this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
490 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
12 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Regarding the alleged rape, in short: The sexual acts are not even explicitly stated and allegedly occurred when she was young enough to barely be able to remember or understand anything, she went decades without saying a word to anyone about it. Then they have a dispute over an inheritance, and a couple of years later when he becomes famous she publicly accuses him, without providing evidence or reporting him to the courts.
I have not read her accusations but I don't think your criticism is really valid.
You can't publicly accuse someone if neither of you is a public figure. It just doesn't work that way. You need a platform that comes after at least one of the parties is famous.
Also, testimony from the victim is evidence. In the case of old sexual assault cases, it's quite often the only evidence. But if all you have is fuzzy memories from decades ago, you know that's not going to get you anywhere in court so why would you even attempt a legal claim?
The fact that an ostensible child sexual assault victim does not have additional evidence, or does not file a police report or civil suit, shouldn't be used to discount their claims.
...? In my comment I literally said that she did it when he became famous.
The testimony of the accusers is not evidence, it can be evidence. To be so, it must be supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince the courts.
It is true that reporting old cases is difficult, but it is often done successfully, and is the only way to obtain true justice. That someone is willing to go through the pain of public exposure but won't even try it in court doesn't prove anything, but it is very suspicious.
Especially if doing so publicly not only fails to state evidence or claim to have evidence, but doesn't even make the accusations explicit; it looks like an attempt to avoid being sued.
It is not that I wish to discredit her pseudo-statements, but it is important that people understand how little there is, because every time his name appears on the internet there is a tough campaign of harassment by people who just parrot it.