What sort of evidence would you be convinced by? How manu of the other cases have you been convinced by?

Variety spoke to a corroborating witness. That doesnt count?

They got Ryan Seacrest???? Bridge too far, say deplorables.

See how evidence gets distorted? She has a picture of an ass with a red hand mark, provided 4 years after the fact (E! investigated in 2013). Whose ass? Whose hand made the mark? When was it taken? Somehow in your mind it became a picture of an ass "being smacked".

An anonymous witness we can't even be sure exists, can't be sure was even there, and who hasn't been cross-examined in any way to look for motivations to harm Seacrest or help Hardy. No, it doesn't.

Look, I don't give a **** about Seacrest, but I do give a **** about standards of evidence.

Lol. Standard of evidence?

Coworker- my house got broken into. They stole my tv, jewelry and silverware.

Tim- got any receipts? How about photo of you wearing this “grandma’s broach”? It’s not that I’m skeptical, it’s that I don’t buy it at all.

Do you think that.

1. This guy is probably a douchebag. I dont really want to spend my money and time to watch him on tv etc.

And

2. This guy should defnitely go to prison.

Need different standarda of evidence?

Whats the rationale for those lines being the same/different?

Does. "I would rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be found guilty..."

Become.

"I would rather 100 men get away with sexual assualt and rape than have one innocent man have his reputation damaged a little online, even though he can carry on with his career, keep all his money, and never face any real legal consequences"

No answer to these?

Even more, “innocent until proven guilty” becomes “if you don’t have physical proof it didn’t actually happen and you should not report it”.

You really think this is in any way comparable? Try going to the police or your insurance company and saying "My neighbor broke into my house four years ago. Here's a close up picture of a broken door frame, and I have another neighbor who can corroborate." Or, forget about police or insurance, try going on social media and attempt to besmirch that neighbors reputation with this kind of "evidence".

They do, but the evidence in this case is particularly flimsy.

What is meant by the bolded part? Why did E! approach Hardy about their "relationship" even before it learned of her allegations?

Things should be reported in a timely fashion, otherwise evidence loses credibility and motives become questionable. Her allegations were only made after she appeared to be at risk of getting fired, for who knows what. And four years is plenty of time for one or two co-workers to become disgruntled enough to help fabricate a story.

You don't seem to have a problem hurling accusations at the women involved without proof (disgruntled coworkers conspiring).

Lol. But what if, like, your neighbor did break into your house? Did they actually not do it if you wait to report it?

**** your determination of credibility. The very fact that you are out here caping for a celebrity you do not know against a woman you do not know gives a pretty good indication of why someone may not come forward right away even though you demand it.

Do you even know if the corroborating witness was male or female? How well did this witness know the accuser? Did they associate outside the workplace? These are more important details left out of this story in addition to the ones I mentioned above.

I'm not hurling accusations, I'm simply suggesting that there is much we don't know that could swing the verdict one way or the other. Seacrest was exonerated by E!, and we have no idea what information was taken into account to come to that decision.

In any case, there is going to be an asymmetry. The burden of proof must remain on the accuser. Not because you think that any particular accuser may be lying, but because removing that burden empowers those who would be capable of making false accusations.

Burden of proof is not to guard against false accusations. This is your fundamental disconnect. It is to guard against convictions in a court of law. You do not have to have proof to accuse someone, and proof does not need to exist in order for an accusation to be true.

Certainly I could not expect to be taken seriously if I waited four years to report a burglary, even if the report is accurate.

The people in this case are irrelevant. It's not like I'm speaking to either one of them, or even to the media. Who I am against is you, and people like you.

"Why did the sexual harassment victim wait so long to come forward?" is always a great look.

Outside observers trying to determine guilt or innocence in all but the most clear-cut cases is generally pretty lol-worthy. Let the people with actual investigative power do their thing IMO.

In the meantime, if you don't want to watch Ryan Seacrest go for it. I've been doing that since the beginning of time and it has worked out great for me.

You could, in fact. Especially if you suddenly felt safe four years later. Like, **** happens all the time with powerful people. Especially in these kinds of cases. People get away with crimes of all types for years, until they don’t.

Right the people are irrelevant, the sex of them is all that matters. But keep fighting the real enemy. Wealthy hollywood men need someone to represent them against people like me who are driving such injustice and won’t watch them on the tv anymore. Once you convince me that bitches be lyin I’ll be sure to tune in. Like tilted, it will be for the first time, though.

Yes, there are cases where a crime is reported and police collect a lot of evidence, and only years later figure out who was the perpetrator. That's not the same as a someone coming forward years later about a completely unreported incident. But we are getting far afield with our analogy. For a burglary it would make no sense at all.

Reverse the sexes, or leave them out entirely. It does not matter to me. Nor does the fact it involves a celebrity, although remove that and we don't hear about it from the gossip magazines, which are just trying to make a buck, have no interest in raising questions about the accusations, and bury deep in the article the fact that the accused was exonerated, long after most readers have made up their mind.

You are right. There is no incentive for a burglary not be reported ina timely fashion unless doing so would threaten the accuser in some way, like sexual misconduct by a powerful person would.

So, like, why do you care so much again? Cuz this (brand new) concern for preditory gossip media and bad reporting is not in the same arena as positing that women should not be believed about sexual misconduct claims that are not brought up in “timely” fashion, or that don’t have physical proof. Those are very, very different postitions.

It’s pretty simple at this point. Either you think that all the men, women and children who don’t report sexual abuse, harassment, misconduct etc until years later are liars (which is contradicted by the number of men who admit it years later like Louis ck), or you abandon the stupid ****ing argument that delayed claims are less credible.

That's a false dichotomy; they can be less credible without completely losing credibility.

The point I’m making is you are ignoring evidence of how victims act, which can only make sense if you don’t believe them.

Since it’s incredibly common for allegations to come out years later in sexual abuse cases, incredibly common for victims to be silent or not report them when they happen, what, on ****ing earth, makes a delayed report less credible? It seems to be a pretty normal way for a victim to act. Serial abusers depend on it.

Eta: the “you” in this case is those who find delayed reports less credible.

Still no?

If I didnt know better, i would have to assume you guus dont actually have a standard of evidence, but instead have some kind of weird need to dismiss as many accusers as possible...

Ffs. Can we stop using "exonerated" to describe.

"Powerful celebreties TV company didnt agree with the accusser".

Next up. "Weinstein exonerated by Weinstein company over sex claims"

Bruises heal, memories fade, records are lost or discarded, i.e. evidence is not as strong as time passes. That includes both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

In this case, just going by the information in the Vox article, one could ask not only why she waited so long, but why she waited until she was being questioned by E! HR. If her job was not at risk by those questions, then she could have said nothing happened and kept her job. So now it looks like she was trying to save her job with these accusations. Her credibility is clearly weakened by these possible questions against her motives, even if she is telling the truth.

Careful reading of the article raises even more questions:

Where is this production assistant? Why would she be fired if she had a witness, and possibly the help of a "high-powered entertainment attorney", and would being fired in this situation possibly be even more financially rewarding that not?

Is there any significance to this timing in bold? Were Seacrest and Hardy actually having an affair, with both flirtatious and jealous behavior happening in the workplace, which Hardy tried to re-frame as harassment? Total speculation, but the article as written practically leads the reader there.

Dude, lol at your hardy boy mystery mission. The people you are concerned with are not in that story, remember? They are me and those like me.

You said:

People like me say: gtfo. Unless you have some kind of data showing that accusations are more likely to be fabricated than true as time passes it is nothing more than a convenient, but transparent, way for you to attempt to discredit an accuser. This is because you have more empathy for the accused than the victims of these things.