And why is t the testimony of many women sufficient?
Because it isn't enough to convict, at least the accusation. If additional information can be provided that helps demonstrate the case, that helps, but a lot of this is simply accusatory and the guys who are being accused will deny it. So much time has passed in these cases. There are no rape kits, no physical evidence. So you need to place this person with the accused, which could be possible. But then the defense is,
it wasn't me who did it.
Think of it like getting a mob boss. There are crimes clearly being committed, but convicting on those crimes, particularly the up aboves, is ridiculously hard. You need someone to talk. With any luck, Prince Andrew will talk.
Yup. You need
credible witnesses. Unfortunately, his victims tend not to be very credible--abusers select for whether they think someone would make a good witness against them. The reality is that there will always be people after a buck who will make false allegations against the rich, you need witnesses that do not look like them. You need witnesses that give testimony they couldn't get from the newspaper.
And, unfortunately, you have the same problem you have with the mob bosses--when you get the underling to testify against the boss there's always the suspicion that they're making things up to reduce their own punishment, either because they don't actually have useful evidence or they are too afraid to actually testify against their boss. Happens all too often with drug cases--the cops flip an underling, he flips his boss, boss has nobody they can flip so they make things up.
People have been contacting authorities about violence towards minors for 30 years!
I'd say one of the biggest unaddressed crimes was the sweet deal in Florida that Epstein received. And if it weren't for the press, Miami Herald, we wouldn't even have this thread.
I'm thinking it was a deal done because they had a witness that either didn't want to testify or who would look bad on the stand. Pleas way below what the crime warrants may be corruption, or they may be a case that would likely be lost at trial.
Credible? Not what I said. The prosecution would need physical evidence to help defend the accusation.
The Florida deal had shit all to do with 'noncredible' witnesses. It was one of the dirtiest plea deals in our nation's history.
As in images? Yeah, there are images. Ted Lieu has seen them.
I mean, my normal pattern is to look at the headline posted, read the comments, and look for two things: a post containing some manner of article text, and a post both supporting and attacking the article in various ways.
I will read the post supporting the article, and the one attacking it, and see what grounds it's being attacked or supported on, as well as any additional interest posts people have added due to their attachment to the subject.
Sometimes the top level post is a collation of other evidence and posts online, but usually I take these with a grain of salt; I'll look for the counterpoint and also read that.
When I am done reading those things, I make an assessment based first on the structure of the most appreciated responses: does the response contain character attacks, or does it contain strong counter-arguments and facts? Does it attempt to downplay rather than counter? Does it gloss over things entirely? Is it well researched? Are the sub-claims linked to reputable sources? Does someone respond to them as someone would with discussions of how or why this is misleading? Is it emotional?
Then once I have evaluated the discussion being had and the arguments being made, I form some kind of educated opinion and forget promptly about everything I read but the "bones" of the argument often reduced to "(some person who I don't care their name) said/did XYZ" and then I file that away as a fact along with a general notion of where I saw it.
If I start seeing a name often enough to remember it, I do more research into the name. If it's someone I've never seen or heard of before to any extent worth remembering, I generally tend not to care beyond the notable D or R.
Usually the fact ends up being something like "there are now molecular motors that people are experimenting with to physically shred cancer cells" or "Alzheimer's may have a component involving depletion of repair proteins rather than accumulation of materials, where accumulation is secondary to the depletion, and a distraction from the underlying cause."
I don't remember where I read these things because I don't care. I do these things to inform myself, not others; I would rather others do the things that inform themselves as I do, and I only talk about the information so others know there is work to do and information to find.
Further, I don't because it is 90% more work for the dubious benefit of citation, and I am horrible remembering arbitrary names and numbers or saving and indexing links. I'm not going to do it, but at the very least I am not going to be discussing facts I haven't been exposed to.
And I will repeat, I know for a fucking fact that not every amphetamine prescription is going to contain the same ratio of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. Some "amphetamine" will contain more or less Dextro, and Adderall specifically contains a particular mixture of salts and yeah, it fucking makes a difference even if it is falsely claimed it does not.
At any rate, I just don't fucking care to do the copying and the pasting and all that other bullshit because it's not fucking worth my time.