9 ms·

In these situations how are things actually proved? Is it just a "he said, she said" situation? In any case, it's a bold move to go on record, though I'm curiou

• asdfologist 9y ago
  The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.
  • tabeth 9y ago
    Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.
    • vkou 9y ago
      The texts are trivially verifiable proof of harassment, AFAIK, there is no trivially verifiable proof for the assault.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • runevault 9y ago
      Legal definition of assault is not what you'd think it is, and I'd assume sexual assault legally is the same thing, just in a sexual manner. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault edit: For reference the actual physical acts are battery in the legal sense.
    • kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
      There's also harassment, which can be textual.
    • bsder 9y ago
      Not in and unto themselves, but they certainly establish a pattern and lend more credence to the actual charges being brought. They help move the needle from simply "He said; she said."
    • jimrandomh 9y ago
      No, but they can be strong evidence if they include people talking about what happened.
    • lmkg 9y ago
      Texts would be an example of "sexual harassment." Some types of sexual assault can be proven by medical examination, if the exam happens soon after, although many actions that qualify as sexual assault will either not show up on an exam, or can be proven to be "sexual" but not "assault." However, in cases like this where there is an ongoing relationship before and after the incident, the text messages will often refer to physical events. These can be evidence that a physical event happened, and what the attitudes and beliefs of the involved people were towards the incident at the time. Although even that is still a large amount of he-said-she-said and drawing large inferences from circumstantial data.
      • Alex3917 9y ago
        > Texts would be an example of "sexual harassment." Sexual harassment law only applies to the workplace.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          Sexual harassment exists and is a thing people can be publicly accused of even where it is not legally prohibited. An action need not be legally actionable to be newsworthy, or to be important for people who might want to know of their risk of being subjected to similar action.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" He is accused of sexual assault and harassment. The particular harassment is, in principle, more readily demonstrable (though perhaps not legally actionable, “sexual harassment” short of assault isn't always illegal, though it may well be newsworthy, without an employment relationship.) OTOH, in the case of a VC against people seeking funding, some forms of what would analogous to quid pro quo sexual harassment in employment could shade into the crime of soliciting prostitution.
    • darkerside 9y ago
      Article said groping
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? In a legal case (which is not now pending from any information published, but that could change), any facts from which an observer could infer that the intent at issue was more likely than it would be in the absence of those facts are evidence (providing that they aren't inadmissible for other reasons.) Legal proof isn't mathematical proof; in general, the ways you'd forms belief about something in your daily life are how it is “proved” in a court of law. The degree of certainty a juror is expected to have for a conviction in a criminal cases is very high, but that's not a matter of how it is proved, but how conclusively it must be proved.
• drewrv 9y ago
  In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".
  • sillysaurus3 9y ago
    When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.
    • vkou 9y ago
      When it involves serial harassers, the ability to get many she-saids becomes easy, too. Do you really think that founders are lining up to put their personal and professional reputation on the line, to smear this guy, as part of a vast female conspiracy? They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people?
      • cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
        That's exactly why we have due process - to evaluate evidence in an impartial and equitable way. GP's point was more about due process than anything else, so could you extend the assumption of good faith to their comment and engage with that point?
        • vkou 9y ago
          I'm not a court of law, I'm not locking him up in a prison, and I don't need proof of guilt beyond an unreasonable doubt to take these allegations seriously.
          • deleted 9y ago
            [deleted]
          • deleted 9y ago
            [deleted]
• philip1209 9y ago
  This article seems to indicate that multiple journalists were investigating these allegations, but couldn't go to press without sources: https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html One journalist got six sources, three on the record, and claims to have verified parts of the stories (such as reviewing message history on phones), which led him to have the confidence to go to press.
  • tabeth 9y ago
    Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward? It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
    • niniane 9y ago
      I am one of the three women who went on the record with my name: Niniane Wang. I initially asked to be anonymous, but no reporter would publish unless they had named sources. I knew that Justin was continuing to harass women. Using my name was the only way to stop him. In other words, yes, it was necessary to be publicly on the record.
      • ajoy 9y ago
        Niniane, I can only imagine the mental anguish you must have gone through. I applaud you and the other women for taking a stance, a public stance and standing up to these perverts. You are an inspiration.
      • Anonymous888 9y ago
        Niniane - thank you so much for having the courage to step forward.
      • ithinkinstereo 9y ago
        Thank you for making a stand and calling inappropriate behavior out.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• hmahncke 9y ago
  You could ask his employer, which said "...while The Information had found a few examples which show that Justin has in the past occasionally dated or flirted with women he met in a professional capacity , let’s be clear: there is no evidence that Justin did anything illegal and there is no evidence that any of his investing decisions were affected by his social interests.” So it happened, it's just that he doesn't realize how wildly unacceptable it was.
• solidsnack9000 9y ago
  > EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone. This is an interesting comment and sheds some light on what is happening here. There is no need to be publicly named in a news article to bring charges in a court of law; but in a court of law there is a clear and regular process for evaluating charges; and one does actually submit to the possibility of retaliation in a limited form: false accusations carry punishments of their own. Justin has already quit. In some sense, charges were brought in the court of public opinion -- and for these to have any weight, there must be some element of credibility attached to them. Journalists are not cops and just quoting "unnamed sources" is not enough to substantiate the idea that someone should lose their job, in part because unnamed sources accept no scrutiny and no risk. Attaching one's name to something like this is the only way to lend any weight to it, in the absence of any judicial process.