Danny Masterson

[Anonymous]

Okay guys. So Scientology is a cult.

Did any of you watch the Sarah Lawrence cult doc? Some of the girls who were brainwashed had some really crazy stories and were not living in reality for a long time. I have no idea what I think because I wasn’t at the trial and I’m seeing some conflicting accounts of the trial and what happened to them online. I lean toward, “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” but that’s a crude way to form an actual opinion.

But anyway, is not plausible that Mila and Ashton believe those women (who were also cult members) have or had some of their own delusions regarding Masterson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

It’s hard to discount multiple women testifying that they were drugged and raped by him even if there was no dna evidence. I don’t know who else the jury heard from. But maybe other people corroborated their experiences.

Even if true, 30 years is too harsh of a sentence for something like this, especially since it occurred over 20 years ago. And it was a few women, not “multiple”, who all knew each other and could have possibly corroborated their stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

It’s hard to discount multiple women testifying that they were drugged and raped by him even if there was no dna evidence. I don’t know who else the jury heard from. But maybe other people corroborated their experiences.

Even if true, 30 years is too harsh of a sentence for something like this, especially since it occurred over 20 years ago. And it was a few women, not “multiple”, who all knew each other and could have possibly corroborated their stories.

Look, it went to trial and the jury found him guilty. Evidence was presented, including testimony from the accusers and the defendant’s counsel had the opportunity to cross examine them. Danny had the opportunity to testify and present his side of the story and he chose not to. He willingly allowed the jury to only hear the accusers’ sides. There was also a lot more evidence that hasn’t been frequently discussed. Have you actually read more on the trial? Sorry if this isn’t enough for you, but it was for the jury. This is how the court system works. If Danny didn’t want a jury, he could have opted for a bench trial, which he also didn’t do.

So, Danny opted for a jury trial, of a jury made of his peers that his attorneys helped select, chose not to testify and those jurors heard the case and decided he was guilty. You weren’t on the jury. He received a fair trial. Now he lives with the conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

One of the victims went to the police and filed a report in 2004, shortly after she was raped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay guys. So Scientology is a cult.

Did any of you watch the Sarah Lawrence cult doc? Some of the girls who were brainwashed had some really crazy stories and were not living in reality for a long time. I have no idea what I think because I wasn’t at the trial and I’m seeing some conflicting accounts of the trial and what happened to them online. I lean toward, “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” but that’s a crude way to form an actual opinion.

But anyway, is not plausible that Mila and Ashton believe those women (who were also cult members) have or had some of their own delusions regarding Masterson?

Not all cults are the same. Scientology is a massive religious organization with political and cultural sway. The Sarah Lawrence cult was one guy with a daughter at the school who developed a small cult around himself by preying on his daughter's impressionable friends. Those are very different situations and I wouldn't assume similar dynamics.

It sounds like you aren't very well versed in the facts of this case. I'd urge you to actually read an account of the first trial which includes a lot of details about the timeline, how Danny knew these women, and what is alleged and known. If Ashton and Mila are assuming these women are just delusional and cooked up a conspiracy to frame Danny for rape, they too could probably stand to educate themselves a bit on why Danny was charged and tried, and why he was found guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Ashton and Mila in Scientology?

I can see pressures on them via Scientology if they are. That video was odd. The tone and script was just off for an apology video or even an explanation video.

They’ve never announced it publicly. However, Masterson was very involved in Scientology and as they emphasize in their letters, they worked together and were friends for many years. Given that information and the fact they even wrote these letters, it is very likely that Masterson tried to bring one or both of them to the Scientology celebrity centers. It’s well known that they keep tapes of sessions and who knows what Ashton and or Mila divulged. They would have both been very young and naive.

Whatever Scientology has on them must be really bad for them to become rape apologists.

You guys are reading into this. I grew up in a wealthy circle and a few of my friends parents were prosecuted for white collar crimes. Friends and clergy of their religious institutions certainly wrote letters. The rapes happened more than 20 years ago. Danny should’ve been prosecuted then, but he wasn’t, and in that time, he led another life where he was a friend, husband and father. Doesn’t make him less of a monster, but they are writing letters of their account of him over the last 20 years.

Imagine a Nazi being tried for war crimes decades after the fact. They may have run a gas chamber in the war, but gone on to be typical people after that. They should get prison (and worse), but it doesn’t change who they were to the people in their lives who knew them as entirely different people in the aftermath.

Ummm if I found out my neighbor was a former Nazi who murdered tons of people, there’s no way in hell I would write him a letter of support.

Do you have no soul?

Or maybe are you high on meth?

+1 Good lord who are these "OK, so you gassed a bunch of people as part of a fascist genocide plot but NBD" Nazi apologists???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

We are not the ones who heard all of the testimony. The jury did, and they decided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Full text of letters from celebrities: Bijou, Ashton, Mila, the entire Ribisi family:

https://tonyortega.substack.com/p/letters-from-ashton-kutcher-mila

I've posted a few times in this thread. I am a survivor of both rape and a workplace sexual assault. I often find myself drawn to stories like this for that reason.

One thing I learned in my own experience is that people can do horrible, cruel, criminal things, and also have this whole other life where they are loved, respected, and surrounded by family and friends.

