Should we always believe women accusers?

[mikegriffith1]

Only when they accuse Republicans, never when they accuse Democrats. That's the rule.

 

[Toro]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

One woman? It’s hard to say.

However, when many women come forward with similar stories, then we should believe them.

 

[eagle7_31]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

Only if conservative Republicans are accused. Left wing dems have no worries as we have seen.

 

[Darkwind]

if she can't say when and where, how does he answer it exactly? he stated he has no idea who she is. is he lying to you? you can't be that fking mental a midget.

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

if she can't say when and where, how does he answer it exactly? he stated he has no idea who she is. is he lying to you? you can't be that fking mental a midget.

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

Easy for the police to validate something that happened over 30 years ago and was never reported to them, or even mentioned to anyone? How do you figure they're gonna do that at all, let alone that it's going to be easy, you retard? The police aren't psychic. If they are, then they aren't getting paid enough.

And please do not flatter yourself by instantly leaping to, "Aha! They're annoyed! That means they're defensive because I'm touching a nerve!" I'm allergic to stupid, and you're enough to produce anaphylactic shock at this point. Take your brain out of the shrink wrap, plug it in, and USE it for the first time in your life.

It is INCREDIBLY difficult to "establish a time and place" for 30 years ago, especially when the person making the accusation has no idea about any of it. You say, "When she said it happened." Well, when was that, precisely? Her letter just said, "In high school, late 1980s". How terribly specific. "Some house, don't know whose, or where, or how I got there". Damn, should be able to validate THAT in an afternoon, with time left over for a round of golf.

Next time, try knowing something before you attempt to think.

Has no idea of any of that?

I keep hearing that.

Please prove this

Buy a newspaper. Do I look like your research assistant, Twinkie?

If you haven't bothered to read a single news story in any vaguely credible news outlet on this topic, you have no business attempting to discuss it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

There's nothing to interrogate her ABOUT, or for her to stick TO.

Even her much-vaunted polygraph only asked her if they had correctly stated the story she gave them, not whether or not the allegations were true.

The entire thing is so much smoke blown up people's asses in an attempt to do through character assassination what the Democrats couldn't do through actually winning elections.

 

[Darkwind]

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

There's nothing to interrogate her ABOUT, or for her to stick TO.

Even her much-vaunted polygraph only asked her if they had correctly stated the story she gave them, not whether or not the allegations were true.

The entire thing is so much smoke blown up people's asses in an attempt to do through character assassination what the Democrats couldn't do through actually winning elections.

She has made a serious accusation. Now let her restate that accusation and answer questions to that accusation under oath with a heavy reminder that to lie under oath is a federal crime. She will be required to provide proof of her accusation.

Then let's see what she has to say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

There's nothing to interrogate her ABOUT, or for her to stick TO.

Even her much-vaunted polygraph only asked her if they had correctly stated the story she gave them, not whether or not the allegations were true.

The entire thing is so much smoke blown up people's asses in an attempt to do through character assassination what the Democrats couldn't do through actually winning elections.

She has made a serious accusation. Now let her restate that accusation and answer questions to that accusation under oath with a heavy reminder that to lie under oath is a federal crime. She will be required to provide proof of her accusation.

Then let's see what she has to say.

Yeah, the problem is that her story is so vague, and so utterly unprovable one way or the other, that there's no way really to nail her down to perjury on it unless she's dumb enough to either change it or start trying to embellish it with the details she's so lacking at the moment.

 

[Darkwind]

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

There's nothing to interrogate her ABOUT, or for her to stick TO.

Even her much-vaunted polygraph only asked her if they had correctly stated the story she gave them, not whether or not the allegations were true.

The entire thing is so much smoke blown up people's asses in an attempt to do through character assassination what the Democrats couldn't do through actually winning elections.

She has made a serious accusation. Now let her restate that accusation and answer questions to that accusation under oath with a heavy reminder that to lie under oath is a federal crime. She will be required to provide proof of her accusation.

Then let's see what she has to say.

Yeah, the problem is that her story is so vague, and so utterly unprovable one way or the other, that there's no way really to nail her down to perjury on it unless she's dumb enough to either change it or start trying to embellish it with the details she's so lacking at the moment.

Gee, that would be a shame...

 

[The VOR]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

Should we always believe women accusers

Their initial accusations most definitely should be taken seriously, not just dismissed.

are you saying that anyone who accuses someone is always right?

No stupid, I'm saying exactly what I wrote. It's not my fault you're unable to comprehend what I wrote.

so you have no basic criteria needed to take it seriously, it's just taken seriously? even when nothing is known about the accusation? I see you all don't want to have an intelligent conversation on this. okie dokie.

Tripling down on stupid, I see. Good for you.

 

[Lesh]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

more than 90% of sexual assault claims turn out to be true

 

[tyroneweaver]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Aren't we supposed to prove a crime occurred rather than your supposition that we have to prove it didn't?

How do you disprove a lie? What if you really are innocent but have no alibi because you were home alone at the time of the alleged crime?

Believing them has nothing to do with proving a crime.

