Should we always believe women accusers?

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

I never believe anyone who can not prove whatever they say, or post.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Like the one that always yells at the top of their lungs "fake News". Should we always believe that fool?

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?

Read and check this is how you id fake news, or post.

 

[ph3iron]

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?

Just out of interest how many are credible and unreported?
Prob 100 for every nutcase woman.

 

[Claudette]

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?

Nope. Many women lie about being raped and lie about someone molesting their children.

Many men have had their lives ruined by these false accusations.

One you are labeled a sexual predator that never goes away.

Of course women do get raped and most of them will report it.

Ford didn't and waited almost forty hears to tell anyone. Kav is the only one she seems to be pursuing. What about the other three who were involved. How come she's not after them??

 

[Skull Pilot]

Kav is not on trial for sexual assault .

He is applying for a very important job. I don’t believe her just cause she said it , you take in the whole situation .

he is not applying he was an appointed candidate

there's a difference

No there is not . He’s not forced to be a candidate . He’s not being drafted to the Supreme Court.

And he did not apply.

And really you don't say no when the president asks you to do something

Well YOU might.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

No Proof, No Case. That is the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Nope. Many women lie about being raped and lie about someone molesting their children.

Many men have had their lives ruined by these false accusations.

One you are labeled a sexual predator that never goes away.

Of course women do get raped and most of them will report it.

Ford didn't and waited almost forty hears to tell anyone. Kav is the only one she seems to be pursuing. What about the other three who were involved. How come she's not after them??

she wasn't raped she was drunk at a party 40 years ago and says she was groped by some other person or people who were drunk at a party

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

Nope. Many women lie about being raped and lie about someone molesting their children.

Many men have had their lives ruined by these false accusations.

One you are labeled a sexual predator that never goes away.

Of course women do get raped and most of them will report it.

Ford didn't and waited almost forty hears to tell anyone. Kav is the only one she seems to be pursuing. What about the other three who were involved. How come she's not after them??

There is just to many errors in the case that has been reported and this bring a case of credibility in play at this time. At least in the Clinton case they had DNA to prove it happened and pictures. The killer statement was "I thought that he might become a Supreme court Judge was not smart.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

No, actually, the standard you suddenly want to pretend is normal and required is bullshit.

Unless and until this chick produces ANY sort of substantiation, this has been "explored" as far as it can be, or deserves to be. She's already said she doesn't know where it happened, OR when it happened, and the only two people she remembers as having been there have said it never happened. Unless you have something brilliant to suggest, that IS up against a brick wall, and it's horseshit.

Furthermore, the man is in his early fifties, and his entire adult and professional life have already been investigated to a fare-thee-well, and are "squeaky clean", as you put it. The day anyone on the left suggests that THEIR nominees also be judged on vague accusations about what they might or might not have done as teenagers, you let us know. Of course, I still am not going to think that having been a plaster saint from birth is a necessary, or even a good, requirement for being a Justice.

As it stands, this is so much nothingness and bullshit, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to even bring it up, let alone to suggest that it's supposed to be treated as meaningful.

 

[jc456]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

No, actually, the standard you suddenly want to pretend is normal and required is bullshit.

Unless and until this chick produces ANY sort of substantiation, this has been "explored" as far as it can be, or deserves to be. She's already said she doesn't know where it happened, OR when it happened, and the only two people she remembers as having been there have said it never happened. Unless you have something brilliant to suggest, that IS up against a brick wall, and it's horseshit.

Furthermore, the man is in his early fifties, and his entire adult and professional life have already been investigated to a fare-thee-well, and are "squeaky clean", as you put it. The day anyone on the left suggests that THEIR nominees also be judged on vague accusations about what they might or might not have done as teenagers, you let us know. Of course, I still am not going to think that having been a plaster saint from birth is a necessary, or even a good, requirement for being a Justice.

As it stands, this is so much nothingness and bullshit, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to even bring it up, let alone to suggest that it's supposed to be treated as meaningful.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

 

[jc456]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

if she can't say when and where, how does he answer it exactly? he stated he has no idea who she is. is he lying to you? you can't be that fking mental a midget.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

if she can't say when and where, how does he answer it exactly? he stated he has no idea who she is. is he lying to you? you can't be that fking mental a midget.

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

No, actually, the standard you suddenly want to pretend is normal and required is bullshit.

Unless and until this chick produces ANY sort of substantiation, this has been "explored" as far as it can be, or deserves to be. She's already said she doesn't know where it happened, OR when it happened, and the only two people she remembers as having been there have said it never happened. Unless you have something brilliant to suggest, that IS up against a brick wall, and it's horseshit.

