Should we always believe women accusers?

[Meister]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

What about you?

 

[Rocko]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

Of course there’s basis to believe she’s lying

 

[edward37]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

I expect evidence. again, as I stated in an earlier post, if you didn't report it, then I will never believe it happened.

You like evidence ?? Like Obama wasn't a citizen?? Face it jc you might have hated Hill but trump is a scumbag and a liar

 

[mdk]

No, just the ones when it is politically convenient.

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

did you read her letter? it's all over the map. I wouldn't ever believe it.

Nope, sure didn't. As I said I haven't been following or reading about this story at all. That's why I don't comment on it.

Again for the slow readers, "believability" is irrelevant here. What I asked is exactly *HOW* y'all can possibly know for a fact that the story is a lie. And none of you have an answer, because the answer is you CAN'T know that, which makes your assertion unfounded.

PERIOD.

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

What about you?

What about me? I faced four batters, struck 'em all out.

 

[tinydancer]

Innocent until proven guilty. This should be a no brainer.

He said nothing about innocence or guilt.

If one believes the accuser, one assumes the guilt of the accused. No brainer.

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

Of course there’s basis to believe she’s lying

That's not the question. Never was.

The question is the basis to prove she's lying.

 

[Asclepias]

Innocent until proven guilty. This should be a no brainer.

He said nothing about innocence or guilt.

If one believes the accuser, one assumes the guilt of the accused. No brainer.

Only people with no brains assumes that is true.

 

[Rocko]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

Of course there’s basis to believe she’s lying

That's not the question. Never was.

The question is the basis to prove she's lying.

Fair enough. Agreed

 

[Meister]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

Seriously?
You have no idea just what she told the Dr. or, if she even mentioned Kavanauh's name.
Just what did the 'witness' witness????? Come on, highly believable with that. I laugh at you.

 

[Crepitus]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

We should always, ALWAYS take the accusations of rape seriously. Each and every one should be investigated to the fullest.

 

[Asclepias]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

Seriously?
You have no idea just what she told the Dr. or, if she even mentioned Kavanauh's name.
Just what did the 'witness' witness????? Come on, highly believable with that. I laugh at you.

What part of she revealed the incident to the doctor did you miss?

The witness "cant recall" what he witnessed. Remember now that Kav says he was never there.

 

[Asclepias]

Woman who lied about rape at Michigan college sentenced to jail

'Every district attorney’s nightmare': Two men exonerated in 1991 rape claim

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...-to-falsely-accusing-2-black-m-1826645429/amp

New York woman, 20, who lied about rapes, appears to roll her eyes in court as she's jailed for a year

No Jail Sentence for Woman Who Falsely Claimed Rape by Three Unidentified Black Men





At what point do we start demanding more evidence to prevent lives being destroyed on accusations alone?
How do you determine who to believe and who not to believe unless you begin with a standard of requirements for such accusations to be credible?

We should always, ALWAYS take the accusations of rape seriously. Each and every one should be investigated to the fullest.

According to some of the idiots this someone makes the guy guilty.

 

[Meister]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

Seriously?
You have no idea just what she told the Dr. or, if she even mentioned Kavanauh's name.
Just what did the 'witness' witness????? Come on, highly believable with that. I laugh at you.

What part of she revealed the incident to the doctor did you miss?

The witness cant recall what he witnessed.

Again, just what did she reveal to the Dr.????????? YOU don't know.
You don't know what the witness, witnessed, huh?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Yes we should believe them until its settled in court or disproven with evidence prior to trial.

Aren't we supposed to prove a crime occurred rather than your supposition that we have to prove it didn't?

How do you disprove a lie? What if you really are innocent but have no alibi because you were home alone at the time of the alleged crime?

Proof: Crime scene evidence, DNA, Witness, Hair, skin, Hosp records. Helps ID the suspects hold up the story.

 

[edward37]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

What about you?

What about me? I faced four batters, struck 'em all out.

Possible Struck one out but catcher dropped ball allowing hitter to go to first

 

[Pogo]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

"Believable" is irrelevant here. The OP, in his other earlier thread, already convicted her. An absolute for which he has no basis.

What about you?

What about me? I faced four batters, struck 'em all out.

Possible Struck one out but catcher dropped ball allowing hitter to go to first

Nope, nobody reached anywhere. I pitched an inning and a third, that's all the batters there were.

 

[Asclepias]

Should we always believe women accusers?

Should we always disbelieve them and convict them of fraud if they're not part of our political Bubble?

Like you did earlier today?

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

Seriously?
You have no idea just what she told the Dr. or, if she even mentioned Kavanauh's name.
Just what did the 'witness' witness????? Come on, highly believable with that. I laugh at you.

What part of she revealed the incident to the doctor did you miss?

The witness cant recall what he witnessed.

Again, just what did she reveal to the Dr.????????? YOU don't know.
You don't know what the witness, witnessed, huh?

You must be pretty slow if you dont understand what she revealed. I'll break it down for you. She revealed to her doctor that Kav sexually assaulted her.

I dont need to know what the witness witnessed. His claim that he doesnt recall was enough for me to believe she is telling the truth.

 

[Meister]

It would have been believable if she had gone to the authorities when the incident happened, not 35 years later.
And under these circumstances.

There are two things that make it highly believable.
First she revealed the incident to a doctor back in 2012 I believe. Long before this drunkard was up for the SC.
Secondly her witness claimed "no recollection" in an attempt to avoid legally exposing himself.

Seriously?
You have no idea just what she told the Dr. or, if she even mentioned Kavanauh's name.
Just what did the 'witness' witness????? Come on, highly believable with that. I laugh at you.

What part of she revealed the incident to the doctor did you miss?

The witness cant recall what he witnessed.

Again, just what did she reveal to the Dr.????????? YOU don't know.
You don't know what the witness, witnessed, huh?

You must be pretty slow if you dont understand what she revealed. I'll break it down for you. She revealed to her doctor that Kav sexually assaulted her.

I dont need to know what the witness witnessed. His claim that he doesnt recall was enough for me to believe she is telling the truth.

According to you she revealed that Kav sexually assaulted her. Got it.
I wonder what the Dr's notes actually say about that.