Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 years to life

Hani Saleem wrote:

Newname wrote:

I looked into what the evidence against him was.

Even found this article called what evidence got him convicted.

Link:www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-w...

Read the whole article. Not one mention of any evidence. Just accusations.

Do you wake up every day and ask yourself - "Which loser am I going to defend today?"

btw - testimony is evidence.

dafuq wrote:

Hani Saleem wrote:

Maybe the lawyers realize their client is a scumbag and maybe the victims testimony was outstanding....

Then print that in the articles? Being a scumbag =/= being guilty of a crime. It just reads weird how the articles celebrate the conviction and gloss over the trial. Idk maybe the courtroom stuff was confidential, but it doesn't inspire confidence in the system.

Newname wrote:

Hani Saleem wrote:

Do you wake up every day and ask yourself - "Which loser am I going to defend today?"

btw - testimony is evidence.

Accusations are not evidence.

Testimony from someone other than the accuser would be evidence. There was none

pipppi p wrote:

you can\'t be serious wrote:

No, I completely accept the outcome determined by a properly functioning justice system - that guilt is objectively determined by evidence. Perhaps that occurred in this case, and if so, great! It is fair, though, to inquire what the evidence was. If the evidence is just the testimonies from a couple of people about happenings from 20 years ago, then just say it. If there is more, then provide that. Pretty easy, you see.

You just feeling mad does not count as any evidence. So, let's see if you can provide any evidence. If not, then stfu.

re we really putting away a man for 30 years for she said he Said???

scummy wrote:

stan the corgi wrote:

I don't know any of the details of the trial but I thought the sentencing seemed harsher than usual for the crime(s). Read the CA guidelines for sentencing, whatever happened must have been pretty egregious compared to many other situations of like criminal activity.

It's probably because there was evidence the women were drugged before being allegedly raped. That makes it more egregious because the victims would be more vulnerable.

Newname/unkle seems to be suggesting that the jury was somehow manipulated by the prosecutors and media to convict in this case. That seems to be a unfounded conclusion, considering that some members of the jury were likely men and the prosecutors would have done everything possible in their legal power to discredit the accusors.

Hani Saleem wrote:

Newname wrote:

Accusations are not evidence.

Testimony from someone other than the accuser would be evidence. There was none

Link:www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony

The victims testified.

Newname wrote:

scummy wrote:

It's probably because there was evidence the women were drugged before being allegedly raped. That makes it more egregious because the victims would be more vulnerable.

Newname/unkle seems to be suggesting that the jury was somehow manipulated by the prosecutors and media to convict in this case. That seems to be a unfounded conclusion, considering that some members of the jury were likely men and the prosecutors would have done everything possible in their legal power to discredit the accusors.

What evidence that the women were drugged?

As far as I can tell, they did not make these accusations to many years after the fact.

Have any facts on this?

The jury were likely men?

Any evidence?

The jury got manipulated into a guilty finding by the prosecutor? Happens all the time.

Note that the initial trial ended in a hung jury.

Newname wrote:

Hani Saleem wrote:

Link:www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony

The victims testified.

So what? At that point it is one person's word against another.

That's sufficient to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and put them away for life?

Where are the trials for all the big shots accused of serial rapes in the Me Too movement?

Steve Wynn for example.

Link:www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925827821/gop-w...

what are you doing here? wrote:

Newname wrote:

What evidence that the women were drugged?

As far as I can tell, they did not make these accusations to many years after the fact.

Have any facts on this?

The jury were likely men?

Any evidence?

The jury got manipulated into a guilty finding by the prosecutor? Happens all the time.

Note that the initial trial ended in a hung jury.

What are you trying to achieve here? After a month long trial this guy was found guilty by a jury of forcibly raping multiple women. He was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for his crimes. You have some issue with that? Why? Why here? What are you doing? Is it rape you think should be decriminalized? Are you just trying to create mistrust in the justice system in general? What are you doing?

what are you doing here? wrote:

Newname wrote:

What evidence that the women were drugged?

As far as I can tell, they did not make these accusations to many years after the fact.

Have any facts on this?

The jury were likely men?

Any evidence?

The jury got manipulated into a guilty finding by the prosecutor? Happens all the time.

Note that the initial trial ended in a hung jury.

What are you trying to achieve here? After a month long trial this guy was found guilty by a jury of forcibly raping multiple women. He was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for his crimes. You have some issue with that? Why? Why here? What are you doing? Is it rape you think should be decriminalized? Are you just trying to create mistrust in the justice system in general? What are you doing?

Sonnys wrote:

Bet conviction is thrown out on appeal.

Hani Saleem wrote:

Newname wrote:

So what? At that point it is one person's word against another.

That's sufficient to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and put them away for life?

Where are the trials for all the big shots accused of serial rapes in the Me Too movement?

Steve Wynn for example.

Link:www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925827821/gop-w...

I am trying to figure out if you're really stupid and just incredible naïve.

Either way you have zero understanding of how our justice system works.

He is a POS wrote:

Knew this thread would bring out at least 1 incel.