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.
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.
But then we’d have to believe Ghislaine. How about “believe women; except Ghislaine Maxwell.”
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.
The only woman Donald Trump wants is to believe Maxwell. He didn’t move her to a better prison for nothing.
…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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
we already know. figuring out if it’s true is not the point.
Believe women, except for one.
The American electorate has already decided on “believing women”. Twice.
