Two women have now come forward and told their stories about Ed Westwick. Actress Kristina Cohen and former actress Aurélie Wynn both posted their stories to Facebook this week, and both women made separate claims that Ed Westwick raped them in 2014. When Cohen, the first accuser, wrote her story on Facebook, Westwick released a statement on social media after several hours, writing: “I do not know this woman. I have never forced myself in any manner, on a woman. I certainly have never committed rape.” He waited longer (or it certainly felt like longer) to respond to Wynn’s accusation, that he raped her in his maze-like rental home. Here’s his statement:
— Ed Westwick (@EdWestwick) November 9, 2017
“It is disheartening and sad to me that as a result of two unverified and provably untrue social media claims, there are some in this environment who could ever conclude I have had anything to do with such vile and horrific conduct. I have absolutely not, and I am cooperating with the authorities so that they can clear my name as soon as possible.”
Let’s unpack this, because I feel like people have been getting caught up in the specificity of Westwick’s denials this week. Like, these are not the oddly, carefully worded denials of someone who knows they did *something* but they’re taking their lawyer’s advice. Westwick previously said, flat-out, that he’s “never committed rape” and that he does “not know” Kristina Cohen. Now he’s blasting the lack of verification? “…As a result of two unverified and provably untrue social media claims…” So now he’s just calling these women liars. Or, “provably” liars. The use of “provably” is throwing me off, as is the use of “unverified.” Like, both women are just saying that Ed Westwick raped them. They’re not journalists or lawyers trying to meet a burden of proof. That being said, Kristina did go to the LAPD to make a statement in the investigation, so we’ll see.
Update: I screwed up the wording here, I’m sorry. I fixed it. My bad.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
He isnt saying “probably” but ProVably. I dont know if thats a word but its clear what he means.
Ditto.
So many men have the best words and think we should believe them.
But, probably untrue. From never met her to probably untrue. Right.
Edit: apparently it’s prove-ably? I still don’t believe him.
This denial is different than any other. His actions are different. I think he’s telling the truth.
This is the perfect climate for the dredges from the other side to bubble up- those who would use sexual crime accusations on innocent people. No woman would falsely accuse a man… no woman BEFORE all this happening. Now, there’s a rush to give a stoic “I believe you” to any and all accusers, and there will be opportunists. Being falsely accuse of rape would be devastating. We need to listen carefully, and hold accountable where due.
We need to step back. Let people tell their story. Validate their feelings. But we need to LISTEN to the response. If it’s a VEHEMENT no, I’m going to listen, because a liar will pay for being a liar too.
it’s not men bad, women good or vice versa. It’s about truth and that has nothing to do with gender.
Why would he say he did it. There is no positive to that, and it’s ridiculous that you are expecting an abuser to tell the truth. A person who already shows no social mores, you expect them to own up to raping someone?
Several abusers have held themselves responsible when confronted (NOT looking at you, Spacey). People are careful now, and that’s why I believe when he says he unequivocally did not do it.
Look. I understand. I’m a victim of harassment and rape. I’ve been a victim of freeze response my entire life. I’ve told and not told. I’ve been on both sides of my strength, and went through privately the last year what the public seems to be going through now. The bubble burst on one far end, and we may swing too far the other direction and believe only women. that’s equally as dangerous, and there as many positives and negatives as the alternative extreme. Hopefully we can settle in the middle when heads are cool.
That doesn’t make every person guilty. I was always listened to, and I appreciate that. I would also appreciate that if any person accused me of something so horrifying, we would both be listened to fairly.
You cannot reverse the trauma of being persecuted for something you didn’t do, just to make sure the other person was heard, because someone who accuses an innocent party like that IS AN ABUSER, WHO YOU CANNOT EXPECT TO TELL THE TRUTH. Both parties need to be listened to, and if one wants to lie, whatever side they are on, well then in due process, that will be dealt with on top of the slander or whatever have you.
It’s a personal issue, but we need to be clear about it like other crimes.