This is a very hard thing to wrap your head around as a survivor. Both of the people who hurt me are considered wonderful people by others. When I was raped, I very quickly realized that if I reported it, I would face a wall of people who would back up my rapist because of their positive experiences with him. Some of these people were even aware that he had some unusual and uncomfortable sexual ethics-- one of them told me later that my rapist had disclosed to her that he fantasized about nonconsensual sex. Despite this, she still excused his actions towards me and dismissed it as a "gray area." I never brought charges against him, and a major reason why is that I knew he'd be defended and supported, and I feared that I would not be. I was not as loved or liked as he was. But he raped me.

Years later, I was sexually assaulted by a superior at work. I was relatively new to the job and felt very socially unsure of myself there still. The person who assaulted me was high up in the organization, very well connected, and very well liked by both colleagues and clients. People barely knew me. I have an awkward personality and a lot of social anxiety. Again, I knew if I said anything, there would be a line of people ready to defend and excuse my assailant, and I did not feel confident that even one person would believe me. So I stayed silent.

People who commit sexual assault are often in positions of power and authority. Parents, teachers, clergy, bosses, leaders. People tend to gravitate towards, and respect, authority and leadership. It can create affinity, make someone desirable as a friend. Likewise, many people need strong social skills to gain power to begin with. Charisma, good looks, and affinity are common in authority figures because they engender trust and enthusiasm.

If you take two things away from these letters describing this man who was just convicted of two violent rapes as a wonderful friend, warm and caring husband and father, a leader, a consummate professional, it is this:

1) There is no definitive experience of a person. Having wonderful experiences with a person does not negate someone else's experience of being harmed by that person. Both experiences "count" in evaluating that person.

2) Sometimes the very thing you like and find most compelling about a person can be used as a tool for terrible deeds. Masterson's charisma, professionalism, leadership qualities, humor, eloquence, etc. we're all very useful to him in raping women. He used these qualities to draw women to him, to control them, and later to silence them. Once you see this, it might change how you think about what qualities, or combination of qualities, are most valuable in other people. It's certainly changed mine.

+1 This is why Bill Cosby drugged and raped a 17 year old without money or power but didn't rape Phylicia Rashad with her money and fame.

I'm so sorry for what happened to you. For centuries, men rape women who are powerless or even worse outcasts. If they report it then society turns against them, calling them liars and shunning them. Men use their station to get away with it and gain supporters. Bijou's response to mock and humiliate the victims is unfortunately very typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay guys. So Scientology is a cult.

Did any of you watch the Sarah Lawrence cult doc? Some of the girls who were brainwashed had some really crazy stories and were not living in reality for a long time. I have no idea what I think because I wasn’t at the trial and I’m seeing some conflicting accounts of the trial and what happened to them online. I lean toward, “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” but that’s a crude way to form an actual opinion.

But anyway, is not plausible that Mila and Ashton believe those women (who were also cult members) have or had some of their own delusions regarding Masterson?

All of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay guys. So Scientology is a cult.

Did any of you watch the Sarah Lawrence cult doc? Some of the girls who were brainwashed had some really crazy stories and were not living in reality for a long time. I have no idea what I think because I wasn’t at the trial and I’m seeing some conflicting accounts of the trial and what happened to them online. I lean toward, “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” but that’s a crude way to form an actual opinion.

But anyway, is not plausible that Mila and Ashton believe those women (who were also cult members) have or had some of their own delusions regarding Masterson?

All of them?

It’s 3 women all of whom were Scientologists, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

One of the victims went to the police and filed a report in 2004, shortly after she was raped.

Indeed.

Entire victim impact statement goes on here: https://www.thereset.news/p/new-full-victim-impact-statement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

One of the victims went to the police and filed a report in 2004, shortly after she was raped.

And the police response was . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

Guys can we NOT? Can we please not deal with rape rationalization?

The women REPORTED THE ASSAULTS to “church” higher-ups when they happened, and they told loved ones they happened, and at least one police report was made.

I wish the women minimizing this like uhhhh it’s a she said were the ones drugged, anally raped, woke up bleeding, and then got stalked and had their pets killed. That’s what happened to some of his victims. You deserve it if you hide behind the internet to make it seem like less of a big deal.

Last comment on this - thinking the sentencing was harsh (in general, as well as given the evidence and time) is NOT rationalizing rape or making it seem like less of a big deal. It is merely saying, holy shit that seems like a crazy harsh sentence!

Similar to how some people are opposed to the death penalty. If it was someone you loved who had been horribly murdered how would you feel about a bunch of bleeding heart murder rationalization types demanding mercy for the killer because they think the death penalty is too harsh, or morally wrong, or dare I say crazy?

That’s all that’s going on here, a difference of opinion as to the appropriateness of the sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find). Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA.

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an opinion that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy!

It says the reports were made in 2017 with an investigation that followed and it seems the women went together as a group but the rapes occurred in 2000 and 2003.

One of the victims went to the police and filed a report in 2004, shortly after she was raped.

And the police response was . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence.

You, and people who think like you, are just monstrous at some level. You are the reason rape culture persists in our society.

Testimony IS evidence. Period. The jury weighs credibility of witnesses, including victim witnesses. It IS hard evidence when a person whose body was brutally violated by another person testifies, UNDER OATH AND UPON PENALTY OF PERJURY, that the defendant violated their bodily integrity.

The incidence of false rape accusations is tiny, whilst the number of unreported rapes is massive. Because of people like you!

~ former sex assault prosecutor