none of his evidence disputes the actual photographic evidence. it's all character bashing and it all fits that vile MRA trope. it shouldn't have been reported how it was. your reply, as someone not really following the case was an example of why the reporting was so shitty.

>I understand how that makes it difficult for future victims to
>come forward, especially dealing with someone in power, but I
>ask how should an innocent person defend themselves from
>accusations?

Via truth about the cause of the bruises. alibis. direct contradictions of her story. not via her saying some mean-spirited shit. people who say mean things often get hit. often they don't. that she's mean spirited don't matter. that months later she might have tried to get money by selling or threatening to sell a sex tape don't matter. but elliot's lawyers are throwing that shit into the public sphere. shameful.

>And are you talking about me questioning her motives or the
>reporter? I don't agree with everything the article said,
>hell, i don't care about opinions in reporting bc everyone has
>them. I'm just looking for the 'facts'...i can form my own
>opinion.

i'm attacking the article because it led to questions that you asked while not following the case closely that it should have pre-empted and answered. not the opinion in the article, but the statements like "it's unclear why..." No, motherfucker who wrote that garbage, it's not unclear. it's normal and human. people are complicated. victims aren't perfect. who the fuck cares why she didn't do X or Y after the fact. THAT ISN'T HOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WORKS, REPORTER.


-----------
you think we playing chess, but i'm playing mad-making. Basaglia