Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
Im confused as I don't see why anyone benefits from ascertaining EM's purpose or goal in proceeding with the court case.
The court case is complete. If she elects to appeal the case (stated as unlikely at this point) then maybe it deserves discussion. But otherwise, IMO, it's just being pointlessly hyperfixated on this matter.
There are some things we will never know, and we have to accept that we don't need to know or maybe deserve to know. We don't need to know EM's intentions.
The judge has determined that the prosecution did not meet the standard for proving guilt on any claim. Further, it is a fact that the judge felt warranted to mention that they found EM's testimony unreliable, and that EM was not credible on the stand.
Those are pretty pointed statements from the judge. I would feel remiss if I didn't point out that those who are most acidiously attacking that statement and coming up with invented rationalizations for why EM needed to pursue this are also those that take abnormally strong and hyperfixated views on many other subjects inappropriately. Probably best to ignore their "Participation".
|
This is how we learn. Examining things that have happened to try to figure out why and then apply those learnings to help make things better overall.
It would be very beneficial to determine her intentions so we can help future SA victims process their feelings, choose the right course of action for them and provide insight on what happens in a trial of this type. You acting as the thread police serves no purpose, and censorship is not the proper way to learn. I don't think I have heard any unreasonable hypotheticals, and most that have been presented are worth at least considering. And if you are going to use big words to try to sound smart, at least spell them properly.