Please tell me i’m not the only one who still finds this ridiculous and believes that only a court of law can determine guilt?
Please tell me i’m not the only one who still finds this ridiculous and believes that only a court of law can determine guilt?
Just because you don’t know the names of the friend and ex-boyfriend doesn’t mean they are completely unknown or that they are not credible. Likewise, the therapist’s notes are still evidence.
His quote speaks to how he views rape victims which is relevant.
You said:
I pointed out that in fact there is very little evidence contemporary to the alleged rape. You ignored this and instead replied, “but it’s still evidence.”
Here’s what he wrote about a soldier convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old Iraqi girl:
Again, Platner could release his side of the conversations. I wonder how much different his texts are from what his victim is saying about that night.
It is still evidence whether you want it to be or not.
Why would he have those messages if what he says is true? If Platner is telling the truth, then those messages never existed. You’re demanding Platner produce something that, according to his side, never existed in the first place.
He doesn’t deny the relationship with this woman.
You’re confusing “all texts” with “specific and relevant texts.”
Yes, Platner would have had texts with her. But the texts where she asked him not to come over, or accused him of rape, the actual damning stuff? None of that would exist if Platner is telling the truth.
Exactly, which means he could release his text history around the time of the alleged assault. If they were no damning texts between him and her around that time it would be evidence in his favor.