Except, a competent and comprehensive investigation would have weighed the data you cite against all other data, and come to their best conclusion. I dont have access to the larger body of evidence, I suspect you do not either.
This is not about being absolutely certain - this is not even about being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is about trusting evidence, and fair process. Now, I do not know if AMC contracted for a competent and comprehensive investigation. If you or anyone else can make a convincing case that the investigation was flawed it would justify rejecting the findings. What does not justify rejecting the findings is simply that the findings support the person accused. I also think it is unlikely that in the current climate AMC would simply keep Hardwick because it was good for ratings or ad rates; if it came out in three months that they commissioned a biased investigation that covered up convincing evidence against Hardwick, the financial consequences for AMC would be severe. Hardwick is not worth that risk. Again, I am not saying I believe Hardwick; I am saying that I am going to believe the conclusion of the party that seems least biased and has most access to the most evidence. As I wrote in my previous post, if AMC wants their action to be taken seriously by the public, they should release enough information to support the claim that the investigation was fair and comprehensive. On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:38 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m not calling you out specifically because you’re not the only one I’ve > seen express this view. I don’t need a report prepared by somebody whose > best interests are served by demonstrating the innocence of the alleged > attacker. > > In a court of law, there are clear guidelines about what a juror or even a > judge can rely on when determining guilt or innocence. Not here, but let’s > attempt a simple legal argument. In this case we have a woman who didn’t > even name names, and we have people who back up the aspects of her story > that are more than just him and her. We have the guy denying not just the > him and her aspects, but also the parts of her story that others have > authenticated. In a court of law, if somebody has been shown to be a liar > in one part of his testimony, jurors can disregard everything else said by > that witness. Done. I don’t believe Chris Hardwick because he lied when he > said he wasn’t actively blackballing the victim from the industry, when > multiple witnesses came forward saying he was. > > Can I state with absolute proof that he sexually assaulted the victim? Of > course not, but it has been shown to me that parts of his side of the story > are untrue, so I choose to not believe him, regardless of what AMC’s lawyer > says. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:58 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, no - I don’t think so. As much as I support the #metoo movement, >> and the idea that reports of sexual assault and abuse must be taken >> seriously, it simply can not be the case that every such claim is valid, >> and that anyone accused of such behavior must automatically forfeit >> position and reputation. I think this is pretty obvious. >> >> If possible, and if the victim desires, such reports should be evaluated >> in court (criminal or civil). When not possible (perhaps the statute of >> limitations has expired, perhaps the victim does not want to go through the >> process, perhaps the behavior is not technically a crime or violation, >> perhaps it will eventually, but doing so will take too long) employers >> should mount their own investigation. For that investigation to be >> meaningful, I think we have to be prepared to accept its conclusions, >> either way. It does not do to assume that any investigation that concludes >> the allegations are not supported must be a put-up job. >> >> What is needed is some degree of transparency - an employer that expects >> the public to take the findings of its investigation seriously should >> disclose enough information about the process and perhaps the findings to >> support confidence in its fairness and comprehensiveness. If the company >> hired an investigative group that almost always finds in favor of the >> accused, or has some demonstrable conflict of interest or bias, or failed >> to interview key witnesses or consider key evidence, then the public may >> ignore its conclusions. But if the investigation appears to be fair and >> competent (and I don’t know anything about that either way in the current >> case) then I think it is not only unfair to the accused, but a disservice >> to the large #metoo movement, to dismiss its conclusions out of hand. >> People like Weinstein and Lauer were punished not out of some blind faith >> that all accusations are valid, but because the relevant organizations >> conducted credible investigations and found persuasive evidence that the >> accusations were true. >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:38 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Reinstated him as Talking Dead host after an investigation. >>> >>> >>> https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/chris-hardwick-talking-dead-amc-investigation-1202884339/amp/ >>> >>> I assume the investigation went something like this: >>> >>> Lawyer: Do you have a penis? >>> >>> Hardwick: Yes. >>> >>> Lawyer: We believe you. >>> -- >>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >>> >>> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
