I don’t like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. “Proving innocence” can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Dude Andrew Tate is literally recorded on one of his accurser’s voicemail not even trying to hide it. You can find that recording and listen to it (the behind the bastards podcast has a whole series on him that includes this clip, and others). He admits to strangling her, among other things. And that’s just one of a bazillion other smash-dunk points against him.
From the verge article, it would seem there is also likely video evidence: “Tate and the other defendants are alleged to have recruited seven people by misleading them about an intent “to establish a marriage/cohabitation relationship,” according to the Romanian law enforcement agency Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). They were later held against their will and, through “physical violence and mental pressure,” sexually exploited on video for distribution on social media, the agency wrote.” (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile you’re accusing a whole bunch of women you know nothing about of possibly being blackmailers, based on nothing, because you don’t seem to have researched this at all. This is himpathy, not “innocent until proven guilty”. Where’s the “innocent until proven guilty” assumption for the women, vs the 1 man with a pile of evidence against him?
Oh noooooooo. I am sure he will be able to quickly prove his innocence.
Most certainly. He’s got the undeniable proof safely stored away in the same place as his chin.
I don’t like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. “Proving innocence” can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Dude Andrew Tate is literally recorded on one of his accurser’s voicemail not even trying to hide it. You can find that recording and listen to it (the behind the bastards podcast has a whole series on him that includes this clip, and others). He admits to strangling her, among other things. And that’s just one of a bazillion other smash-dunk points against him.
From the verge article, it would seem there is also likely video evidence: “Tate and the other defendants are alleged to have recruited seven people by misleading them about an intent “to establish a marriage/cohabitation relationship,” according to the Romanian law enforcement agency Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). They were later held against their will and, through “physical violence and mental pressure,” sexually exploited on video for distribution on social media, the agency wrote.” (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile you’re accusing a whole bunch of women you know nothing about of possibly being blackmailers, based on nothing, because you don’t seem to have researched this at all. This is himpathy, not “innocent until proven guilty”. Where’s the “innocent until proven guilty” assumption for the women, vs the 1 man with a pile of evidence against him?