In sex crime accusations, how many accusers imply guilt without evidence?

[msc545]

I ask because, at least in the mind of one person on here, if not more, a certain number of female accusers automatically means that whoever they're accusing is guilty of whatever sex crime they're alleging. There is no real evidence required. There is no agreement required. There is no trial. It's just a conviction. So, how many women telling the story without any corroborating evidence equals a conviction in your mind?

[jshm2]

Well... it's irrelevant how many "accusers" there are. Or what media is pushing the story.

The laws work by "innocent until proven guilty" and there needs to be a lot more than mere assertion to secure a conviction.

That one person is probably confusing "prior convictions" with current accusation. Yes, they have a point. If you get a rapist or domestic abuser,, then you are within habits for "convicting" them before trial. However you MUST still convict based on evidence instead of feeling, or they will just win their appeal and make you look the fool.

[888theGreat]

50% at least

[MisterWack]

There needs to be evidence linking the person to at least one of those women’s testimonies to the crime by the alleged perpetrator. Same goes for male abuse victims too.

A trial isn’t a she said, he said however sometimes the system sets it up that way to allow no justice for the victim. There are times when cops don’t allow evidence to be collected or reported, then the abuse victim comes forward seeking justice years later off the record which damages their credibility.
It really varies from case to case and the facts of the case.

[CaptainObivous]

I'm going to say a lot. The way our judicial system is corrupted and biased, a guy accused of rape is automatically guilty until proven innocent, then it really doesn't mean much, as it's not uncommon to still be guilty when proven innocent ruining a guys life. Without evidence, it's really his word against her's, and 99% of the time, a guilty verdict is base on her word. In my opinion, women who file false rape allegations should receive the same amount of jail time the guy would have received.

[purplepoppy]

If people who are unconnected are telling similar stories then that is evidence. Remember if you report a rape you will be quizzed on every little detail by the prosecution. Given criminals are creatures of habit it's safe to say the method of rape, threats used etc are going to be similar. So I'd say TWO women presenting the same evidence is proof.

[msc545]

Yes, it is evidence. More often than not evidence of a conspiracy.

[msc545]

It seems like it's beyond you to consider the fact that the two people reported the alleged rape are also people who've spent some time talking to each other or writing to each other before reporting it it's a much more parsimonious explanation than the idea that these two women happen to be raped by the same guy.

[purplepoppy]

It sounds like you're defending rapists. Casting doubt to deter victims coming forward

[msc545]

Alleged victims need to be doubted, considering that they are trying to arrange terrible penalties for the people they accuse.

[slatyb]

No real evidence? Why would you imagine that many women, unacquainted with each other, would come forward with similar credible reports of sexual abuse?

[msc545]

Because they have spoken to each other and gotten together and realized that if they both report the same thing, the chances of a conviction are much greater and they both stand to profit.

[slatyb]

Profit? How?

[msc545]

After conferring with each other, they're going to have the same stories or pretty close to the same stories, and the reasons are, of course, money, revenge, and fame.

[msc545]

Well, if the person is convicted, there is always a money award to be alleged victims involved.

[msc545]

There is also a lot of social status in being a victim if you are a woman.