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is complicated by very many cases having exactly 2 witnesses (accuser and accused) and often little or no other evidence.
The usual counter to this is to claim that accuser testimony should always be believed and should itself be proof beyond a reasonable doubt because no one would ever lie about this sort of thing, but that doesn’t jive with reality - for example, look at the Duke lacrosse case, or Brian Banks, or Tracy West accusing her ex (to use a few that got significant media attention), or those exonerated by the Innocence Project (a majority faced sex crime charges). For the first two of those, the accuser actually admitted to lying, (even if Crystal Mangum waited until 18 years later while in prison for an unrelated murder and Wanetta Gibson waited until the person she falsely accused had served 5 years in prison and was on the sex offender registry and partway through his 5 years of probation and then had to be secretly recorded because she didn’t want to reveal to truth publicly and risk losing the damages she was awarded from the school district).
Yeah, because the courts are clearly biased toward male rape victims. 🙄
Yeah, that’s anecdotal. And irrelevant.
Look, that sounds like a terrible situation. However, if you’re suggesting his experience is an acceptable excuse to assume women are lying if they accuse a man of sexual assault, then go fuck yourself. I’m not even kidding.
Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An accusation alone is not that. You paint it as assuming women are lying, but you instead want to treat their word as damning proof unto itself, while people like Crystal Mangum, Tracy West and Wanetta Gibson (to name some who got media attention) thoroughly leave the reasonable doubt in place.
An accusation alone is not that.
How about 30+? At some point, the “bias against men” thing goes out the window when you’re dealing with someone like Trump.
No, not at all my argument.
And if you think anyone, without even considering gender should just be believed without any evidence, then you too, should go fuck yourself.
A judicial system does not function on feelings or beliefs. It functions on science. You need evidence in order to consider a position fact. Potentially ruining people’s lives because of personal feelings, is fucking evil.
Edit. The person you replied to mentioned nothing about assuming women are lying, all they said was that they are capable of doing so.
Everyone in here pretending that “believe women” means “convict the accused without any evidence.” Straw man city.
Edit- to add: one of the few insightful things Reagan ever said: “Trust but verify”. We can generally believe women about this, while also caring about actual evidence
So what is the evidence that the justice system doesn’t already believe them?
For one, the inexcusable number of untested and/or lost rape kits
I didn’t say any of… whatever windmill you’re fucking tilting.
And they didn’t say any of what you said…
I’m just saying that false accusations happen, a lot, and yeah, my one friend is just a single data point, OTOH:
“The article begins by reviewing up-to-date research suggesting that the rate of false reporting for sexual assault is in the range of 2-8%.”
That’s not me saying this, that’s the National Sexual Violence Resource Center saying this.
So in a year with 734,630 rapes*:
https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
Somewhere between 14,692 and 58,770 are going to be false accusations? That’s a lot. Like “a lot” a lot. Potentially 10K more than the annual number of gun deaths and 2x the number of gun suicides.
*Unclear if that’s an estimated number of rapes or the reported number of rapes. I’m assuming reported because it’s the only number we’ve got here and there’s no way to know the actual number with certainty.
A lot? No. I call bullshit
Between 14k and 50k lives potentially ruined [out of roughly ~700k already destroyed]? It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to say that isn’t a lot, and a certain kind of stupidity to deny the evidence supporting it.
Edit: Added some words since reading comprehension is difficult for some.
in a year with 734,630 rapes*:
That’s around 700000 lives definitely ruined mate, don’t know where you get 50k
Yes, we already knew this because of the data and the context of the thread. The other poster was not questioning that, which is why I only referenced the cases in which someone innocent could be falsely accused.
deleted by creator
The American electorate has already decided on “believing women”. Twice.
