Why would I or anyone assume otherwise? Do you spend all of this time on other cases, or just when powerful white rapists meet the justice system?
The implication you're making that there was no evidence because the evidence presented doesn't fit your intentionally limited and narrow definition of the word is ridiculous on its face. The further implication that the carefully scrutinized jury (and fully agreed to in composition by the defense!) was insufficient is equally ridiculous and certainly makes me wonder if you spend all of this energy on other cases, or if, gee whiz, there's maybe some other reason why this particular case has your hackles up.
Finally, the idea that anyone else would have to be the ones to provide evidence against YOUR counterfactual is lazy at best and downright idiotic at worst; the justice system worked exactly against the mutually agreed process, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that it wasn't so. Until you can definitively prove that there was no acceptable evidence presented -- and not to your definition but to the definition suitable for use in a legal courtroom -- then your entire point is just small-dick incel diaper pissing. The onus to prove the counterfactual is in you, not us, you chud.
The defense had every right to get testimony stricken and thrown out. They didn't. The judge had every right to do the same, he didn't, nor was he asked. So I greatly look forward to your new argument, which will almost certainly be a feeble, pathetic move-the-goalposts argument that either the judge, the defense, or the entire legal system is corrupt and incompetent. And by greatly look forward to, I mean I'd rather feed my dick into a wood chipper than waste any more time dunking your illogical, moronic arguments into the ground.
LOL, Karen bringing the absolute ether to that dude. Geez. This is like watching Magnus Carlsen play chess against a 7 year old kid with Downs syndrome.
You naifs never have anything of substance to say.
Whataboutism is the stupidest counterargument possible, even dumber than the ones you've already poorly made. Try harder, numbnuts.
So this guy goes in trial while Steve Wynn, accused by several women of rape and sexual abuse over a period of decades does not and you have no problem with this?
No chance the system may be rotten.
You call it whataboutism and dismiss this?
Why? Why doesn't this bother you?
I can say Karen Rodgers raped me. According to these idiots it is evidence even if I am lying. Just idiots.
So this guy goes in trial while Steve Wynn, accused by several women of rape and sexual abuse over a period of decades does not and you have no problem with this?
No chance the system may be rotten.
You call it whataboutism and dismiss this?
Why? Why doesn't this bother you?
I can say Karen Rodgers raped me. According to these idiots it is evidence even if I am lying. Just idiots.
It’s evidence if you say that under oath, and if you can get a couple others to do the same and there was a plausible history of each you being at the same place and time, like at a party, with karen rodgers even a couple decades back, you could get them incarcerated for life, which seems like a tall order but is plausible if karen rodgers happened to spite all of you back then, e.g., they were influential and promised to get you a plum job if you blew them but then blew you off after the act.
Do us all a favor Einstein, and go read about circumstantial evidence and it's applicability in criminal law.
And then never talk to a woman again, although I can't imagine that's really a situation you encounter all that often.
There is evidence you raped me according to your logic, Einstein.
Are you really this stupid?
I mean, yes, you are, I know this, but I have to ask anyway.
If you think some idiot on a message board who can barely post a coherent message is the same as an incredibly cohesive and similar story told by multiple people, backed by police statements pored over in meticulous detail and reports to Scientology all of which tell a complete story of a consistent pattern of behavior, then you're even dumber than the things you post. And that's really saying a lot, because the things you say are incredibly stupid.
Circumstantial evidence, combinatoric probability, Bayesian logic, it's all basically the same. I know it and you don't, because you're an embarrassing clown rapist defender.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Do us all a favor Einstein, and go read about circumstantial evidence and it's applicability in criminal law.
And then never talk to a woman again, although I can't imagine that's really a situation you encounter all that often.
Doubt a real man would ever want to talk to you, Thunder Thighs.
Again, Einstein, maybe take a wild guess of what Karen Rodgers is referring to, or do you not know how rhyming works?
The manner in which you prove your stupidity, over and over again, like a child feebly attempting to do a Rubix cube, is truly hilarious. I'd probably kill myself.
Doubt a real man would ever want to talk to you, Thunder Thighs.
Again, Einstein, maybe take a wild guess of what Karen Rodgers is referring to, or do you not know how rhyming works?
The manner in which you prove your stupidity, over and over again, like a child feebly attempting to do a Rubix cube, is truly hilarious. I'd probably kill myself.
I am probably the best looking guy you ever met - but also a gentleman - if you asked me out I would politely decline but very politely. Let you down gently, babycakes.
Again, Einstein, maybe take a wild guess of what Karen Rodgers is referring to, or do you not know how rhyming works?
The manner in which you prove your stupidity, over and over again, like a child feebly attempting to do a Rubix cube, is truly hilarious. I'd probably kill myself.
I am probably the best looking guy you ever met - but also a gentleman - if you asked me out I would politely decline but very politely. Let you down gently, babycakes.
You definitely give off "perfect gentleman" vibes.
. . . an incredibly cohesive and similar story told by multiple people, backed by police statements pored over in meticulous detail and reports to Scientology all of which tell a complete story of a consistent pattern of behavior . . .
Great. Where can we read these stories, statements, and reports? If they were presented to a jury, they should be publicly available. The court of public opinion demands evidence.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.