Chris Hardwick Will Return to 'Talking Dead'

2»

Comments

  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    As I said in the previous thread, anyone claiming abuse deserves to be taken seriously and have their claims investigated. I also said Chris Hardwick has plenty of resources with which to defend himself. 

    This is not a referendum on #metoo and those taking it as such are being foolish. 

    As I said in the previous thread, anyone claiming abuse deserves to be taken seriously and have their claims investigated. I also said Chris Hardwick has plenty of resources with which to defend himself. 

    This is not a referendum on #metoo and those taking it as such are being foolish. 
    Its not a total referendum, but it represents some pushback from an extreme. remember the guy from Lake Wobogon and how he got sucked up into the metoo on an allegation of literally doing nothing wrong, like immediately after Weinstein men who did nothing wrong were kind of wrapped up into this, and finally it seems like a return to rationality, yes some behavior is bad but just because someone’s upset doesn’t mean by necessity something was wrong, and not all wrong is so bad as to immediately lose your career 
    It's not even a partial referendum. That would imply that we should return to some sort of skepticism when people report abuse, that there is a correct amount of skepticism to have. There have been a helluva lot more men that get away with abusing a helluva lot more women then then there have or ever will be men falsely accused. I continue to think the over concern for the latter is something people need to think about. Holy shit, Hardwick had to sweat a month. Rose McGowan got raped. Yes, yes, let's find the middle ground of concern here.

    I mean, if we want to get down to brass tacks this is not exactly the kind of due process dudes demand before condemning a fellow dude on the internet, is it? Who was interviewed? What did they say? Who conducted the interviews? Who judged fact from rumor? What were their qualifications? What kinds of conflicts if interest did they have? 

    I personally think Ms. Dykstra told a pack of lies at this point. But many are acting like she has been proven guilty. This continues to be largely tried in the court of public opinion yet it's okay now because...? AMC has historically been wise and judicial in legal dealings with their employees? 


    Oh I agree with most of what you wrote. Like to understand, I wasn’t raised Catholic, my parents were but they never made me or my brothers go to church, but when I was a teenager I went to church and got confirmed and that’s been a part of my identity since, and I remember listening to Bill O Reilly on the radio talking about the church and that was an influence, and when all the stuff came out about him it was like a gut punch, I would rather have been stabbed in the heart because an influence that led to me being who I am was exposed, I used  To love Bill Cosby and that was so painful because I believe his accusers. You’re right, there is a lot of women who are abused, and I do believe the #metoo has been a mainly positive thing, but there has been some accusations that are not credible, or are seemingly someone who’s upset versus wrong doing, they are not the majority, and I’ve never purported such, theres just times I feel a specific allegation does not actually state wrongdoing occured. And when the Chris Hardwick story came out my only criticism was her own allegation to me didn’t really say he abused her, only that their relationship was unhappy, I don’t even think she lied about anything. I have concerns that I feel are legitimate about how accusations are handled, that doesn’t mean I think these women are liars or even have bad intentions, I just think that when a social movement starts people need to have a serious discussion over what is it that we seek, what is the objective, and what are the parameters? And I do feel that a minority, and not even a large one, of me too type complaints were a result more of poor communication or differences in values.
    And some of them could’ve been better resolved by good communication, like the ones against Hardwick, or Garrison Keillor, or a few others. Obviously some behavior was outright criminal like Harvey Weinstein and Eric Schniedermann, others were definitely wrong, probably civil like Matt Lauer, I just have a problem when we have complaints that are less valid rolled up as though they are the same as outright sexual assault, that I do not agree with. 





    anubus21Flukes
  • lengmolengmo RTP, NC
    edited July 2018
    Glad companies seem to be developing processes to investigate accusations.
  • Here's what I think is happening and I want to make it clear that I'm not blaming anyone. There was no proof of the aligations and chris' ex's girlfriend backed that up. Then. With Andy actually announcing his departure at sdcc and the fans being sad (again) I think they have seen the opportunity to being Chris back in to make fans slightly happy. Therefore those hardcore fans can still have good old Chris to watch after shitty episodes. And you know. When rick dies. 
  • MattyWeavesMattyWeaves Mid-State New York
    I never posted this in the original thread, and I was about to but it locked before I was done.