Wiffie: Or to play devil’s advocate: he latching his statement on to the very real possibility the investigation will be dropped. The case is three years old, the chance that he’s going to be prosecuted are slim to none and he’s banking on the fact that when no charges are filed, people will say, “He said he was innocent so fervently and the charges were dismissed. He’ s innocent and did nothing wrong.” Even though he absolutely could have committed both assaults but there was no evidence to have an actual case all these years later.
I get what you’re saying but this is a real possibility as well.
Wind Whistler, that’s a good point. It’s sort of like how Trump says he has proof, never shows it, and all his supporters believe him and call the other person a liar. That could be Westwick’s MO here.
I very much disagree we’ve swung the pendulum. We’ve budged it one tiny small bit, and looking at those Facebook comments, maybe not even that.
You are choosing to believe the person who has the most to gain by lying, over two others because… social over correction means both women are lying? Imagine if you were treated like that, instead of receiving support like you did.
And id like to note, there is zero proof that creating a supportive atmosphere increases false reporting as you’ve hypothesized.
‘Provably untrue’ makes my autocorrect go into overdrive, but that’s what the man said.
Yes, he means he can prove his accusers are lying. He can show he was elsewhere at the time, or something similar.
To that, all I can say is, “Show us the timelines then, Ed.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking. If there’s proof, SHOW it.
I mean its what the tweet says and as a defense “I probably didnt rape someone” wouldnt make sense.
Yes and exactly. If the accusations are specific about time and place, then it is possible he can prove he was elsewhere. That’s what I read as his implication. But, as detritus says below, it could be a matter of witness statements – which may or may not be credible.
If he’s got documentation that he wasn’t where he’s being accused of being, and when, then he should give it to us NOW.
yes, Im obviously not in know what he has, I doubt he can prove it and I believe the victims anyway but like Kaiser said below: The word was read in the wrong way.
I very much doubt he can prove it.
And if he is going to imply he can, he had better hurry up and follow through, or he will dig himself an even deeper hole. The wanker.
If he can prove he wasn’t in LA, every other accuser is going to become suspect.
Ed Westwick is out here pretending sexual assault claims are like Twitter accounts, as if there’s somewhere accusers can go to get “verified.”
Please.
Also, if he can “prove,” it, why doesn’t he?
Each day that goes by that he releases these strange teaser statements just speaks to him needing the time to strategize with the lawyers and try to make it all go away. It’s not really the first thing someone who’s innocent does.
Like, if he has surveillance footage in his house of her pulling his pants off, or cornering him in a room trying to kiss him while her boyfriend waits at the dinner table elsewhere, then he should say that ASAP. Or, if he wasn’t even home on the date in question.
My guess is he’s probably trying to get Harling the producer to back up whatever version he comes through with for the Cohen accusation.
If someone has accused me of something and I could immediately prove them a liar, why would I keep said proof under wraps and let the lies marinate for days and weeks with the public?
Come on Ed Westwick.
he better show evidence to the Police FIRST. Enough of this social media receipts bullshit.
Presumably he’s showing his timelines to the police, not releasing them to the public.
If he’s innocent, I hope he proves it, his name is cleared, and he gets an apology from everyone who assumed his guilt.
If he’s guilty, I hope their stories hold up and his career and reputation burn to the ground while he rots in jail.
Unfortunately just writing the words I didn’t do it and can prove it is enough for some people and he knows it. Follow-up documented proof isn’t necessary for them to believe him. They’re more than willing to take his words at face value.
Ugh, this idea of “provability,” came up in the Roy Moore story. The journalists were able to prove that the 14 year old girl was in fact at the courthouse when she said she was and that Moore had an office there. But apparently that isn’t enough for everyone so hell bent on defending him.
English is not my native language but when I read provably I understand “ indisputably“
Its mine neither but from the word he wrote and the context it only makes sense as in “I can prove its untrue”.
yep, same here.
As in he can prove he wasn’t in LA or something. Apart from that, what else could he prove? Also, those are big words for someone who’s always high or drunk or both… i mean he did hang out with Pete Doherty.
