[Puffer Fish]

Claims are evidence, as a person's past history impacts and demonstrates their behavior. Enough of this and it can establish a set behavior.

I agree it can be evidence, but it is not adequate evidence, or strong enough evidence to really be standing on its own as a primary piece of evidence, to convict someone of rape.
I mean it SHOULD NOT be adequate evidence.

All the women who accused him of rape already knew of all the sexual misconduct he was being accused of before they came forward. (In fact that is the reason they came forward, after many supposed years)

So right there, that makes it problematic to be trying to use that as a corroborating evidence. Because the new accusers fully knew that evidence existed and would make it very easy for their testimony to be believed.



Your argument, Godstud, seems to be that if a woman accuses of man of rape in order to try to get money, we should not believe her. But then we should believe her (and give her money) if that man pressured another woman to sleep with him, misusing his position in the workplace to coerce her.

[Godstud]

I agree it can be evidence, but it is not adequate evidence, or strong enough evidence to really be standing on its own as a primary piece of evidence, to convict someone of rape.
I mean it SHOULD NOT be adequate evidence.

The courts think otherwise, so your biased pro-rape opinion is irrelevant.

All the women who accused him of rape already knew of all the sexual misconduct he was being accused of before they came forward. (In fact that is the reason they came forward, after many supposed years)

Yes. When this happens they often search for other victims of these people's crimes. Sometimes it takes the bravery of one, to inspire others to come forward.

[Puffer Fish]

The courts think otherwise, so your biased pro-rape opinion is irrelevant.

The courts are totally wrong in this case.
That's my argument.

Is your argument that "The courts are not wrong, because he committed rape, because the courts are right" ?
That seems like totally circular logic to me.

[Puffer Fish]

Yes. When this happens they often search for other victims of these people's crimes. Sometimes it takes the bravery of one, to inspire others to come forward.

Except all these women are doing this for money.

The courts are PAYING women lots of money to accuse a man of rape.


The "crime" of this man's previous sexual misconduct also has substantial enough differences from the crime of rape, that I don't think it's fair to be so quick to assume he did one because we know he did the other.

Indeed, the only woman or women who are accusing him of rape and probably not motivated by the money may probably be doing it because they know it's unlikely he would ever be prosecuted for his sexual misconduct against them. (So falsely claiming it was a full-out rape to make sure he got punished, after realising there were other women victims he had pressured into sleeping with him)

[Puffer Fish]

Yes. When this happens they often search for other victims of these people's crimes. Sometimes it takes the bravery of one, to inspire others to come forward.

The problem with that is, the first several women to come forward were not accusing him of a crime (or not a serious crime that would be easy to prosecute); they were accusing him of sexual misconduct.

The first woman who came forward accusing him of actual rape (which is certainly a crime) may have just been trying to make sure he was punished.
(She probably felt "raped" because he made her sleep with him if she wanted the part in the movie, or didn't want her acting career to be derailed. Something everyone knows goes on in Hollywood and the movie industry)

Searching for other victims is problematic when all those women stand to potentially receive large amounts of money for the crimes they say happened.


Do you really believe 20+ women could have all been raped and not one of them came forward after it happened, they all waited many years to report it?

Look, I'm inclined to believe all the accusations of sexual misconduct where the individual women don't have anything financially to gain. (which is not rape)

[Godstud]

It establishes his character, which in this case was horrible. I know you don't like it because you're a pro-rape Weinstein fan.

Coercing someone into sex is illegal, too.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

@Puffer Fish doesn't believe in law, the courts, and lawyers. Although he admits crime exists when you look at his posts, strangely, nobody is a criminal.

If a perp is indicted (no matter how compelling the evidence), it's all a frame-up, and the police are out to pad the crime stats.

Contrariwise, if the police are being prosecuted, it's all a misunderstanding, and the complainants are out to make a buck.

[Godstud]

@ingliz oh... Well in that case it makes perfect sense.

[Pants-of-dog]

Lots of money to afford really good lawyers does not always guarantee justice.

Lots of money to afford really good lawyers never guarantees justice. It almost always guarantees success for the client.

[Puffer Fish]

Lots of money to afford really good lawyers never guarantees justice. It almost always guarantees success for the client.

Translation... (?)
You're a Leftist and have little sympathy for rich people.

[Pants-of-dog]

Translation... (?)
You're a Leftist and have little sympathy for rich people.

Sure.

That does not change the fact that Weinstein paid for a good legal defence and would probably have gotten away with it, unless he actually did and they could prove it.

So that is what probably happened.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish doesn't believe in law, the courts, and lawyers. Although he admits crime exists when you look at his posts, strangely, nobody is a criminal.

If a perp is indicted (no matter how compelling the evidence), it's all a frame-up, and the police are out to pad the crime stats.

Contrariwise, if the police are being prosecuted, it's all a misunderstanding, and the complainants are out to make a buck.

The real problem is paying people to accuse other people of crimes.

Any random woman who saw the news could step forward, make up a story to try to grab some money and enter the fray, piling on top of all the other women.

If a law like that is going to exist, then there needs to be some procedural changes to prevent injustice from happening.

