Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: FFS stop this are you complete idiots
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Blue Boy |
The witness system finds people innocent or guilty all the time and the media have influenced legal decision makers for the last 150 years via newspapers.
It hasnt just been sex crimes. I agree on annonymous status for those who are accused but not charged. I certainly dont think they are all innocent however. If there is sufficent doubt they should be tried and yes some will be innocent but there will be others who are guulty |
|
'M' |
Give JSP her due she is challenging it but needs a little education on what a 'victim' is. |
|
Anon |
Well said... |
|
Silent Minority |
Always been a big mouth with little talent.... |
|
Jo |
Blue Boy wrote:
One of the ways our legal system works is by hearing evidence and making a judgement so when lots of accusers tell the same story then it is likely to be correct
This is the age of the internet. Stories go online immediately and stay there, so people can research stories and copy each other. (I'm convinced this happened in the Rolf Harris case.) Accusers could also have a financial motive, i.e. media payments, compensation payments through the courts or book sales (Rose McGowan had an autobiography out this year entitled "Brave"). The only evidence needed is their word, i.e. no need to bother with physical evidence, medical reports, paper trail, etc. So it's likely to be easier than benefit fraud or insurance fraud. They can also remain anonymous for life if they wish (at least in the UK). So multiple claims doesn't in my view make them more likely to be true, just as multiple claims of whiplash injury after a motorway pile-up doesn't necessarily mean any or all the claimants are telling the truth. I believe that if the first person to make the claim is lying, then anyone saying "me too" must logically also be lying, in the same way as if a schoolchild copies a bad piece of homework their homework will be wrong too. I think it's very unlikely that an initial false accuser would by chance accuse a genuine serial abuser (unless you subscribe to the idea that all men are rapists). But if the first person to come forward with a claim is telling the truth, subsequent claims could be all true, partly true or completely untrue.
With Weinstein, I can believe he was guilty of low-level sex pest behaviour that people would have objected to and had trouble knowing how to respond to and some brushed off as "just Harvey" rather than reporting to police but not rape, when the first person to claim this (McGowan) reportedly stripped off and got into a hot tub with him prior to the alleged rape, posed smiling nestled against him at an awards show some years later (utterly inconsistent with being a crime victim, in my view), and of course had a book to sell, along with her other exhibitionist behaviour. |
|
|
|
