Karen - let look at the evidence piece by piece and please answer. Was there any DNA of Danny's found on the "victims?"
He claimed it was consensual, so DNA doesn’t matter. He admitted to having sex.
So .... he says it was consensual and they say it was not. No examination of the women's vaginas was done at the time to see any tearing of the vagina. 20 years later - at the height of the MeToo movement these women come forward to accuse this scumbag. Where is the evidence? How many times do I have to ask this - where is the Effing evidence?
He claimed it was consensual, so DNA doesn’t matter. He admitted to having sex.
So .... he says it was consensual and they say it was not. No examination of the women's vaginas was done at the time to see any tearing of the vagina. 20 years later - at the height of the MeToo movement these women come forward to accuse this scumbag. Where is the evidence? How many times do I have to ask this - where is the Effing evidence?
I want specific evidence - no "police reports" or "statements" or anything else. Specific evidence.
I'm sorry, but two women separately filing reports that he raped them constitutes good evidence imo. Add that to their very credible testimonies and Jane Doe #3 + a 400k payment to silence one of the victims
He claimed it was consensual, so DNA doesn’t matter. He admitted to having sex.
So .... he says it was consensual and they say it was not. No examination of the women's vaginas was done at the time to see any tearing of the vagina. 20 years later - at the height of the MeToo movement these women come forward to accuse this scumbag. Where is the evidence? How many times do I have to ask this - where is the Effing evidence?
I'm sorry, but two women separately filing reports that he raped them constitutes good evidence imo. Add that to their very credible testimonies and Jane Doe #3 + a 400k payment to silence one of the victims
Sounds like you think settling a civil suit is “constitutes good evidence” of criminal guilt.
go on youtube and watch a couple of videos by ex-scientologists. A huge difference between the two trials is that for the first trial the judge forbid any mention of scientology. scientology handles justice between its members. scientology said it was an excommunicable offense to go to law enforcement about the matters. they also took a ton of notes in code so as to cover their own asses if brought into the legal system down the line. simply stand back for a couple moments and watch a couple videos of ex scientologists on youtube before reciting the no evidence story endlessly. a big part of the story was the role played by scientology.
go on youtube and watch a couple of videos by ex-scientologists. A huge difference between the two trials is that for the first trial the judge forbid any mention of scientology. scientology handles justice between its members. scientology said it was an excommunicable offense to go to law enforcement about the matters. they also took a ton of notes in code so as to cover their own asses if brought into the legal system down the line. simply stand back for a couple moments and watch a couple videos of ex scientologists on youtube before reciting the no evidence story endlessly. a big part of the story was the role played by scientology.
I have a distinct feeling this revelation won’t suffice to pacify those who “want specific evidence - no police reports or statements of anything else”.
go on youtube and watch a couple of videos by ex-scientologists. A huge difference between the two trials is that for the first trial the judge forbid any mention of scientology. scientology handles justice between its members. scientology said it was an excommunicable offense to go to law enforcement about the matters. they also took a ton of notes in code so as to cover their own asses if brought into the legal system down the line. simply stand back for a couple moments and watch a couple videos of ex scientologists on youtube before reciting the no evidence story endlessly. a big part of the story was the role played by scientology.
I have a distinct feeling this revelation won’t suffice to pacify those who “want specific evidence - no police reports or statements of anything else”.
Are you implying that they are bad-faith arguing idiots to which there is no level of sufficiency that will not result in them moving the goalposts?
This is so sad. The guys life is over and who knows what really happened.
If he actually goes to jail for 30 to life, it’s reasonable to consider him a victim as well of whatever crime might have happened, not unlike how an active shooter who ends up getting shot or killing himself is also a victim.
This is so sad. The guys life is over and who knows what really happened.
If he actually goes to jail for 30 to life, it’s reasonable to consider him a victim as well of whatever crime might have happened, not unlike how an active shooter who ends up getting shot or killing himself is also a victim.
On related note, is the suffering of rape equivalent to that of imprisonment for 5 years? 10? 15? 20? How is this trauma equivalence computed? Why is it 15 per rape served sequentially? Why not say 20 in parallel? Or say 45 sequential and the hell with proportionality? Or say 9 per rape and no more than 25 total unless there is extreme violence (disfigurement, mutilation, murder, etc)? So many punishment possibilities.
I'm sorry, but two women separately filing reports that he raped them constitutes good evidence imo. Add that to their very credible testimonies and Jane Doe #3 + a 400k payment to silence one of the victims
How do you know they didn't coordinate their stories? They were once both members of the same cult, after all. So they may have known each other.
After 5 days and 15+ pages of fervent discourse, we have established the following facts of the case:
Where is the evidence?
Testimony is evidence.
But where is it?
There it is.
I don’t see it.
I can’t help you.
Where is the evidence?
You are a moran.
You are a Karen.
This is embarrassing for you.
But where is the effing evidence?
The modern jury has watched C.S.I. and C.S.I. re-runs for close to 24 years. Jurors want shoe prints, hand prints, finger prints, clothing fibers, hair samples, carpet samples, etc. Bodily fluid with 99% plus d.n.a. match is what today's jurors expect. You may refer to the type of evidence I listed as circumstantial. Innocent Project with Barry Scheck and John Grisham have proven, so called direct evidence or eye witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence. Optometrists and Ophthalmologists will tell you, humans do not see with our eyes. Our eyes merely function like microscopes and telescopes. Humans see with our brains. Our brains our full of trauma and biases. Traumatized women are awful witnesses. Traumatized women will dump their trauma on the next man who slights them, sexual assault or not. Barry Scheck and John Grisham, past twenty-five years have been getting wrongfully convicted men out of prison put there by traumatized women and labeled predators. You want to go back to 1955 and Emmett Till? You all should be ashamed of yourselves for demanding life in this case! Do any of you have brothers or male cousins or husbands or sons or uncles? Would you want a woman or women with this evidence to put your male love one away with this evidence? Awful people, all of you, on your side.
So .... he says it was consensual and they say it was not. No examination of the women's vaginas was done at the time to see any tearing of the vagina. 20 years later - at the height of the MeToo movement these women come forward to accuse this scumbag. Where is the evidence? How many times do I have to ask this - where is the Effing evidence?
This is embarrassing for you.
Right wing trolls on LRC are incapable of embarrassment
Right wing trolls on LRC are incapable of embarrassment
It’s common for people to have different moral compasses and disagree, irrespective of political affiliations, on what is an appropriate punishment for a crime that is always inherently probabilistic, ie it may or may not have happened contingent on the strength of the evidence, so assuming that anyone who doesn’t agree with the jury or judge’s finding in this particular case or is otherwise alarmed by “justice” in the post-metoo world must be a rightwing troll is rather presumptuous.
The more I think about Danny being in jail until he’s 76, the more upset I get by it. It’s actually starting to give me anxiety every time I think about it
The more I think about Danny being in jail until he’s 76, the more upset I get by it. It’s actually starting to give me anxiety every time I think about it
I hope I can ease your anxiety by informing you that he will NOT be in jail until he's 76. He will be in prison until he's 76.
