The Jeffrey Epstein case

[watt price tully]

Dershowitz himself literally said in his statement: "I have ... come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said." So even he's not accusing her of lying any more. That's a big shift from a few years back when he was threatening that she would be imprisoned for her allegations.

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/stat ... 2821017601

The onus of proof is on her. It remains today as it did before the false allegations: he did know her and she did not know him, they are the facts of the case. He has nothing to answer for whatsoever. She was unable to support her wrong allegations. End of story.

[David]

he did know her and she did not know him, they are the facts of the case.

Perhaps we're going around in circles at this point, but those can't be called "the facts of the case" because no such facts have been demonstrated. The agreed-upon resolution from all parties is that Giuffre may have been mistaken. That is not an admission of false accusation, and it is not a concession to Dershowitz's defence that he never met her.

Personally, if I felt I'd been falsely and groundlessly accused of sexual impropriety, I'd be looking for a slightly stronger statement than that from my accuser before dropping defamation action, and Dershowitz has never struck me as someone who's shy about pursuing litigation. But I'll refrain from casting aspersions on his motives here.

The most reasonable assumption is that both got sick of pouring money into the case and decided it was better to walk away. As with most settlements, all that leaves is a question mark over the allegations, not vindication for the accused. Obviously, you, I and the rest of us can either accept that uncertainty (and, yes, presumption of innocence, as we must also extend to Bruce Lehrmann today on the same basis) or else continue to believe whatever we like.

[watt price tully]

We are going around in circles. It is as it was before the unsubstantiated allegations.