Roy Moore accuser's Gadsden home burns; arson investigation underway

[sarahtasher]

Yeah try this : Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. First prove that the sexual act happened, then collect elements indicating that it was non-consensual, we live in the digital word, getting it in writing in a conversation could be a start.
The wrong way to do it is to find an old signature of the guy you're accusing and writing a fake date and place to frame him as a pedophile. I dont advise you to do that.

"But it's hard to prove!" Yeah no shit sherlock, but the alternative is just throwing due process alltogether and wasting countless live on the sole basis of a baseless accusation. So forgive me If I defend an imperfect system to a barbaric system.

Dude, if the women accusation is automatically worthless without a second witness (hint : which manage to be more socially backward than the fracking Koran) it means essentially that sex crimes are impossible to prosecute. I'm going to spell it out, especially if the accused is white.

Good little MRAs even advocate that having sex with inconscious women is a ''KLUVER SEDUKTION TEKNIK'' so we all know the drill : every women is lying, except if the guy is not white.

[Notshauna]

So then I ask you, why do you feel you can apply this mind setting to Roy Moore but not Endus here? Is it because it's only one voice? I'm sure I could find/pay enough people to agree with me if you want more people to stand up here and say it.
Now we cycle back to lynch mobs. How would those innocent black men prove they weren't doing what they were accused of?

They CAN'T prove their innocence that's exactly what I'm saying. In Endus' case yeah I would actually believe you had enough testimony filled with verifiable details. You just paying people who've never met Endus isn't really compelling testimony.

The issue here is that these are hearsay. There's nothing other than he said she said.

I don't think you understand what hearsay is, but testimony isn't hearsay. Hearsay is when someone other than the person in question testifies that someone said or did something, for example me saying Bill Clinton says that Barack Obama is a swell guy. As for the whole he said she said thing, well yeah that's the reality of testimony, it's always comes down to witness accounts versus the accused. That doesn't make it not evidence, on the contrary it's a very big part of the legal system even now with modern forensics.

But, honestly at this point if you're going to disregard testimony of literally dozens of people in favor of no explanations, that really speaks of your own in-built bias. At this point I'm done responding as I don't think I'll change your mind with discussion, so hopefully you'll reflect on this later and come to a better conclusion, even if that one still disagrees with me.

[Gangresnake]

Dude, if the women accusation is automatically worthless without a second witness (hint : which manage to be more socially backward than the fracking Koran) it means essentially that sex crimes are impossible to prosecute. I'm going to spell it out, especially if the accused is white .

That's not at all what I said. But let's try something different : How would YOU handle it ?
Should every rape accusation be trusted instantly ? Giving every woman the right to send any man into a dark cell without a fair trial ?

[sarahtasher]

Funny, I have zero respect for anyone who will buy into career and life ending accusations without hard evidence.

Moore is of course innocent. He venerates the slaver vermin and have lots of guns. I mean, he post pictures of himself with an AK-47, so he is obviously a real stud and only ''lezbian kommunists witches'' would accuse him....

- - - Updated - - -

While we're on the topic of Bill Clinton, why don't you feel he's a rapist and a horrible person as well? Same style of alligations were placed on him (Yes the women were older, but still, many women came forward saying that he raped them)

And no, I'm sorry sir/ma'am, I'm not going to change my mind. It's not okay to accuse someone to a point where they can't defend themselves. That's what's happening right here, right now.

Your talk radios ordered you to believe that the Clintons were ''satanists'' and you (Republicans) gobble it whole. Any kind of hysterical rat can throw accusations at people to the left of Gengis Khan in the USA and those accusations are instantly believed as the Gospel. No need for ''proofs'', since Satan helped them.

- - - Updated - - -

None of that is hard evidence, all of that is hearsay and that's why there's no lawsuit against him.

Ah yes, the new ''hearsay'' definition by internet tough guys. (For the record ''I heard Roy Moore says'' is not hearsay. It's flat out direct testimony. Of course, when Alex Jones and co. says that Jesus or angels told them that Sandy Hook was fake, it's factual....

[SilverWolf26]

None of that is hard evidence, all of that is hearsay and that's why there's no lawsuit against him.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...corfman-326366

There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following:

Statement against interest
Present sense impressions and Excited utterances
Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition[when defined as?]
Medical diagnosis or treatment
Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity
Public records and reports, as well as absence of entry in records
Records of vital statistics
Absence of public record or entry
Records of religious organizations
Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, and Family and Property records
Statements in documents affecting an interest in property
Statements in ancient documents the authenticity of which can be established.
Market reports, commercial publications
"Learned treatises"
Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to character
Judgment of previous conviction, and as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries.[1]

You were saying?

I don't know how I let myself get sucked back in to these things, but I digress and apologize. Take care.

[derpkitteh]

Nothing quite like baselessly slandering an arson victim, because you want to defend a pedophile.

ok, why does everyone say he's a pedo when literally all the girls that accused him were post-pubescent at the time? it's the other phile name, not pedo. hebephile? i can't remember. this triggers me hard though, cause like everyone's just being blatantly incorrect for emotional appeal. i hate the piece of shit, because he's a fucking theocrat that should be sent off to the middle east with any other theocrats. but get it right if you're going to believe his accusers.

arson shouldn't happen to anyone. nobody deserves to lose everything they have like that. tbh, i'd rather just someone shoot me in the head than destroy all my things. i hope the woman's insurance policy can get all her stuff replaced.