Provably is a word, but it does sound lawyery (which isn’t a word) Honestly, I think these guys accused should stop with the long comments and commentary. Either don’t comment, or say quick I didn’t do this and I welcome all investigations, quick and short. As there is very little you can say.
Lawyery is a much better word then provably. I don’t care what Webster says.
The rules of statement analysis back you up. Short, to the point denials (“I did not rape XYZ.”) are considered stronger than the epic tomes some of these guys are putting out.
One of the accepted theories is the more words that are produced the more likely they are trying to baffle with bullshit. More words mean different people will focus on different words and will argue from their perspective rather than the facts.
Also, I have known girls/women who lied about harassment/assault/rape so I know it does happen. However, in this case I believe the women accusing Ed. Their statements are simple and free of hyperbole and follow a pattern many predators use. Ed is blathering big words and sounds more like a lawyer (which could mean he was coached rather than using his natural word usage).
Regardless, I’m glad he’s being investigated. If the women are lying I hope he is vindicated and the women are legally punished. If Ed is lying I hope he is legally punished.
This denial is reading to me like he believes he can prove he did not do it, as in, “I was not there and I have witnesses” or “I have the producer and he says it never happened”—we’ll see what the police turn up now that they have a complaint. He’s certainly not talking around the accusation like these other guys.
They have had time to learn from the other mistakes.
Yeah…the language is weird. At the same time – why continue to deny if it’s true? That’s going to come back and bite him in the ass…
i don’t understand this logic. denying is pretty common when it comes to rape, either that or saying it was consensual.
and no, it won’t bite him in the arse because after 3 years there’s so little that could be done anyway.
From a purely legal perspective, it could bite him in the ass.
If he would have claimd consensual sex, it would be almost impossible to prove that he raped her, at least in a judical sense.
And bevor somebody says I defend rapists, I believe Ms. Cohen and Ms. Wynn, and want raipists to go to jail, but I am looking, from the current legal situation.
With his defence, that he never met Ms. Cohen and can prove, that he did not rape anybody, the very Moment they can prove, they met, or describe how his apartement looks, he is proven to be a liar and their chances to get him convicted increase.
With his statement, he basically shifted the burden of poof onto him.
Because this is not something you want to stick to your name if it isn’t true.
The more people come out of the woodwork, the more likely the accusation is true in public opinion, regardless of proof.
If he stays silent, he is condemned.
And if he says something, especially if he knows it’s untrue, better a proper denial refuting each individual claim than ‘sorry you are offended’ type denial like Kevin did.
I don’t understand how this is so hard for people. You wouldn’t expect a murderer to own up, why would you expect a rapist?
Completely agree @LAK and @detritus. Why would anyone expect a rich, celebrity rapist with access to PR and good lawyers to own up to anything?
Detritus: Habeus Corpus. Otherwise we are all witchfinders.
Agapanthus: it can happen. See Louis CK.
I don’t think I understand Habeas corpus enough to understand your comment, LAK 🙁 I only know it’s tied with due process and summons to court?
And Agapanthus, I assume a person admits when their team determines the case against is going to win. It’s a better PR strategy, but a worse criminal one, Perhaps?
Well, denying he knows the woman could bite him in the ass if she can prove he does. But denying the allegations won’t. If he is proven a rapist, lying won’t matter.
Lying about this wont be the big problem he will have.
Why would he ever admit it? That doesn’t serve him at all.
In this situation who has more to gain by lying, Ed or the two women?
he’s saying provably, as in he can prove it. which he can’t obviously, but he knows he has the upper hand because sexual assault is already incredibly difficult to prove even if reported immediately, but after so many years boy knows he’s golden.
It just makes me think he has buddies locked and loaded to lie for him like Depp did. Wait for the Stanhope to appear.
exactly. i mean, he’s good friends with a pedophile, and despite people saying it came out of nowhere, as a GG fan i can attest there were rumours about him having a massive drug problem and being gross with women even during his GG days.
