Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
They are evidence that someone knows how to write, not that someone did something depicted in that text. >> 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. I cannot accuse anyone because all of them are aliases. The only one that has done that openly is you. I am not interested in accusing you. I am just interested in rescueing the name of a person that has done good...at least from what I have seen personally. RMS, Assange, Appelbaum look like victims. I cannot prove it. But they deserve to be held innocent until proved guilty...in my book. >> 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? It is reasonable to have an opinion about it. His motivations are clear. He felt that FSFE was under bad leadership. He shows it. This thread has reached a point there is no more you have contributed to this discussion in the last few emails. There is enough evidence to conclude that you have no proof that a the crime was commited. I will not discuss any other thing about the topic unless there is credible evidence. I do not trust the direction you are taking this "yes it is / no it isn't" conversation. I feel your intentions are not clean and that you try to act against me. It looks as if you are trying trick me in several ways. I will not answer any more of your questions. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
