Patti Davis, the daughter of Ronald & Nancy Regan just revealed she was sexually assaulted 40yrs ago

FYI, for those who don't know. Brandy(musician, had a TV show) openly claimed her little brother was raped by OJ's lawyer, and he was never charged with a crime.

"If the rubber doesn't fit
I will still rape yo azz." - JC
 
How hard would it be to charge her with libel?

I thought the same thing. But apparently people can talk all kinds of shit about public figures and not be charged. There are certain laws in place that allow it.

Pretty ridiculous really
 
Its a prime moment to come out with an accusation given the me too movement is in full swing. If a person wanted to fabricate a claim nows the ripe time to gather media attention and supporters

We literally have a woman at the forefront of these claims who turned out to be a nutjob herself who groomed someone since childhood. At this rate why on earth would it be odd for anyone to fabricate a sex assault claim or there would need to be a sensible. " reason" for it?

I dont know much about patti she could be a weirdo for all i know. It's not like Holywood is lacking them.

As an entertainer shes involved in a buisiness . One which is highly shady and many people get burnt and would like to get back at the people who they feel wronged them or legitimately did screw them over.

Those are two quick, rationale,and simple reasons for a celeb to try to accuse someone also involved in the entertainment industry. Why this escaped you is the more baffling issue.

With the current climate the sensible thing to do is be neutral and wait and see how it plays out. No one should automatically be doubted or given the benefit of the doubt that they are above making false assault claims.
It was the prime moment to come out after Cosby and after Harvey Weinstein , so why wait till now? . Lots of women are coming out because they finally have the courage to face their past. I think she is finally coming out because apart from wanting to get some closure, she wants people to know that lots of women hide sexual assaults and do not immediately go to the police or tell anyone.
 
What good is a claim that has no evidence? What is the purpose of saying such things 40 years later?
She might reveal the name in the near future, we don't know yet how she intends to proceed. She is coming out with it now because it would have been nagging her for sometime, in the past, until she just buried it in her memory. She finally wants to put it to rest.
 
There is a suggestion being put forth that if a victim did not come forward in the prior decades then their accusation should not be believed.

Again, without evidence, no accusation should be blindly believed. Decades later with no physical evidence? Are you saying we should believe all accusations regardless of the evidence? It's wrong to doubt somebody who has had a real experience correct? Wouldn't it also be wrong to judge somebody wrongly? Neither side should hold any weight without evidence.

I guess I would ask who is making the suggestion you put forward? I've never heard anybody say somebody shouldn't be believed simply for coming out at a later time with what happened to them. There is an important caveat always delivered. That is without evidence, such accusations should be ignored and even discouraged as it would be impossible to get to the bottom of what really happened.

So again I ask if then that means that the people who believe that do not or did not believe the hundreds if not thousands of Church abuse victims who were only vindicated decades after when Facts were finally sought and came out, giving them voice against a powerful institution determined to deny it.

If there were facts/ evidence to be sought then I would argue it doesn't apply to what we are speaking on. We should look at those facts/ evidence and come to a conclusion based on them. We should NOT socially or legally convict people based on a accusation with no evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system after all is it not?
 
She might reveal the name in the near future, we don't know yet how she intends to proceed. She is coming out with it now because it would have been nagging her for sometime, in the past, until she just buried it in her memory. She finally wants to put it to rest.

I actually respect her A LOT more for not saying names. If she wants closure for what happened to her, I understand that, but she isn't making accusations lacking in evidence.
 
It was the prime moment to come out after Cosby and after Harvey Weinstein , so why wait till now? . Lots of women are coming out because they finally have the courage to face their past. I think she is finally coming out because apart from wanting to get some closure, she wants people to know that lots of women hide sexual assaults and do not immediately go to the police or tell anyone.

Its still the prime moment. We just literally had a minor celeb nearly lose his entire career over and ex who didnt even outright name him directly.

And yes as you noted above that may be precisely what she is doing. Plenty of rape victims keep the crime to themselves or don't mention it until much later. But its frankly being intellectually dishonest to think a stranger you dont know is incapable of outright lying or one needs a rational motive to accuse someone of rape. Again look at someone who came out like Argento. Thats a whole lot of nonsensical train wreck in her actions and motives.
 
Its my position that without evidence or witnesses etc. Or a police report you probably shouldn't accuse somebody of something heinous like rape.
That makes no sense as almost all instances of such abuse start FIRST with an accusation and then subsequently in an investigation the evidence and witnesses and the corroborators come forward.

If the evidence and witness have to proceed the complainant then you will never have complainants.
 
Again, without evidence, no accusation should be blindly believed...
First of all lets agree to put aside the strawmen and not say bullshit like you say here. YOu cannot quote me saying any accusation should be believed let alone blindly believed.

What I did say was that it makes no sense for the President to say or suggest that if this accusation was legit the victim would have come forward 30 years ago.

We know now for fact via the Church scandals that the time frame someone comes forward has nothing to do with whether the complaint is legit or not so from there we need an investigation.
 
That makes no sense as almost all instances of such abuse start FIRST with an accusation and then subsequently in an investigation the evidence and witnesses and the corroborators come forward.

If the evidence and witness have to proceed the complainant then you will never have complainants.

The evidence existed before you make the accusation no? I feel you're being purposefully dense to the point i'm making. If evidence is non existent, what good is your accusation? Do we just believe an accusation as truth regardless of evidence?
 
First of all lets agree to put aside the strawmen and not say bullshit like you say here. YOu cannot quote me saying any accusation should be believed let alone blindly believed.

What I did say was that it makes no sense for the President to say or suggest that if this accusation was legit the victim would have come forward 30 years ago.

We know now for fact via the Church scandals that the time frame someone comes forward has nothing to do with whether the complaint is legit or not so from there we need an investigation.

It hurts the credibility when you come out late like that because the evidence that can be used is likely gone. Do you think that tweet reflects Trumps complete thoughts on accusers coming out late? For instance, if somebody had a piece of physical evidence, do you think Trump would call bullshit because they waited 20 years? I highly doubt that. You seem to be building your own strawman to make Trump look bad
 
So she got did like she was Brandy's little brother, and the music exec was Johnny Cochran?

FYI, for those who don't know. Brandy(musician, had a TV show) openly claimed her little brother was raped by OJ's lawyer, and he was never charged with a crime.

I guess back then, a whole 10 years ago, rape wasn't as big of a deal.
It was his lawyer's daughter, and there is video footage of the incident.

RAY-J-KIM-K-CV.png
 
The evidence existed before you make the accusation no? I feel you're being purposefully dense to the point i'm making. If evidence is non existent, what good is your accusation? Do we just believe an accusation as truth regardless of evidence?
You are the one being purposely dense.

The body is found of a murder most times before the evidence is gathered. In most cases, unless the crime is committed in a very public forum the crime is brought forth FIRST and the evidence gathered, submitted and considered after the fact.

We do not know what they evidence will say until it is gathered and examined and ruled upon which almost always comes AFTER the reporting of the crime.
 
It hurts the credibility when you come out late like that because the evidence that can be used is likely gone. Do you think that tweet reflects Trumps complete thoughts on accusers coming out late? For instance, if somebody had a piece of physical evidence, do you think Trump would call bullshit because they waited 20 years? I highly doubt that. You seem to be building your own strawman to make Trump look bad
So you lead back to my first question about all the Church Scandals which started with victims coming out decades later. Many times being ignored for decades until enough witnesses came forward and then investigations were launched AFTER THE FACT that unearthed the evidence for consideration (often Church internal documents of cover up).

So again is your position up until that evidence was discovered and came out that the accusations were not credible?
 
You are the one being purposely dense.

The body is found of a murder most times before the evidence is gathered. In most cases, unless the crime is committed in a very public forum the crime is brought forth FIRST and the evidence gathered, submitted and considered after the fact.

We do not know what they evidence will say until it is gathered and examined and ruled upon which almost always comes AFTER the reporting of the crime.

The body would be evidence that a crime took place. We don't even know if a crime actually took place here. There is no semen coated panties, no bruising around the wrists/ neck, no skin under the fingernails, no threatening text messages, no anything to indicate a crime happened.
 
So again is your position up until that evidence was discovered and came out that the accusations were not credible?

Exactly. Something isn't credible until it's credible. You can be telling the truth and be found to not be credible enough to crucify somebody. Rape accusations are very fucking serious. I will not take your accusations serious if you don't have something to back them up. It's fucking terrifying that people would believe an accusation with no evidence
 
The body would be evidence that a crime took place. We don't even know if a crime actually took place here. There is no semen coated panties, no bruising around the wrists/ neck, no skin under the fingernails, no threatening text messages, no anything to indicate a crime happened.
Wow are you this stupid that you think the body is always found first and that if its not an investigation of a murder is bogus?

Wow. Your view is the evidence never comes out after a crime is reported, really? In this day of all the Church Scandals you are going to try and maintain that position. Really?
 
Exactly. Something isn't credible until it's credible. You can be telling the truth and be found to not be credible enough to crucify somebody. Rape accusations are very fucking serious. I will not take your accusations serious if you don't have something to back them up. It's fucking terrifying that people would believe an accusation with no evidence
Ya so lets again put the strawman aside (can you do that?) as no one is saying an judgement should be made before the evidence is examined.

What we are saying is that Trump's position that because she did not bring out evidence 30 years ago BEFORE the charge was leveled that means her claim is suspect. It means no such thing. Only an examination of the evidence can do that. Trump is wrong.
 
Back
Top