Unfortunately, many people do not seem comfortable with changing either.

[Puffer Fish]

That does not change the fact that Weinstein paid for a good legal defence and would probably have gotten away with it, unless he actually did and they could prove it.

You want to talk about proof, explain to me how there is any way it could ever be proved that these women are lying.

Look how long ago they claim the rape happened.

Why should a witness be believed when they clearly have something to gain and it's a situation where there will be no possible way to determine whether they are lying?

[Pants-of-dog]

You want to talk about proof, explain to me how there is any way it could ever be proved that these women are lying.

Look how long ago they claim the rape happened.

The defendant does not have to prove they are lying.

The defendant merely has to provide reasonable doubt.

It is up to the women who are raped to provide evidence that they were raped.

This is called “presumption of innocence”.

Why should a witness be believed when they clearly have something to gain and it's a situation where there will be no possible way to determine whether they are lying?

The women who were raped gain nothing from Weinstein’s criminal conviction.

You are confusing his criminal conviction with the civil lawsuit.

[Puffer Fish]

The defendant does not have to prove they are lying.

The defendant merely has to provide reasonable doubt.

In my opinion it creates plenty of reasonable doubt that a law exists allowing the women to try to get a huge amount of money for their accusation.

And also since no corroborating physical evidence exists for any of these rape allegations, and each alleged rape has no additional witnesses besides the woman who claims it happened to her.

The real question I think is, is it "unreasonable" to believe throngs of random women could have come forward with false stories, trying to get money, after watching the news?

These women knew there was already a long line of other women accusing him. They already knew (or believed) he was going to prison. Probably for the remainder of his life. They probably believed he was guilty of rape. Even if not that, he was a reprehensible human being guilty of an endless string of sexual misconduct against women. They knew he was extremely wealthy and any lawsuit could result in a huge payout of money for them. They knew they could not be punished for their lie.
Under those circumstances, why not make up a story?
If the guy had lots of money and wouldn't be able to spend it, and they knew (or believed) adding another accusation on would not end up resulting in more punishment for him (and even if it did, they felt he probably deserved it), why would they have much moral qualms about lying? Like many on the Left, they may have felt it was unfair for this man to be so rich and they deserved their piece of the money.

[Puffer Fish]

The women who were raped gain nothing from Weinstein’s criminal conviction.

You are confusing his criminal conviction with the civil lawsuit.

That is not true at all. Are you really unable to see the connection between criminal accusations and a lawsuit?

Do I really have to explain that to you?

Women file police reports, because if they do not, it will make it look like they are lying and just trying to get money when it comes to the civil lawsuit.

If the man is first convicted in a criminal trial, it can also help their lawsuit later.
Because the authorities (illogically) reason that if it has been "determined" that the accused committed the crime, then there is no reason not to believe it when it comes to the decision about whether the woman should get compensation for the crime.

And sometimes prosecutors can push women towards testifying in a criminal case. It's hard for those women to back out of it, because to do so they'd have to let on that they were lying when they made the false allegation to initiate the lawsuit.


While the two might THEORETICALLY be separate, in REALITY the two are intimately intertwined.

[Puffer Fish]

It is up to the women who are raped to provide evidence that they were raped.

You are totally ignoring the point.

You keep saying "evidence", but you totally gloss over the nature of exactly what this evidence is.

The only evidence any of these alleged rapes happened is the individual woman claiming she was raped.

What people like you are trying to do is lump all those separate accusations together. Making the accusation for each alleged crime evidence for all the others.

The fact is, there does not exist more than one witness for any of these individual alleged crimes.

There's really no way to be sure whether any of those individual rape stories actually happened specifically.

It seems to me that what the real argument seems to be is that he is being accused by so many women that at least some of them have to be true.

[Pants-of-dog]

In my opinion it creates plenty of reasonable doubt that a law exists allowing the women to try to get a huge amount of money for their accusation.

Again, you are confusing criminal courts with civil courts.

No one gets anything by accusing people in criminal court.

And also since no corroborating physical evidence exists for any of these rape allegations, and each alleged rape has no additional witnesses besides the woman who claims it happened to her.

Then it should have been easy to create reasonable doubt, but the defendant was unable to do so. This corroborates the claim that overwhelming evidence was presented.

The real question I think is, is it "unreasonable" to believe throngs of random women could have come forward with false stories, trying to get money, after watching the news?

Yes, it is unreasonable since criminal courts do not award money.

These women knew there was already a long line of other women accusing him. They already knew (or believed) he was going to prison. Probably for the remainder of his life. They probably believed he was guilty of rape. Even if not that, he was a reprehensible human being guilty of an endless string of sexual misconduct against women. They knew he was extremely wealthy and any lawsuit could result in a huge payout of money for them. They knew they could not be punished for their lie.
Under those circumstances, why not make up a story?
If the guy had lots of money and wouldn't be able to spend it, and they knew (or believed) adding another accusation on would not end up resulting in more punishment for him (and even if it did, they felt he probably deserved it), why would they have much moral qualms about lying? Like many on the Left, they may have felt it was unfair for this man to be so rich and they deserved their piece of the money.

