That is called evidence. It's a witness statement by the accused confirming
some of the facts of the case. You accused me of sympathising with the alleged victim purely on the basis that she was female, and that I supported the notion that if any woman cries rape she should be believed without evidence.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence means, or how it can help to paint a picture of what likely happened. If you're not seeing the picture of what most likely happened then you must be a bit blind.
She went to the hospital. They bungled it. Not her fault. Now if you apply a bit of brainpower to the scenario, why would she go to the hospital if her story was false? You're assuming that a lack of evidence from the hospital is because there was none. What is the basis for that assumption (especially since all the news stories seem to corroborate the assertion that the hospital staff on duty that night were simply incompent to perform the necessary function)? I'll tell, and it's very obvious given your horrendous attitude here: You're horribly biased.
Firstly, where is the evidence that she was a convicted criminal? What was she convicted of? How does it have a bearing on whether she was making up a rape accusation?
Secondly, if we apply your standard, then I would point to the established fact that the accused used his wealth and family influence to overturn a DUI conviction. I mean really, if we're going to bring in character here, this guy certainly fits the bill of being the kind of person he is accused of being. It also supports the notion that the criminal charges were simply fabricated to intimidate the victim into backing off.
Thirdly, she committed suicide. Why would anyone who is guilty of constructing a clever scheme to deprive an unfortunate rich man out of money by creating a false rape accusation end up killing themselves? The sort of personality that comes up with these schemes is exactly the kind of personality that wouldn't commit suicide.
Hey @
MeHMeH. See Jabberwock also likes using strawmen!
Some citations are needed here. FYI, I have done a bit of reading up on the case, so I think you're making stuff up.
No, because you're allowing personal bias to override reason, logic and common sense. If I was a judge in the case, I would most likely have to rule him innocent on the grounds of reasonable doubt, even if I knew that the probability of his actual guilt was very high. But I am not a judge. I am private individual with a functioning brain who can see that injustice has been here.
Given what you've written here, I don't expect you to really understand this. I don't think you're capable.