LogFAQs > #972367459

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The difference between you and this case is you have actual first hand experience that you can attest to that lies in direct contradiction of the police and the judicial record proclaiming your ex was not-guilty. You know for a fact that she's lying because you were there and you can prove it.

The same isn't true for this case, as far as we know. None of us was there, none us have any pictures or video or testimony from either party, and all we we know is what we can gather from random news articles; which is nothing. It's not a given that just because an accusation was made that there's a semblance of truth to it. Sometimes people lie, and sometimes people lie maliciously to the courts especially when they can get one over on a celebrity. Not too long ago Ricky Martin's own nephew tried to extort him by pretending like they were incestuous lovers and Ricky Martin was beating the shit out of him. But that case, just like this one, it's usually better to allow the evidence to come to light instead of believing random accusations that you can't even verify.

Instead of hanging Roiland for the DV case, at least until October, let's judge the guy for the things that we actually do know about him: that he's a problematic sex pest that may or may not have had relations with underage fans. What we do know about the guy is enough to sink him, there's no need to waste time on scenarios we have no way of verifying that won't even make it to trial.