Yes. He’s saying he can prove it. And the most likely “proof” is that he can provide an alibi for the time at which the assaults allegedly happened. Either physical proof that he was elsewhere or witness statements that he was elsewhere. As you say, detritus, witnesses may not be truthful.
Even in the statements, both women’s partners threw them to the wolves.
The type of man who dumps his partner after rape and blames her, that’s the type of man who would support Westwick, because that man does not see it as rape.
And Salling is disgusting. Ell, I saw some of the rumours too, how he treated his gfs, the aggression and drugs, and then the pedophilia.
The whole crew of friends seems rotten.
Depp is only one who had defenders and not only men but also women but you all prefer to believe his only one accuser.
@defritus. Yet Wesriwick’s character won’t get dragged through the mud even though he sounds like scum. It will be his victims whose lives will be used against them as they undergo character assassination.
@aga an accuser who had proof of bruises, and a video in which depp was shown being aggressive, intimidating and drunk.
Doug Stanhope who also at one point tried to cover for Louis CK? No one remembers that he said HE was the one masturbating in front of women?
Great defender there.
Aga, Depps management team, TMG spoke on record that they knew about his abuse of Amber, including detailing specific incidents. More than one person, his entire team, knew. There is absolutely no doubt he did it.
It’s provably as in able to be proven. He is saying these claims can be proven to be false
I screwed up the wording re: probably and provably, I fixed it. I’m sorry!
So he probably didn’t rape someone, but he can’t be positive…cause he’s been really busy or something? Wtf????
Maybe it’s just blind opportunism. You know, the hoping that this whole story dies out because it becomes a clasic case of “he said, she said” and probably the producer named by the first woman will support his side of the story too. What else is he to do, he does not have the “excuse” of being brought up in the 60s or the “excuse” of being drunk and gay.
As his first answer after the first accusations was definitive as this one sounds more “ prove it ,accusers!”
He must have a lawyer, right?. Who must be annoyed at best with his client.
I find the words “disheartening” and “sad” so weird in this context. I mean I imagine being falsely accused of a crime, I’m not sad. Or disheartened. I’m pissed and shocked among other things. I always side-eye people who fall back on martyr language in these situations. But I think he’s full of it anyway, so. Yeah.
Putting aside the situation for a moment, his use of language only marks him out as a stiff upper-lipped Englishman rather than a matyr.
It’s rare for an english person to emote publicly especially when in a negative situation. Infact, the more dire the situation, the more restrained the language.
The reaction to Diana’s death remains the exception and we were immediately embarrassed by it even though rest of the world didn’t mind our reaction.
Yeah but when you’re accused of rape, the last thing you want to do is come off as aggressive and angry. I mean, he’s trying to show he’s not like that. Sensitive emotions like sadness make a lot more sense from a PR standpoint.
I think he’s guilty and I’m betting his proof is something like one of his friends saying he didn’t do it and not actual incontrovertible proof like being in a different location.
If LAK is right and he’s just being English or whatever, I can buy that. But having an unnatural reaction to something is not great from a PR standpoint. It sounds a bit ridiculous and like he’s trying a bit too hard to sound – like you said – hurt and somehow mellow at the same time.
Sometimes it’s best not to say anything but I guess Twitter made that notion obsolete.
Littlemissnaughty: his restrained language doesn’t prove his innocence, but it makes sense for an English person.
if you go back to his statement, the words “disheartening” and “sad” were not describing his response to the accusation, but how he feels about the way the public is responding to the accusation. It was pretty clear…
Has either woman mentioned a specific date? If not, how can he “prove” anything already?
I was wondering the same thing which leads me to believe his proof is witness based like his producer buddy saying it wasn’t rape.
Have the victims gone to police? I think at least one of them has filed a report, so he may know because of that.
I think one of them said July 2014 in LA, and at some point in July 2014 he was in Portugal filming, but it’s not complete proof he didn’t come back for like a weekend in LA. I know most people would find that stupid but actors actually fly back and forth like this all the time.
