Something ironically people like the parent commenter often fail to recognise too.
If a murderer gets away with murder, does that mean they’re not actually a murderer? Course not. Just because an alleged rapist got away with it doesn’t mean he’s not a rapist, it’s just likely they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, as is very often the case in incidents of rape.
So in your opinion anyone that is accused for a crime that goes to trial is guilty? As every single not guilty isn’t actually innocent but just got away with it yeah?
Nope but that’s not* what I meant at all, but well done for twisting what I did say into something I hadn’t said. All I was saying is that there out people out there who do automatically equate “not guilty” as “innocent”, even though they have no idea about the burden of proof in criminal court which, even with evidence, in a rape case is very unlikely to “meet the threshold” otherwise known as beyond all reasonable doubt.
TLDR is, all I said is “not guilty” does not always equal “innocent”, and you’ve twisted my words.
The fact that you’ve brought it up suggests you believe mendy did it. My twisting of your words is to say: if having a video of your accuser enthusiastically having sex with you and a load of messages between them contradicting their own statements isn’t enough to prove you’re innocent, then what is? Because having proof of innocent and having people still find you guilty in their eyes suggests there is no point even fighting the case cos you just got off with it anyways.
Do you believe he did it? If so, what would convince you otherwise? If there is no level of evidence that you would be happy with, then surely my twisted statement is correct?
Not guilty != innocent
Something ironically people like the parent commenter often fail to recognise too.
If a murderer gets away with murder, does that mean they’re not actually a murderer? Course not. Just because an alleged rapist got away with it doesn’t mean he’s not a rapist, it’s just likely they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, as is very often the case in incidents of rape.
Then blame the system …lol lawsuit pending
So in your opinion anyone that is accused for a crime that goes to trial is guilty? As every single not guilty isn’t actually innocent but just got away with it yeah?
Nope but that’s not* what I meant at all, but well done for twisting what I did say into something I hadn’t said. All I was saying is that there out people out there who do automatically equate “not guilty” as “innocent”, even though they have no idea about the burden of proof in criminal court which, even with evidence, in a rape case is very unlikely to “meet the threshold” otherwise known as beyond all reasonable doubt.
TLDR is, all I said is “not guilty” does not always equal “innocent”, and you’ve twisted my words.
The fact that you’ve brought it up suggests you believe mendy did it. My twisting of your words is to say: if having a video of your accuser enthusiastically having sex with you and a load of messages between them contradicting their own statements isn’t enough to prove you’re innocent, then what is? Because having proof of innocent and having people still find you guilty in their eyes suggests there is no point even fighting the case cos you just got off with it anyways.
Do you believe he did it? If so, what would convince you otherwise? If there is no level of evidence that you would be happy with, then surely my twisted statement is correct?