It is absolutely untrue that there was *no* evidence - there was a huge amount of evidence. It was not considered sufficient to win a conviction, which, again, was also to do with the fact that too much time had passed to

Even the district atty. pointed out how sorry he is about this outcome and how the court applauds the victims for bringing forth their claims. This really is the worst of all possible outcomes for either side.

That's not how the law works, y'know. You don't have to prove that you are NOT a rapist. It is up to the other party to prove that you are one. And in this case there was no evidence of that. Simple.

engaging in all kinds of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse - no, we can't legally call him a "rapist", but I think we can go a little harsher than "asshole" when thinking about how we want this guy to be represented.

But instead he paid off his accusers and weaseled himself out on formalities. If that signals innocence to you, I really don't know what to tell you.

Chidder you're interpreting this thing in a way that fits your narrative. As things stand, he is also not *not* a rapist. If he were as innocent as he claimed, he'd taken the case to court and be formally cleared.

office. And using the term "asshole" really undersells what kind of behaviors have been proven - he's not chewing loudly in a movie theater or cutting people off in traffic. He's crossing people's personal boundaries, he's