Puffer Fish wrote:In my opinion it creates plenty of reasonable doubt that a law exists allowing the women to try to get a huge amount of money for their accusation.
Again, you are confusing criminal courts with civil courts.
No one gets anything by accusing people in criminal court.
And also since no corroborating physical evidence exists for any of these rape allegations, and each alleged rape has no additional witnesses besides the woman who claims it happened to her.
Then it should have been easy to create reasonable doubt, but the defendant was unable to do so. This corroborates the claim that overwhelming evidence was presented.
The real question I think is, is it "unreasonable" to believe throngs of random women could have come forward with false stories, trying to get money, after watching the news?
Yes, it is unreasonable since criminal courts do not award money.
These women knew there was already a long line of other women accusing him. They already knew (or believed) he was going to prison. Probably for the remainder of his life. They probably believed he was guilty of rape. Even if not that, he was a reprehensible human being guilty of an endless string of sexual misconduct against women. They knew he was extremely wealthy and any lawsuit could result in a huge payout of money for them. They knew they could not be punished for their lie.
Under those circumstances, why not make up a story?
If the guy had lots of money and wouldn't be able to spend it, and they knew (or believed) adding another accusation on would not end up resulting in more punishment for him (and even if it did, they felt he probably deserved it), why would they have much moral qualms about lying? Like many on the Left, they may have felt it was unfair for this man to be so rich and they deserved their piece of the money.
Again, criminal courts do not award money.
Puffer Fish wrote:That is not true at all. Are you really unable to see the connection between criminal accusations and a lawsuit?
The criminal court is independent of the lawsuit and the evidence presented there would lead to conviction, not awarding money.
So there can be no financial incentive for women to lie at the criminal trial.
Do I really have to explain that to you?
Women file police reports, because if they do not, it will make it look like they are lying and just trying to get money when it comes to the civil lawsuit.
If this were the case, women would do this for other crimes and not sexual assault.
If the man is first convicted in a criminal trial, it can also help their lawsuit later.
Because the authorities (illogically) reason that if it has been "determined" that the accused committed the crime, then there is no reason not to believe it when it comes to the decision about whether the woman should get compensation for the crime.
And sometimes prosecutors can push women towards testifying in a criminal case. It's hard for those women to back out of it, because to do so they'd have to let on that they were lying when they made the false allegation to initiate the lawsuit.
While the two might THEORETICALLY be separate, in REALITY the two are intimately intertwined.
At the time of the criminal trial, there was no reasonable expectation that HW would be convicted, and by your logic, there would be no reasonable expectation of a successful civil suit.
Therefore, the women would be perjuring themselves (a high risk) for an unlikely benefit.
Puffer Fish wrote:You are totally ignoring the point.
You keep saying "evidence", but you totally gloss over the nature of exactly what this evidence is.
The only evidence any of these alleged rapes happened is the individual woman claiming she was raped.
No, this seems incorrect.
If that were the only evidence, there would have been reasonable doubt.
What people like you are trying to do is lump all those separate accusations together. Making the accusation for each alleged crime evidence for all the others.
The fact is, there does not exist more than one witness for any of these individual alleged crimes.
There's really no way to be sure whether any of those individual rape stories actually happened specifically.
It seems to me that what the real argument seems to be is that he is being accused by so many women that at least some of them have to be true.
You do not seem to know what my argument is.