Two things can be true. He very likely is a POS who is guilty. As far as the articles I've seen there is only hearsay about events that happened 2 decades ago and were not reported to police until more than a decade after they originally happened. Not a solid legal case and given the jury deliberated for a week clearly this was not overwhelming.
Also true these are pop culture articles which likely failed to report key facts. It is entirely possible we will get some information later on that is more meaningful.
Someone more legally versed is there a way to get past the statute of limitations if you can demonstrate some witness intimidation conspiracy?
Actually one of the victims was raped in 2003 and reported it to police in 2004.
I have not seen one shred of evidence. You have she said / he said and NOTHING else - at least that is all I have seen so far. DNA - NO. Eyewitnesses - NO. Corroborative statements from others? NO. Nothing - Absolutely nothing. The guy is a scumbag and likely did it but we can't convict him and send him away for 30 years on this crap.
* Who is behind the conspiracy to get him convicted?
* If there was "no evidence" - how did all the members of the jury vote to convict?
* How did the judge even let it go to jury? Wouldn't the defense team have requested a dismissal given the lack of evidence? I've watched many law and order episodes, so I believe this can happen.
* What larger plot is this whole conspiracy part of? There has to be more to it then sending some random guy no one has heard of to jail for 30 years
Is all the evidence reported on in media? I mean, this guy was an actor in an ensemble show that aired decades ago where he was maybe 6th-9th most famous. He is not the president or Leonardo DiCaprio or Gwyneth Paltrow running over someone on a ski slope.
Media outlets have massive layoffs every quarter. I don't know if investigative journalism has the bandwidth to cover every rape trial so you, the reader, can have an educated verdict as if you were a jury member yourself.
Are you sure this is a standard you'd like to adhere to?
Why not?
Am I to interpret this response as a yes? It is a simple yes/no question that nobody has yet to directly answer-- is the statement "if all members of a jury vote to convict, then there was evidence" a standard you'd like to adhere to?
Is all the evidence reported on in media? I mean, this guy was an actor in an ensemble show that aired decades ago where he was maybe 6th-9th most famous. He is not the president or Leonardo DiCaprio or Gwyneth Paltrow running over someone on a ski slope.
Media outlets have massive layoffs every quarter. I don't know if investigative journalism has the bandwidth to cover every rape trial so you, the reader, can have an educated verdict as if you were a jury member yourself.
Some of us are evidence whores and would like the media to do a more thorough job.
* Who is behind the conspiracy to get him convicted?
* If there was "no evidence" - how did all the members of the jury vote to convict?
* How did the judge even let it go to jury? Wouldn't the defense team have requested a dismissal given the lack of evidence? I've watched many law and order episodes, so I believe this can happen.
* What larger plot is this whole conspiracy part of? There has to be more to it then sending some random guy no one has heard of to jail for 30 years
THANKS!
Anyone going to answer any of these questions?
Why does there have to be a conspiracy? The prosecution presented a compelling case and the witnesses were believable.
Am I to interpret this response as a yes? It is a simple yes/no question that nobody has yet to directly answer-- is the statement "if all members of a jury vote to convict, then there was evidence" a standard you'd like to adhere to?
That’s what you’d like to think you asked earlier but not what you actually asked.
* Who is behind the conspiracy to get him convicted?
* If there was "no evidence" - how did all the members of the jury vote to convict?
* How did the judge even let it go to jury? Wouldn't the defense team have requested a dismissal given the lack of evidence? I've watched many law and order episodes, so I believe this can happen.
* What larger plot is this whole conspiracy part of? There has to be more to it then sending some random guy no one has heard of to jail for 30 years
THANKS!
Anyone going to answer any of these questions?
No man it’s all about vibes. And the vibes say we should let rapists, murders and child molesters roam our streets.
Why are comment replies asking about all the incels getting riled up about this post being deleted? This is a genuine question and doesn't violate any of the forum rules.
I have not seen one shred of evidence. You have she said / he said and NOTHING else - at least that is all I have seen so far. DNA - NO. Eyewitnesses - NO. Corroborative statements from others? NO. Nothing - Absolutely nothing. The guy is a scumbag and likely did it but we can't convict him and send him away for 30 years on this crap.
Nothing... except five different women accusing him of rape at different times over the last two decades. Again, you don't understand the difference between evidence and definitive proof.
I have not seen one shred of evidence. You have she said / he said and NOTHING else - at least that is all I have seen so far. DNA - NO. Eyewitnesses - NO. Corroborative statements from others? NO. Nothing - Absolutely nothing. The guy is a scumbag and likely did it but we can't convict him and send him away for 30 years on this crap.
Nothing... except five different women accusing him of rape at different times over the last two decades. Again, you don't understand the difference between evidence and definitive proof.
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.