Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Danny Masterson"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without hard evidence. [/quote] 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. [/quote] Yes, and DNA evidence isn't the only form of "hard evidence." Testimony is hard evidence. Corroborated testimony even better. Yes, the fact that it was multiple women alleging similar things matters. So does the fact that at least one of the women reported her rape to the police at the time, and at least two of them told people in their lives about what had happened close in time (this eliminates the possibility that these women, who did not know each other at the time, could have conspired to allege matching experiences). Testimony from the police in that original investigation is hard evidence. Keep in mind, Danny didn't testify and his entire defense was just "they are lying." That's it. And the only victim for which he can produce a motivation for lying is the one who was an ex-girlfriend, and that's also the one count of rape for which the jury did not convict. He basically did not produce a defense for why these two other women would have such similar allegations about him, both of them having told others about it at the time, one of whom filed a police report, if they were just making it all up. That makes no sense. They did not profit financially from their allegations at any point. It has been pretty unpleasant for them to come forward. If, on top of all that, their testimony was compelling and could be corroborated by one another and by other witnesses? That's "hard evidence." If you only think someone should be convicted of something if there is video footage, or a fingerprint or DNA evidence, then god help you if you are ever the victim of a crime because you will never see justice. That's not how it works.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics