Would Cassie’s Claims Against Diddy Be Believed Without Video Evidence?

[MzAsh]

Who else thinks that without video evidence, Cassie’s claims against Diddy might have been dismissed or doubted by many? What do you think this says about society’s willingness to believe victims based on their word alone, compared to when there’s undeniable proof like a video?

[Zack-Bann]

Society believes victims wayyyyyyy too often and way to much


So yes she would have been believed


In every crime on earth it’s innocent until proven guilty


Except for SA. That’s the only one where we first hang the accused and then proceed to investigate
If he’s guilty then good
If he’s innocent then woops… onto killing the next guy who did nothing


And yes. On SA victim is one victim too many
But so is one falsely accused predator


So I don’t wanna hear about “believing the victim” lady justice is blind for a reason.

[MzAsh]

Respect for the principle of innocent until proven guilty is important for sure, but let’s not confuse legal rights with societal reactions.

You say society believes victims too easily? I’d argue the opposite is often true, especially when the accused holds power or fame. Look at the situation with Diddy and Cassie. If that video hadn’t surfaced, many would likely be quick to discredit her, showing how backwards public perception can be.

Yes, innocent people should be protected from false accusations, and it’s equally important not to automatically dismiss someone’s claims just because the accused is a celebrity. This thread is about why we tend to rush to defend people like Diddy and doubt victims like Cassie. Let’s face it, this skepticism can silence victims, making them think twice before coming forward. That’s not justice, that’s fear, and it tilts the scales in favor of those already powerful enough to tip them, like we’ve witnessed him verbally admit that “he’s a savage and does and gets whatever the fuck he wants”

[Zack-Bann]

I have yet to see a single person even insinuate that Diddy is innocent

The second he was incarcerated other celebrities have cut all ties
And random people just made jokes about him being guilty

I know influencial people tend to get away with much more than normal people and that on its own is a problem but it goes beyond SA, the rich and powerful can get away with murder theft corruption you name it

It’s less about believing the victim and more about not giving a free pass to someone because they have money and fame

I do believe the law should be impartial regardless of all factors that is certain

[CalmUntilAbused]

@MzAsh While I do respect Your commitment to justice, You have to understand that #BelieveWoman has been killed and it was a woman who killed it (or at least a sentient being that resembled a human woman, since it's still hard to wrap my head around the fact that a certain Amber Heard-class life destroyer is an actual woman). That's why it's no longer rational to expect the public to believe female victims with no hard proof provided. Rest assured though, we're just getting closer to equality in this regard this way, since with male victims, no one even begins to care before it's proven beyond any doubt that they were actually victims, and even then they are usually ridiculed for becoming victims in the first place. Thus... Judgement is best left to the jury, all while keeping the public in the dark before any claims can be proven is adviseable in particularly drastic cases.

[Zack-Bann]

@CalmUntilAbused
with men we’re still further behind even
The thought of accusing a woman of abuse is still seen as outrageous because either: there’s no way she overpowered you. Or “what a sad whimp you are” (i. e. victim blaming)

and that common knowledge makes women a lot more dangerous behind closed doors since they know that no one will believe you

[Aimée__LJ]

Even when there is video or photographic evidence women are not believed.

I've read cases of women who were raped in a public place and security cameras caught it happening. Clear as day could see the man's face. But it still wasn't enough evidence. This is one of the reasons why women don't report or speak out. The other being when they do speak out the man gets let off with barely a slap on the wrist because "he has his whole life ahead of him".

A famous recent case, a man who murdered his girlfriend was turned into a chant for predominantly republican men. Let that sink in, he murdered his girlfriend and was presumed to be on the run and people chanted for him. (To be fair I don't think 90% of them knew what they were doing but still someone started it and others thought it was a good idea)

[Crazzyyworld]

Boonga boonga wear some straw skirt and dance that black ass off

[ShadezMcgee]

I am not defending Diddy in any way, but even if it wasn't Diddy and it was any person being accused we can't always believe word of mouth and that is why evidence is needed to go with due process.

The reason we can't take people's word at face value is because people have been wrongly accused and convicted, and those with status are more prone because of money and assets they may have that can be lost or gained. Also, do we need to go into the secondary effects this shit causes?

When you have dead to right evidence from multiple sources or things like photos or videos, they can at least be used in a courtroom for a jury to make their decisions based on the evidence provided.

It's not about what you say, it's about what can be proven. Innocent until proven guilty.

[MzAsh]

There’s a need for tangible evidence in these cases, which is fair and square in the justice system. However, it also hints at a default position of doubt towards victims’ claims, which could discourage victims from speaking out if they don’t have that “dead to right” evidence. This can unintentionally support a culture where only the most clear cut cases are believed, and sidelines genuine experiences that lack video proof but are no less valid.

