I don't think that's accurate, as far as I can tell he had one accusation against him which he denied vigorously and which may have been retracted by the accuser. You should at least link to the quote in question, it's rather damaging to someone's reputation.
I think that's an incorrect interpretation of what he said. He does not say there has never been an accusation, he says there has never _before_ been an accusation.
It is not, but there is a strong correlation, and you should bear it in mind when evaluating how likely you think those accusations are to be true.
I am sure I have read other more direct accusations, but unfortunately I am not finding the sources at the moment.
I still think these articles are more than enough to cast some pretty strong doubts over the claims of his defences, and I think nobody who has read them should be quite so eager to run to his defence.
> The intuition that, “if you are accused of assault by multiple people, you’re probably guilty” is often accurate. Importantly, even if you were to choose settings where someone who has been accused once is more likely than not to be innocent, the probability of innocence often drops dramatically if they have been accused twice.
This doesn't account for whether or not the accusations are independent of one another, which in this case most were not.
> So far the response is either silence or acknowledgement of the accusations.
So what? The majority can, and often is, wrong. People cover their own asses first and defend the truth second.
I've gotten really draconian about "accusations" nowadays. If it isn't worth going through the legal system, it's mob justice and a priori false unless there is real, physical evidence.
reply