4 ms·
When I read the initial post I chalked it up to there's always another side of the story. The problem is while we want to really punish rapists we can't just do
by coolThingsFirst 2y ago
When I read the initial post I chalked it up to there's always another side of the story. The problem is while we want to really punish rapists we can't just do witch hunts based on hearsay and throw innocent people under the bus.
Also the importance given to 21 and 35 seems indirectly to imply something shady which is not the case, it can be a relationship of 2 consenting adults.
I wish all the best and may you even further clear your name. You went through a horrible ordeal.
- AzzieElbab 2y agoSame. This came amid a civil war in the Scala community, too.
- stewoconnor 2y agoThis was absolutely not based on hearsay. We made our decision to sign the letter based on direct evidence, not hearsay. The open letter links directly to evidence which is not hearsay.
- tristor 2y ago> The open letter links directly to evidence which is not hearsay. If you're referring to the two blog posts, that is testimonial evidence only. While it /is/ possible to convict on the basis of only testimony, it's very rare, as testimony usually needs to corroborated by documentary or physical evidence, or at minimum be supported by a preponderance of other types of evidence which makes the claims against a defendant more likely to be true than that they are false. I am not you, I don't know you, and I don't have any particularly strong opinion about this situation. That said, you're all over the comments here, trying to defend the contents of the open letter. If you believe in this so strongly, I'd advise that you provide stronger evidence to support your position. Simply believing someone else who told you something is not substantial or corroborative.
- tatra_ 2y ago[dead]