Originally Posted by
costalpilot
you might note the qualifiers in my reference to the videos. I didn't say anything about their accuracy.
Yeah, I was more making the point generally. There can be a tendency to accept things at face value. Honestly, I briefly fell into this trap myself as the story emerged. The first article I read was pretty bare bones, just the broad details, and my though were more or less "Hmmm, He/said she said". The next article I read had all or most of the details we now see before and because of the way it was written, and perhaps because I wasn't reading carefully enough, it seemed like they had a lot of pretty damning evidence in terms of witness statements and surveillance video, and I shifted to "Hmm sounds like he may have done more or less what was alleged" Then when this popped up here, I re-read the article a little more carefully, and read some others and read the court filing, and came to the realization that every bit of evidence whcih is suggestive of a sexual assault has come from either her court filing, or from her interviews with the media. There's a world of difference between having hotel security video, and the description of what one person (who has a vested interest in the outcome and potentially an ulterior motive) claims they were told by someone else about the security video.