>>27861950I'm literally just explaining the legal standards. No one really likes things working this way but the only other alternative is to let 99% of sex crimes go.
A woman leaving semen globbing inside of her body wasn't good enough to indict for the longest time because it didn't prove that the act was nonconsentual. A lot of sexual assault cases got ruled more lightly on physical assault that could be proven while the sex act was uncharged.
Returning to the Vox topic, he simply has to delete old accounts to remove all potential evidence from history. This isn't a court case so the only people who can make decisions about it will only do it for their own personal thoughts, but by legal standard, it's become a clear cut case.
The accusations about him are backdated definitely with accompanying messages so far as they can be reasonably obtained. They're corroborated without any signs or collusion. He himself has addressed enough to be considered a liability for his own case and there's zero contradiction on the claims.
We're at the point where the real argument should be about whether he even deserves shit for something he did that was technically harmless years ago when he was underaged. But the only reason we can't say that there's hard proof of his activities is that it is literally impossible to obtain, which is the same reason modern justice systems do not actually operate on the reasonable doubt standard. All history has proven it be a failure and everyone who has any familiarity with law knows this.