[SilverWolf26]

slan·der
ˈslandər/
nounLaw
noun: slander

1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"

See above.

[Machismo]

yeah it was fake...even admitted it was fake.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...candidate.html

- - - Updated - - -



you should wait 30 years... like she did.

Does that mean she's lying?

[SupBrah]

Does that mean she's lying?

It means she's full of shit, yes.

[Pendulous]

Does that mean she's lying?

No, the statement was retracted by Fox News http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline

And yet there's no court hearing. I'm seeing that clearly there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him.

Because statute of limitations, there can be no criminal trial.

[Soeroah]

And yet there's no court hearing. I'm seeing that clearly there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him.

That's certainly one interpretation.

[Machismo]

It means she's full of shit, yes.

Why?

/10char

[Machismo]

No, the statement was retracted by Fox News http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline


Because statute of limitations, there can be no criminal trial.

That's the whole point, people are making a lot of baseless accusations on here.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread hasn't been about the house fire (the subject) since post 2 or 3. You'd think a former mod would know better than to derail something so flagrantly.

Well, are you here to defend pedophiles again? I get it, you get upset whenever people lay accusations at your guy.

[Machismo]

You should try reading what I wrote before replying to it with obvious bait/flaming. Reported.

You have long tried to defend and back Moore, that's not a secret. You're just upset that the pedophile lost. How many times did you try and deflect or shitpost for the guy?

It's almost as adorable as your desire to go after Endus time and time again. We get it, you hate the guy.

[Machismo]

My only aim with my post was to point out that this thread has nothing to do with the OPs subject and that it should get back on track. We already have numerous threads where what you guys are arguing about has already been discussed ad nauseam. The fact that a former disgraced moderator is egging on the misbehavior only helps illustrate the need for someone to get this thread under control. Shame on you. I've reported your flaming a second time.

It's directly related to Roy Moore, the two are intertwined. You just don't like it, because it raises more suspicion towards Moore and his zealous followers (you). Of course, your attempts to whine about moderators, past and present, are very telling.

If you don't see how they are related, that's your problem.

[Machismo]

So if Ben Affleck's house were to burn down and someone posted an article about it, you feel like it's your responsibility to argue about whether Matt Damon played a good role in Good Will Hunting rather than the fire?

Try being more responsible when discussing someone's unrelated personal tragedy. You might need to investigate developing your emotional maturity and ability to form sound logical arguments before posting further in this forum.

No, if the house of a woman who accused Casey Affleck had burned down under suspicious circumstances, it would make sense to discuss the sexual assault accusations she had made, and the tens of thousands of people who disparaged her for speaking out. The same would have been done if Anita Hill's house had been burned to the ground when Justice Thomas was going though confirmation hearings.

Like I said, you are clearly upset by any references to the guy you spent weeks shitposting for and defending. Maybe you should pick better people to back.

[AeneasBK]

Gosh people are sensitive this morning

This thread is a fucking trainwreck

[Gray_Matter]

Thread Warning: Do not discuss moderation. If you discuss moderation then you will get infracted.

[Machismo]

But you AREN'T discussing the fire AT ALL nor do you have anything useful to contribute toward the OP's subject. There are no "suspicious circumstances" related to Roy Moore at all as far as this fire goes according to the article itself. If the best you can do is re-hash unrelated points that have nothing to do with the fire, then you are clearly breaking forum rules and should consider discontinuing the behavior that Endus has encouraged you to engage in. The guy used to just be a mod breaking the rules, but now he's just a regular poster breaking the rules. Not someone to look up to.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly, it's unbelievable that the mod that got removed due to explaining to people that they could PM him directly for faster infractions on their enemies is still allowed to post here.

Neither are you... interesting. The story has interesting timing, and the fire is certainly suspicious. After all, there were a lot of rabid followers of Moore, they seemed quite unhinged. It's not unrelated to politics, because it's not just some random person's house burning down. It's news, because of the politics.

As for your hatred of Endus, you really need to let it go.

[High Priestess Tyrande]

You've been pulling in black men, rape, lynching and pedophilia accusations against someone who disagrees with you and his eff off is "uncalled for?"

No it wasn't.

The whole argument about "lynch mobs," "innocent until proven guilty," and "court of public opinion" has just been empty rhetoric stacked against numerous statements from both opposition and Moore's own party. It's just an empty defense against dozens and dozens of witness statements, from friends, law enforcement, young girls, and anyone that knew that guy.

There isn't a comparison and you didn't "do the same thing" to him. It's not even close. After all of this, you still have yet to address any of the evidence as you make your empty arguments.

As such, I'm going to leave off too. I have zero respect for anyone defending Moore in any capacity.

I'm actually surprised you guys have kept trying to reason with Leotheras for so long, it literally goes nowhere.

He'll never understand that not being prosecuted doesn't mean that the guy does not have a dubious background and record when it comes to young girls, from multiple sources, throughout the years and down to his own wife.

And by his own admission, Leotheras will never change his mind.

Moore is at BEST a perverted man with an eye for young girls, and at worst a predator who got away with it. It really does take some serious questionable behavior for a right-wing, trump-approved, bible-thumper to not get elected in ALABAMA.

As for the post itself, it got derailed pretty fast, but that leotheras the blind person whining for being told off with a "hearty fuck off" after calling endus a pedophile in the very FIRST page of this thread is perhaps the most hilarious thing i've seen today.