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.
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.
Yes, “expert witness” testimony sends people to prison all the time. If you don’t know what that is, they are state lackeys labeled experts in whatever field by the prosecuting attorney to go up and lie about why the defendant is guilty in their “expert” opinion.
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.
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.
It’s not evidence to lead to conviction.
Can testimony alone lead to a conviction?
Yes, “expert witness” testimony sends people to prison all the time. If you don’t know what that is, they are state lackeys labeled experts in whatever field by the prosecuting attorney to go up and lie about why the defendant is guilty in their “expert” opinion.
“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?