On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:36:03AM -0500, quiliro wrote: > There is no evidence of any rape. There are anonymous texts only that > accuse him of it. Why asume Jake is lying, when he is the only one that > is putting his name on it?
Written descriptions of events are literally evidence. > The person should not prove per is innocent. The accuser does not need > to be open. But must show evidence beyond doubt of guilt. That's the standard held in a court of law. But falsely accusing someone of rape is also a crime, and you seem willing to assert that Jake's victims are guilty of that. > If you do not want to hang around him because you think it is probable > he is guilty, that is understandable. Another thing is dragging others > to take suspicions as irrefutable truth. If that was somone's attitude > against you, they would think you have a hidden agenda in favour of > someone who has interests against Jake. But even if there are thinks > that look spooky in your acts, no one has not made that accusation > against you because the evidence is not enough. Daniel has repeatedly suggested that organisations that chose to cut ties with Jake acted inappropriately. Is it reasonable to question Daniel's motivations? -- Matthew Garrett | [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