Furthermore, the man is in his early fifties, and his entire adult and professional life have already been investigated to a fare-thee-well, and are "squeaky clean", as you put it. The day anyone on the left suggests that THEIR nominees also be judged on vague accusations about what they might or might not have done as teenagers, you let us know. Of course, I still am not going to think that having been a plaster saint from birth is a necessary, or even a good, requirement for being a Justice.

As it stands, this is so much nothingness and bullshit, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to even bring it up, let alone to suggest that it's supposed to be treated as meaningful.

You are politically motivated so your opinion is not worth anything.

 

[jc456]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

if she can't say when and where, how does he answer it exactly? he stated he has no idea who she is. is he lying to you? you can't be that fking mental a midget.

These are easy things to validate. Where is the problem ?

validate why?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

No, actually, the standard you suddenly want to pretend is normal and required is bullshit.

Unless and until this chick produces ANY sort of substantiation, this has been "explored" as far as it can be, or deserves to be. She's already said she doesn't know where it happened, OR when it happened, and the only two people she remembers as having been there have said it never happened. Unless you have something brilliant to suggest, that IS up against a brick wall, and it's horseshit.

Furthermore, the man is in his early fifties, and his entire adult and professional life have already been investigated to a fare-thee-well, and are "squeaky clean", as you put it. The day anyone on the left suggests that THEIR nominees also be judged on vague accusations about what they might or might not have done as teenagers, you let us know. Of course, I still am not going to think that having been a plaster saint from birth is a necessary, or even a good, requirement for being a Justice.

As it stands, this is so much nothingness and bullshit, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to even bring it up, let alone to suggest that it's supposed to be treated as meaningful.

You are politically motivated so your opinion is not worth anything.

So are you....therefore your own opinion is not worth anything.

Case in point, you just started a republican pedo thread, you wouldn't have if he was a democrat. Say different and you'll be laughed at

 

[jc456]

I am not sure this is something that we need to have any view on until the trial and the evidence is prevented.
Making an accusation is a huge step for a woman to take.
Being accused is a nightmare for any man, especially if he is innocent.
In the UK the accuser is given anonymity but the accuseds name is made public.
The police do it for one reason. They hope to flush out other accusers.
I understand that it is difficult for women to come forward. But it seems that it can be one sided.
I would prefer both parties to be given anonymity until after the trial.
It may deter the very few fake victims.

how can anyone defend themself thirty five to forty years after something happened? You know there are studies on our memories and what is retained. Hmmmmmm. why do you all avoid that?

Now if the incident had been reported, an entirely different ballgame, that means the accused would know about it.

I would expect those who are appointing him to explore it. Where did it happen,when did it happen, who was there. You may end up against a brick wall but you may exonerate him.
Either way he is up for an important job and needs to be squeaky clean.

No, actually, the standard you suddenly want to pretend is normal and required is bullshit.

Unless and until this chick produces ANY sort of substantiation, this has been "explored" as far as it can be, or deserves to be. She's already said she doesn't know where it happened, OR when it happened, and the only two people she remembers as having been there have said it never happened. Unless you have something brilliant to suggest, that IS up against a brick wall, and it's horseshit.

Furthermore, the man is in his early fifties, and his entire adult and professional life have already been investigated to a fare-thee-well, and are "squeaky clean", as you put it. The day anyone on the left suggests that THEIR nominees also be judged on vague accusations about what they might or might not have done as teenagers, you let us know. Of course, I still am not going to think that having been a plaster saint from birth is a necessary, or even a good, requirement for being a Justice.

As it stands, this is so much nothingness and bullshit, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people to even bring it up, let alone to suggest that it's supposed to be treated as meaningful.

You are politically motivated so your opinion is not worth anything.

ahhh look at you. spanky wow!! what is it you think you got?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Believing them has nothing to do with proving a crime.

You disprove a lie by proving you were never there. She still has to prove you did something to her.

What if she's to ugly to rape?

Considering how rape is a crime of violence and power, not sexual attraction....that isn't what happens....but thanks for showing your colors there, INCEL.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Believing them has nothing to do with proving a crime.

You disprove a lie by proving you were never there. She still has to prove you did something to her.

What if she's to ugly to rape?

Rape is about power not about if someone is pretty or not.

Agreed....but INCEL's think it's all about females being too pretty, not pretty enough, too something something....ergo their fault.

 

[bodecea]

Should we believe a woman accuser when is a

...a filthy ass hate mongering Democrat who is suffering from TDS?

...a woman whose family was judged against by the mother of the person she is accusing?

...a woman who marched around in a pink ***** hat?

...a woman who is a college professor that her students says she is bat shit crazy and vindictive?

...a woman whose brother is linked to Fusion GPS?

I don't think so.

Interesting criteria you've got there.....think any of that would stand up as valid defense in a court of law?