Andrew Cuomo accused of sexual assault as ‘look-back’ window closes
Ex-governor accused by former aide amid flurry of last-minute claims under New York’s Adult Survivors Act
I wonder how many famous New Yorkers breathed a sigh of relief today.
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I know little about the history of this law. Was it passed with the intention of allowing Carroll to go after Trump?Andrew Cuomo accused of sexual assault as ‘look-back’ window closes
Ex-governor accused by former aide amid flurry of last-minute claims under New York’s Adult Survivors Actwww.theguardian.com
That law is absurdAndrew Cuomo accused of sexual assault as ‘look-back’ window closes
Ex-governor accused by former aide amid flurry of last-minute claims under New York’s Adult Survivors Act
I'm a little surprised it's constitutional. But the courts have always been pretty lenient when it comes to SOLs.
Over 2,000 suits filed. Many against gov actors. Jail etc. like tort reform. Always a mad rush to file before it kicks in and a resultant logjam for a few years
It was passed in the wake of #MeToo. That Trump got caught up in it is not surprising, but I don't think it was passed with him as a specific target.
To even consider that Trump was the focus would be absurd, right? Crazy.
I'm just glad I'm not being held to account for the way I treated women 40 or 50 years ago. I'd be doing time.
What kind of evidence is there usually in sexual abuse cases? Guys don’t usually do it in a crowd with witnesses.
Rape kits. Police reports. Today timely messages. On and on. With the priest cases you had repressed memories etc. These are a nightmare.
I'm thinking a bullet hole in the head of the rapist, would be a pretty good piece of evidence. Or for a less drastic measure, extreme burn marks from a tazzer? Just a thought.
I haven’t looked at the elements but it seems like a cash grab
The common law tradition doesn't have a great history on this topic. Cases have always been tough to make.
What @mcmurtry66 said.
As for a 30 year old case? He said, she said and overly emotional women who didnt know adams even existed until a year or two ago.
I'm not a fan of him but he has the right of innocent until proven guilty and these decades old sexual abuse accusations are getting old.
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer but I think it's insane people are getting convictions on circumstantial evidence.
Red from That 70s show is a good example. 30+ years in prison over unsubstantiated accusations? Social media is killing the judicial system.
It’s always been screwy. You can kill a guy and get less time in state than stuff involving $
Sexual abuse doesn’t just mean rape. And there are many, many reasons women don’t report abuse to the police and sometimes not anyone, especially when they are young.
Lol it always comes back to overly emotional women, doesn’t it? Lmao Sorry they are getting old. I know you think the Bill Cosbys and Harvey Weinsteins of the world should get to walk, but….
There’s more than a few guys here that think sexual abuse is something to joke about.
Nope. Not a swat on the rear, language, things like that, I don’t think so.
The point is it’s unfair to a defendant. A sol is to protect the defendant. Relevant evidence gets lost, destroyed, witnesses’ memories fade. It’s terribly unfair
It wasn’t Red who was convicted, it was Hyde (Daniel Masterson). Jury found him guilty and typically they get it right. I have no idea what the evidence was.
Lawyers will tell you that nearly all convictions come from circumstantial evidence. Video and DNA and smoking guns are a rarity.
Similar threads
