@Bulletkrieg said in #140:
> No clue. Not my point.
>
> Nothing special about sexual harassment/assault cases, it must be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the suspect is indeed guilty of the crime.
>
> lol
Okay so I'll give you some homework: look up some judgements in sexual harassment/sexual assault cases where the accused was found guilty (bonus points if you look at different jurisdictions) and see what evidence the court considered to be sufficient. Then go and compare it to what is known about the Ramirez case.
And the point about what evidence you would consider sufficient is quite simple, I would think. The standard you are expecting is simply impossible to meet. No matter what evidence you are presented with, you can retreat and say "this is not conclusive proof". But if you actually had any inclination of how the legal system works you would know that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not require forensic evidence or a video of the incident or whatever standard you might make up in your head. The term is REASONABLE doubt. There can still be doubt, as you are demonstrating, but there can, in many situations not be REASONABLE doubt, as you are also demonstrating.
Anyway, as this case demostrates, nobody in the real world actually shares your idea of evidentiary standards so you can keep shouting into the void or (and I would suggest this second option) maybe consider why that might be. Why might people not think your demands are appropriate? What would happen if there could never be any consequences for people credibly accused of sexual misconduct (or other things, for that matter) until your demands for sufficient due process are met?
Should be an exciting intellectual journey, best of luck with it.