The feeling I have about this disturbing mess is that probably these guys think abusing women or underage/children is normal or even “artsy”. You know, they see Allen, Polanski, they know about Chaplin, Hitchcock, W Disney…. None of them held accountable for any crime or action. All of them universally celebrated for their genius.
sickening.
“Provably” hurts my eyes.
Now that the police are involved, we’ll see what goes down, but it’s very hard to convict these cases years later, no? I’ve watched enough crime shows to see these cases crash and burn.
Now that we’re at two women, his denials become a bit hollow, but I find it intriguing that he is not giving himself any wiggle room.
What else can he say, though? He’s been accused of straight up rape, not sexual harassment or behaving inappropiately which you could probably claim you didn’t mean/don’t remember. He has no choice but to deny it until he can’t deny it anymore. He knows that it’s very hard to prove a rape that happened a while ago, so he’s holding onto that. I doubt it will go anywhere in terms of criminal charges but the question is if anyone will risk working with him now (I don’t think so, since he’s not exactly Leonardo DiCaprio either).
Agree. He cannot do anything other than deny this. I don’t believe him.
If he said something like “it was consensual” or just take any responsibility at all maybe just maybe I could believe him. However him saying “I do not know this woman” that statement makes me cringe. I don’t believe him and the more he speaks the more he comes off as a compulsive liar who can’t get his story straight. Only a matter of time for the next woman to come forward.
And the fact he got that many likes? Smh. Some women will believe anything.
Whether you believe him or not, there’s nothing wrong with his two tweets regarding the matter. “the more he speaks the more he comes off as a compulsive liar who can’t get his story straight” –> he can’t get his story straight??? He has yet to share ANY story… The second girl is already changing several details of HER story ON facebook. I think your comment is more applicable to her.
Trauma means you are often not able to appropriately place details. This is consistent with someone who has faced sexual violence.
http://time.com/3625414/rape-trauma-brain-memory/
crucial details such as time and date? =[
The second alleged victim is already changing some of the details and wording of her story on facebook and deleting older versions… and provably isn’t an uncommon word…
Trauma is difficult to remember in a coherent narrative because brain can’t make sense of it and also wants to forget if it’s overwhelming plus tunnel thinking during traumatic experience doesn’t allow the victim to pay attention to the bigger picture – they just register select details as their attention spins around zeroing in on one thing at a time, a lot of the memory is just body sensations like pain, fear, heart palpitations and breathing rhythms or a random wallpaper pattern etc.
That is going to be an issue. I have a bad memory, especially when it comes to trauma so that doesn’t imply lies to me, but editing your story from July to August only after being called out on FB by ppl saying he was in Portugal is going to do nothing to help the case.
unfortunately no, it won’t help the case.
not that i thought she could have done much for justice anyway after 3 years, but it’s important for people believing her no matter the outcome. also july/august are fairly easy to mistake tbh, especially given the trauma and the fact so much time has passed. it’s understandable.
This is bad. Not that I wanted him to be guilty just for the sake of it, but if he has anything that resembles proof that he didn’t do it, everybody is going to use his case as an example of “false rape accusations”.
I feel really bad for the victims. It’s horrible how things can always get worse when it comes to rape.
So prove it Ed! Prove you’re not another p*ssy grabber, just because you’ve a man with fame.
I find it hard to believe any man whose nostrils are bigger than his eyes.
I am not a fan of his, I generally believe accusers should be believed while recognizing some accusers lie, and I’m an attorney.
It disturbs me how many commenters are convinced of his guilt for both rapes based on two unsubstantiated accusations. Regarding his tweets, I am a firm believer that e-statements should be read without context.
By law Ed has no burden to proof his own innocence. If the DA has enough evidence, they will bring formal charges against him. The DA has the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements by friends of the accusers describing what the accuser told them are hearsay and completely inadmissible. This means that the accuser’s testimony, fact witnesses, medical records (thinks rape kit or notes from psychatrist), surveillance videos etc can be presented to a jury. Evidence is not counted but weighed substantively (meaning compounded evidence is useless unless it’s credible). Doubt can be cast by Eds attorney via his testimony, fact witnesses, and an alibi (via surveillance video/hotel receipt/plane ticket). Again rebuttal evidence is weighed.