[ShadezMcgee]

So should we have believed Casey Anthony was innocent off the bat? For the record I still say that bitch killed her kid, but that's a different tangent.

Should we instantly believe men who say they didn't commit a crime a woman accuses him of such as rape, abuse or anything along those lines? If we want to go down your road, why are we supposed to "believe all women" but instantly when the person who is accused has to go to trial, get his name and face smeared by the media. Tarred and feathered by the very society that is supposed to believe the outcome based on evidence? For what? If we are to have a fair and balanced system, we can't believe everyone off the bat on hearsay.

It is one thing for a claim to be given and followed up to be supported with credible evidence, but for the individual's word alone to be THE evidence is a problem.

You talk about a culture that is unintentionally telling people not to speak up because of a lack of dead to right evidence when you are missing the key issue. It has to be admissible in court and that is the issue with hearsay.

By all means speak up and have it followed up to have proper evidence to support the claim, but you cannot base an accusation on hearsay

[MzAsh]

I hear your concerns about the need for evidence before making judgments in legal scenarios like the one you mentioned with Casey Anthony. However, this discussion is less about legal verdicts and more about public perceptions and biases that influence how accusations are received, particularly when celebrities are involved.

To clarify, I’m not advocating for an automatic belief in any accusation without evidence. Instead, I’m pointing out a tendency I’ve noticed where people might rush to defend a high profile figure like Diddy and doubt the accuser, in this case, Cassie, if it weren’t for the hard evidence like the video we have.

My point is about the quickness to discredit accusers in the court of public opinion, which can discourage victims from coming forward.

[ShadezMcgee]

But again, we are talking a about a matter of false accusations along with truth in between, this is the issue when it comes to high profile cases like this, especially with celebrities.

Let's use Diddy here as our example
Even before all this shit came out about him, there was a lot of shit coming out from rappers in particular about the shit he did. It was there in front of us, but not seen until it was brought to light, and ok top of that, a lot of celebrities are coming out and spilling about the things he did, arguably to save face, but they are.

Now, in general instances when an accusation like this is made, certain people will be more inclined to agree with them over others. Celebrities have publicity all the time regardless if it is good or bad. To believe everything could be brushed off as tabloid bullshit. Plus, how often do you think they get accused of shit by crazed fans or people trying to get a slice of fame or money out of them. Bet money there is a lot of that crap going on as well. So we can't believe a victim off the bat. There needs to be investigations and credible evidence to back up what is said like I have been saying.

Plus, the people defending people like Diddy. Look at who they are and their character. How many were fellow celebrities or die hard fans? Easy to say they can make it seem like there is more support for them than there really is, especially with social media as a tool to say things to defend people like that.

Rather than frame it as "it also hints at a default position of doubt towards victims’ claims, which could discourage victims from speaking out"

Frame it as "Trust but verify what the alleged victim says." Back to the investigation and evidence gathering to back it up.

[Malwi93]

@ShadezMcgee well why do u think she would do that

[ShadezMcgee]

@Malwi93 who would do what?

[Malwi93]

kill her own kid

[ShadezMcgee]

@Malwi93 her motive from the way I see it is that she wanted to not have to deal with her daughter, designated her a burden to her lifestyle and killed her with the help of another and covered it up.

I know the jury ruled her not guilty amd I accept that, but that doesn't mean. I agree with the outcome or with the verdict they reached. So yes, I believe Casey Anthony killed her kid. Now if we are done with that, let's get back on track.

She was merely an example in my argument with @MzAsh

[Kaneki05]

Only a insane person would not. Diddy has been arrested on multiple charges of violence already, already had allegations against him, had many who actively decided to try stay away from working with him.
There's a lot of crosses on a graph that become a linear line, it shows who he is. At some point the fact of what he has done or not don't even matter he should be in jail for the rest of his life, everyone knows he's a bad guy.

[Grond21]

I didn't watch the particulars of the case, so I can't say for sure. But as a standard in general it is much better that the guilty go free than us put innocent people in jail. This is both a Biblical standard and a core part of who we are as Americans. The guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and until that happens there is no victim in the eyes of the law.

[jshm2]

Video alone is not "undeniable" proof of anything. If it was, then there would be no need for a court or trial.

The case is far more complex than the media and talking heads would admit.

[Ladsin2]

I'm not sure what the point of this question is, but it depends on what you believe about the defendant in question. Bayes theorem is a great way to assess claims. P (A B) = \frac{P (B A) \cdot P (A)}{P (B)}

Hope that helps.

[Staximus]

Probably not. Words alone without evidence don't always hold up in a court of law. Plus his money and lawyers would have been able to take care of it if it was just her word against his.

[grega239]

Likely. Diddy has always been sus.

I mean 50 cent has been going after him for years for stuff like this.

[shortster]

I think society would mostly believe it; but legally, I think that he would walk without video evidence.

[Gwendoline]

She would have overdosed