Again, criminal courts do not award money.

That is not true at all. Are you really unable to see the connection between criminal accusations and a lawsuit?

The criminal court is independent of the lawsuit and the evidence presented there would lead to conviction, not awarding money.

So there can be no financial incentive for women to lie at the criminal trial.

Do I really have to explain that to you?

Women file police reports, because if they do not, it will make it look like they are lying and just trying to get money when it comes to the civil lawsuit.

If this were the case, women would do this for other crimes and not sexual assault.

If the man is first convicted in a criminal trial, it can also help their lawsuit later.
Because the authorities (illogically) reason that if it has been "determined" that the accused committed the crime, then there is no reason not to believe it when it comes to the decision about whether the woman should get compensation for the crime.

And sometimes prosecutors can push women towards testifying in a criminal case. It's hard for those women to back out of it, because to do so they'd have to let on that they were lying when they made the false allegation to initiate the lawsuit.

While the two might THEORETICALLY be separate, in REALITY the two are intimately intertwined.

At the time of the criminal trial, there was no reasonable expectation that HW would be convicted, and by your logic, there would be no reasonable expectation of a successful civil suit.

Therefore, the women would be perjuring themselves (a high risk) for an unlikely benefit.

You are totally ignoring the point.

You keep saying "evidence", but you totally gloss over the nature of exactly what this evidence is.

The only evidence any of these alleged rapes happened is the individual woman claiming she was raped.

No, this seems incorrect.

If that were the only evidence, there would have been reasonable doubt.

What people like you are trying to do is lump all those separate accusations together. Making the accusation for each alleged crime evidence for all the others.

No.

The fact is, there does not exist more than one witness for any of these individual alleged crimes.

There's really no way to be sure whether any of those individual rape stories actually happened specifically.

It seems to me that what the real argument seems to be is that he is being accused by so many women that at least some of them have to be true.

You do not seem to know what my argument is.

[MistyTiger]

That is not true at all. Are you really unable to see the connection between criminal accusations and a lawsuit?

Do I really have to explain that to you?

Women file police reports, because if they do not, it will make it look like they are lying and just trying to get money when it comes to the civil lawsuit.

If the man is first convicted in a criminal trial, it can also help their lawsuit later.
Because the authorities (illogically) reason that if it has been "determined" that the accused committed the crime, then there is no reason not to believe it when it comes to the decision about whether the woman should get compensation for the crime.

And sometimes prosecutors can push women towards testifying in a criminal case. It's hard for those women to back out of it, because to do so they'd have to let on that they were lying when they made the false allegation to initiate the lawsuit.


While the two might THEORETICALLY be separate, in REALITY the two are intimately intertwined.

The judge on the criminal case is not and cannot be the same judge on the civil case. They are treated as separate cases as they are in separate areas of law. There are different standards for criminal cases and civil cases. A judge and jury on a criminal case look at the evidence presented for the criminal case. The evidence from the civil case could possibly be submitted for the criminal case. But each verdict is separate.

You do know that anyone can file a police report? It is a person's right as a citizen. Regardless of the woman's intention for filing a lawsuit, a civil suit is brought forward to declare a claim and seek damages. This is the legal procedure. Whoever established the legal procedure is long dead so good luck tracking him down and asking him to change it.

[Puffer Fish]

The judge on the criminal case is not and cannot be the same judge on the civil case. They are treated as separate cases as they are in separate areas of law.

That is entirely besides the point.

Do you think the other side will not ask the plaintiff why she didn't file a police report?
Even after she wins the civil case it could still go to appeal, which is probably going to happen 2 years later.

The information about a criminal case (or lack thereof) is not kept totally secret from the court in a civil case.

Do you remember that story I posted (in a different topic) that involved a prosecutor pressing the supposed victim (who had just won a civil case) to testify in a criminal case? (The civil case was against a drug rehab facility over an alleged rape supposedly committed by a man who did not even know that the civil case was happening at the time)
Man falsely accused of rape

(In that story, the woman had apparently been assigned a free rape crisis counselor by the state, which she used for emotional support. But the counselor pushed her to file criminal charges. Probably the young women knew if she did not go along with that, the counselor might have reported her and raised suspicions. Someone might then put 2 and 2 together.)

There are different standards for criminal cases and civil cases.

And usually the required burden of evidence is much lower for a civil case, which in this situation makes things worse and leads to a big problem.

A judge and jury on a criminal case look at the evidence presented for the criminal case. The evidence from the civil case could possibly be submitted for the criminal case. But each verdict is separate.

Again, your argument is mostly besides the point.

Maybe you don't understand what I was saying, or don't understand the inherent connection that exists between the two?

You do know that anyone can file a police report? It is a person's right as a citizen.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the argument.

Regardless of the woman's intention for filing a lawsuit, a civil suit is brought forward to declare a claim and seek damages. This is the legal procedure.

I am not sure what you mean. Did you make an error in word choice? Could you please explain?

You are saying a civil suit will be brought forward regardless of whether the woman making the accusation wants to??