My point: no formal charges brought + no conviction + unsubstantiated allegations = innocent until proven guilty.
PS: I need no formal charges or convictions to believe Spacey is a statutory rapist or Weinstein/ Cosby are a seriel harasser/rapist. However, I did not believe Mark Salling was a pedophile until his conviction.
PPS: my apologies to any victims who may deem my views unsympathetic 😕
You’re an attorney who just laid out how the judicial system works in rape allegation cases and yet you’re still “disturbed” by personal opinions offered by anonymous posters on a celebrity gossip blog that have literally ZERO impact on this case?
That seems a bit…weird to me.
The problem with your take – that innocent until proven guilty should apply to a social sphere as well as the criminal – is that it translates into liar until proven truthful for accusers. That’s twisted as hell.
Lying about rape is a crime, too. Women get jailed for it, if proven, though rarely because it’s a rare crime. So you’re saying, in fact, that one is innocent until proven guilty, while the other is guilty until his conviction proves her innocent? Both reputations are irreversibly changed here, but your sole concern seems to be for the man accused.
If you were truly neutral then you wouldn’t be saying you wouldn’t believe it until there was a conviction. You’d simply say that you didn’t know the truth yet. All this innocent until proven guilty claptrap when socially conversing is just another way to call an accuser a liar.
It’s absolutely correct that we should have stringent burdens of proof before locking people away in harsh prison environments. We need to be almost certain it’s earned. But you aren’t making that choice. You’re not on any jury. So if you don’t know who of two people are telling the truth, why default to insisting you must believe the accused? Especially when statistically women rarely lie about this, because the social price of making such an accusation is so great?
Kitten– why is that weird? A recent national poll showed jurors vote based on their own personal bias regardless of instruction of applicable law. That’s scary. That’s why it’s relevant what people think.
Rape is considered the most heinous of all crimes (yes worse than murder) defamation is a tort not a crime in most jurisdictions. Rape is a felony and involves imprisonment for a long ass time with hard labor. The two are not analogous.
Sorry if I’ve offended anyone.
*Rape is considered the most heinous of all crimes (yes worse than murder)*
Murder is a capital crime, no? When is the last time you saw a rapist executed for the crime?
Lying about rape is regarded as as bad as rape by many people. They openly say as much. In fact I’ve heard people argue that it is worse, because the victim isn’t solely the man lied about, but also (the many) genuine victims, who are not believed because (a handful) of women lie. Obviously that’s a stupid argument – because the lie and jail are not violent offences against the person, and if logic affected our levels of suspicion over rape claims then the doubts would reverse direction on simple statistics – but it’s still a frequently alleged claim.
*defamation is a tort not a crime in most jurisdictions. Rape is a felony and involves imprisonment for a long ass time with hard labor. The two are not analogous.*
Indeed. But aggravated perjury is not a tort; it also involves jail time as a crime in many jurisdictions, including my own, and it is the crime women who lie are charged with by the criminal justice system. In this country you can be charged with perverting the course of justice even if the claims never resulted in actual charges against the accused. It’s the chargeable offence if you lie to the police, and also attracts jail time. If you’re talking about the risks to those accused of rape up to and including judicial system involvement and thence jail, why are you only looking at the civil risks to the accusers of social media posts? Why look at the worst legal consequence possible for one side, and the slightest for the other?
I note you have not responded to the main point, which is why you assume accusers are lying and the accused are not, unless faced with a guilty verdict? Perhaps you would like to do so?
K- I don’t really get your main point. I think youre mad at me for saying this man is innocent until proven guilty? Newsflash: he is actually innocent until proven guilty. that’s called due process and equal protection under the law. I didn’t make it up.
Legal scholars for hundreds and actually thousands of years agree that rape is the most heinous of all crimes against the person. There are dissertations written about it. I didn’t make that up either. And yes rapists get sentenced to death, especially if they serially raped or committed aggravated rape.