You disprove a lie by proving you were never there. She still has to prove you did something to her.

What if she's to ugly to rape?

Considering how rape is a crime of violence and power, not sexual attraction....that isn't what happens....but thanks for showing your colors there, INCEL.

Ya if you’re blue you don’t have to worry about it. Ie ellison, Kennedy, clinton

 

[Tommy Tainant]

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

Yes.Its not difficult is it ?
A lot of people seem very keen to not open the box. The police already have plenty to go on. Not least is the fact that the principals are all still alive.

 

[bripat9643]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

Nope. Many women lie about being raped and lie about someone molesting their children.

Many men have had their lives ruined by these false accusations.

One you are labeled a sexual predator that never goes away.

Of course women do get raped and most of them will report it.

Ford didn't and waited almost forty hears to tell anyone. Kav is the only one she seems to be pursuing. What about the other three who were involved. How come she's not after them??

she wasn't raped she was drunk at a party 40 years ago and says she was groped by some other person or people who were drunk at a party

I doubt that even happened.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

Yes.Its not difficult is it ?
A lot of people seem very keen to not open the box. The police already have plenty to go on. Not least is the fact that the principals are all still alive.

The police are not and should not be involved at all

The statute of limitations for any charges expired long ago this is no longer a matter for either the police or the courts

 

[jc456]

No, they are not easy things to validate. If they were, SHE would have already done so. That would be the problem.

Easy for the police to do so,not so easy for member of the public. Why are you so defensive on this issue ? It isnt difficult to establish a time and place for events in your past. I did it myself a while back when I had a conversation with an old school mate. All sorts of things can help to verify.
Its possible that Kavanaugh wasnt even in the country when she said it happened. I think it would be worth checking out the story.

dude, what the fk? if nothing was reported, how does the police find out what happened? you thinking the police are following you? ohhhh boi.

Heres a thought, they could interview her and the judge. I really sense that you are keen not to know about what,if anything, happened.

Here is a thought. Interview her under oath. Let's see how long her story sticks.

Yes.Its not difficult is it ?
A lot of people seem very keen to not open the box. The police already have plenty to go on. Not least is the fact that the principals are all still alive.

they do? like what? and why didn't it pop up on the background check if that were so? what the fk is wrong with you leftist dudes? why do you think you have magical powers no one else does? OMG

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

No we should be entirely skeptical about both the accuser and the accused until evidence is presented to a court and the matter is settled to the satisfaction of law.

Believing one or the other before the outcome of a trial contradicts the innocent until proven guilty edict our legal system operates under therefore all judgement of the veracity of both parties has to be avoided until after the trial

It's less a matter of believing Kavanaugh over Ford than it is that 1) Ford has given us very little TO believe one way or the other, 2) Brett Kavanaugh has just gotten done being vetted so thoroughly in regards to his entire adult/professional life that it was just shy of a televised colonoscopy, and 3) everyone involved with Ford's accusation has behaved in an incredibly suspicious and shifty manner.

I'm going to say honestly that, given the nature of the accusations, the way they're being made, and the time frame in which the incident happened, I really don't see anything here that I need to give a crap about in the context of his Supreme Court nomination. Sorry, but I just don't. And no, this has nothing to do with "partisanship", since I don't care all that much about the Republican Party per se, and I was never an enthusiastic fan of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. He was actually third or fourth in my preferences from the judges on Trump's short list.

 

[WEATHER53]

30 years ago-yes
Today-no

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

And except for the fact that the woman has already said she can't answer any of those questions, and now is saying she WON'T answer them, that's a great idea.

Kinda like all leftist ideas: it would be fantastic, if it wasn't for the fact that it can't possibly work.

 

[jc456]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

No we should be entirely skeptical about both the accuser and the accused until evidence is presented to a court and the matter is settled to the satisfaction of law.

Believing one or the other before the outcome of a trial contradicts the innocent until proven guilty edict our legal system operates under therefore all judgement of the veracity of both parties has to be avoided until after the trial

It's less a matter of believing Kavanaugh over Ford than it is that 1) Ford has given us very little TO believe one way or the other, 2) Brett Kavanaugh has just gotten done being vetted so thoroughly in regards to his entire adult/professional life that it was just shy of a televised colonoscopy, and 3) everyone involved with Ford's accusation has behaved in an incredibly suspicious and shifty manner.

I'm going to say honestly that, given the nature of the accusations, the way they're being made, and the time frame in which the incident happened, I really don't see anything here that I need to give a crap about in the context of his Supreme Court nomination. Sorry, but I just don't. And no, this has nothing to do with "partisanship", since I don't care all that much about the Republican Party per se, and I was never an enthusiastic fan of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. He was actually third or fourth in my preferences from the judges on Trump's short list.

again, if the lady believes she was mistreated at 15, then her parents are at fault. why does a 15 year end up at a 17 year old's home if that is what happened. the fact she can't remember the key information of the supposed incident, then there is absolutely no way she remembers names. none. it isn't logical at all. AT ALL. ask any professional.