Aggravated perjury is not a thing. You know why? Because aggravated means with a weapon. So I guess someone could perjure with a weapon but usually they just do it with their face.
My original comment was meant to address commenters convinced of his guilt from his tweets. If you want to live in a world where a person can be accused of a felony and found guilty from a couple of tweets, good for you. I don’t live in that world. Neither do you but that’s cool.
So don’t read too much into my comment. There is a justice system for his accuser. I hope to hell he didn’t do it for her sake. I hope to hell if he did, she gets justice and also fuck that guy. I’m just not willing to say he’s guilty from two accusations and two tweets. If you think I’m a sucky person for that, God bless. I bet you’d want me on your jury if you were ever accused of a crime you didn’t commit though.
Over and out! 👍
Spider-Man: “ If charged with aggravated perjury, the state is accusing you of committing perjury during or in connection with an official proceeding, and that the false statement made is “material.” Material here means the statement could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding. An “official proceeding” means any type of administrative, executive, legislative or judicial proceeding that may be conducted before a public servant authorized by law to take statements under oath. Thus, a pretrial deposition is an official proceeding because it is a judicial proceeding conducted before a public servant and under oath”
(The definition of Aggravated Perjury a, thing thing that definitely exists in some states in the US.)
My question is why Ed Westwick is a bridge too far for some of you? Are you going to defend Gary Goddard? Bryan Singer? What is it specifically about Ed Westwick? I’m seriously baffled.
@man,
The problem with this is that it is a legal usage. As a lawyer, on the job, you should maintain this. And it should always hold true on court, where you mustmaintain an open mind to process the information.
But when practicing this in real life, you end up removing the benefit of doubt from the accused. By maintaining the assumption the accused is innocent, you place the disbelief on the accuser. So by applying a term meant to be used on court to stop false imprisionment before trial, you are now actually claiming the accuser is lying.
Those who say innocent until proven guilty , in these cases, have already laid their support at the feet of the accused, the rapist.
There is time and place for specific reactions and uses of logic. The forceful push to use a legal term in the public realm is counterproductive to all evidence and trends in these style cases. It is illogical to apply it this way.
And I strongly disagree with your implication that only those who have experience sexual violence would contest your statement or find offence. It simultaneously implies that survivors are too emotional to have a say, and they would be your only naysayers. It’s also a pat way to remove a significant portion of one gender from the conversation, since most women have experienced sexual violence. To further the f*ckery present in that one condescending sentence, it also shows your lack of knowledge in the arena, when you speak TO sexual violence survivors, survivor is the term to use.
TLDR, innocent until proven guilty is a legal term that belongs in court, not the public sphere as its use in the public sphere creates the catch 22 where the accuser becomes guilty by default.
Use your logic, dude, and stop relying on your emotions to determine guilt or not. The tweets convince me of nothing. It’s the 3% false claims. Less than a 0.09% chance both are lying when you combine the stats.
@Spiderman I went to law school too, so cut the condescension. If you really don’t know that aggravated perjury is a thing in some USA states, then you need to log into Lexis, and learn. And when you’re done, you can examine the concept that different jurisdictions examine aggravating factors not at the charging but the sentencing stage, and that possession of a weapon is just one such factor considered. I’m not sure why you are arguing your own small corner of the world’s law as applying universally.
Moving on: I explicitly stated that it is an essential legal protection that we assume innocence in a legal context until proven guilty, because the state has such huge power against individuals, and the system of justice is there to shield us against oppression from the state and mob rule from our peers. But you weren’t talking legal contexts in your first comment. You said that you assume the accused is innocent unless and until there is a conviction, even when reading gossip about celebrities. You then shifted that position to a legal context when the problems with your stance were raised. You are now extrapolating that diversion and trying to argue that anyone disputing your position is supporting mob rule, instead of a criminal justice system. Stop with the straw man, please.
You know something else about my jurisdiction? Until 20 years or so ago, a jury on a rape trial had to be instructed by the judge that women lie about rape, and that they needed to remember this when deliberating. That’s the social mindset we are dealing with. Rape culture is not some silly notion a bunch of snowflakes dreamed up one day, any more than racism is. It’s systemic and so much so that a lot of it is invisible. I think your intentions in concerning yourself with accused are good. I just don’t think you’re considering the accusers at all. And that’s a problem.
You must know how heinously low the reporting rate, prosecution rate, and conviction rate is for sexual assaults. So by insisting nobody should doubt anyone who is accused, even in casual conversation about strangers, you are effectively saying women should continue to be silenced. And the proposition is even more troubling if they aren’t strangers – are you seriously saying that if one friend said another had raped her, you would absolutely assume his innocence unless a conviction resulted? Assume her to have lied? And you think that’s a morally superior position?
I didn’t say you made anything up. I pointed out contrary arguments. You know? So that you can honestly consider them, and provide contrary arguments in your turn? Not so that you can insist your arguments have to be right because you’ve heard other people make them before, and then invent a position we weren’t claiming to begin with so you can argue against that. But on your point about rape being regarded as more serious than murder and that being legal fact: what differences apply in your state in terms of statutes of limitations on the two crimes? And again, what state in your nation executes for rape alone?
Finally, I think the claim that women who have been raped can’t be sensible about the topic is really disturbing. I mean, even if we solely turn to a legal setting, when we agree that defendant’s rights must be staunchly protected, t’s only since we have started listening to women’s voices in this context that laws have shifted to provide a fairer legal framework. Again: it is a logical fallacy to assume the status quo is morally neutral. It simply is not, because any legal system fit for purpose must reflect its society. Questioning is not to question whether law has purpose, but instead to highlight areas where it is failing and needs to be strengthened.
For the avoidance of doubt: I’ve never been raped. I’m white, too. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about sexual violence or racism. Surely everyone should – and shouldn’t insist that those directly affected are therefore too emotional about it to be heard and understood when expressing opinions. They educate us, not vice versa.
Oh, and in light of your assertion that rape is seen as more serious than murder in the States, and executions occur, I did some research.
The Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia in 1976 that execution for rape was “grossly disproportionate” and was therefore unconstitutional under the 8th. Louisiana tested that in Louisiana v Kennedy in 2007, and again the Supreme Court said it wasn’t constitutional, because with a crime against an individual, only the death of the victim could render the death penalty proportionate.
Is he saying unverified as in they don’t have a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter?
Meanwhile, he lost his job, a Christmas Agatha Christie drama with BBC:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/10/bbc-drops-agatha-christie-drama-starring-ed-westwick-police/
It’s not just about him, think how many other people were involved in the project that is now dropped because of social media accusations. They should have gone to the police first.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? He should lose his job, especially given the current climate. If you read up on him there are lots of stories of him acting out towards women. He once threw ice cubes at a girl after she rejected him. Who does that?
Yep. It’s not just his work in jeopardy but also that of his costars and colleagues. They don’t deserve any of this.
Don’t worry, no one lost their jobs since that was already filmed and everyone had been paid. The audience lost the chance to watch an interesting project and the BBC lost money if they can’t air it. It’s a pity, but it’s the only way the industry can start showing it cares about these issues.
It’s still a sketchy way to word things. The police can definitely investigate if these have even women been to these homes they mention. That’s a start. Describe the apartments, the rooms, his address. Any detail you remember. If Ed denied even knowing the first woman but she describes his apartment, that’s a red flag for him. You might not be able to prove actual rape after three years, but you can prove you hung out with him, which he denies. If he’s caught in one lie, or she for that matters, that clears some things.
…but he is doomed either way because an accusation of sexual misconduct, even if proven untrue, stains the accused forever. If guilty, great. They deserve to be vilified forever. If innocent, people still assume guilt and houdini skills for escaping guilty verdict. Especially in cases involving rich and famous people.
Please advise names of male celebrities who were doomed by false accusations
Cliff Richards
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cliff-richards-agony-ive-been-11146609
I’m staying firmly on the fence for this one.