    I was in a situation where a girl at my job tried to get me in trouble with both the company and my wife who worked there.

    I was a trainer so I got every newbie in the building for 16 weeks before they moved onto their jobs.

    At the end of class this girl hit on me and offered some services. I told my wife that night and while she wasn't happy, we brushed it off.

    A month later this girl filed an HR complaint against me saying I flirted with her in class and hit on her as her supervisor.

    Lucky for me, I had over 100 people that had been through my class at that point and a dozen or so told me they were questioned about my behavior. Since I'm not a douche bag, it was all cleared up, but my reputation was hit pretty hard for the next year or so.

    Just wanted to share.
    Flukesalexander.klassen
  • Surprised AMC didn’t take this as an excuse to terminate his contract and save some money.

    TaraC73Flukes
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Being toxic in a relationship is a far cry from doing something illegal... a line has to be drawn somewhere - and it appears he didn’t do anything illegal (so far as the investigations have found) 

    if every person who was a toxic dick in a relationship got fired there would be a fuckton of people out of jobs. Remember too, toxic is a subjective term. It’s hard to define. Illegal is illegal (though sexual allegations are somewhat subjective rapey is rapey, creeper is creeper and it’s easier to say yes what he did was illegal)
    DoubleA_RonFlukes
  • Yeah I read this as her unburdening herself with all of the feelings and experiences that she had in a toxic relationship. She didn’t make criminal allegations or demand compensation.

    He can apparently be somewhat of a dick, but with the feedback from his exes and AMC presumably interviewing coworkers and colleagues it appears that the specifics of his relationship with Chloe may have been especially toxic and not typical of his usual behavior.

    I don’t believe that she was just spinning lies for attention. I think she had a tough time and her perceptions and feeling around what happened just don’t match up with how he remembers experiencing them.

    Now he can soldier on selling out to the highest bidder.
    TaraC73phoenyx1023asmallcat
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited July 2018
    I feel like I should chime in on this thread after participating heavily in the one that was closed.

    I actually feel like this one was handled pretty well by all the involved parties, with one notable exception. Leaking the private and carefully selected text messages through TMZ was bizarre. If you really want to tell your side of the story, stand up and tell it.

    I'm willing to let people, who outright said Chloe was lying, walk their comments back as nothing is gained by calling it out. The relationship was clearly toxic and memories (especially in situations like this) are about as reliable as a cheesecloth condom.

    Speaking out was the right thing to do. Stepping down was the right thing to do. Investigating was the right thing to do. Reinstating him was, well, a business decision. I don't think people who do shitty things should be barred from employment, so I guess it's the right thing to do. If ratings plummet, who'll know if it's because of this or because the show is bad?

    I have a feeling the investigation was probably into how much of this leaked into their employee's professional behavior and less into whether the allegations about his behavior inside the relationship were true. After all, it's only his actions as an employee or contractor that AMC could be potentially liable for.

    I heard enough from primary sources that my opinion of Chris Hardwick is about the same as it was. He's an opportunist, a shameless self-promoter, kind of hard to work with, and really not a person I'd want someone I care about to be in a relationship with.


    phoenyx1023
  • All the ChickensAll the Chickens Birmingham, AL
    I never posted this in the original thread, and I was about to but it locked before I was done.

    I was in a situation where a girl at my job tried to get me in trouble with both the company and my wife who worked there.

    I was a trainer so I got every newbie in the building for 16 weeks before they moved onto their jobs.

    At the end of class this girl hit on me and offered some services. I told my wife that night and while she wasn't happy, we brushed it off.

    A month later this girl filed an HR complaint against me saying I flirted with her in class and hit on her as her supervisor.

    Lucky for me, I had over 100 people that had been through my class at that point and a dozen or so told me they were questioned about my behavior. Since I'm not a douche bag, it was all cleared up, but my reputation was hit pretty hard for the next year or so.

    Just wanted to share. 
    I think that this is an aspect that many don't  consider when some men are naturally skeptical or in 'wait and see' mode whenever someone they view as a decent person without a bad reputation is accused of something like this. My own negative experience with this came in my very early 20's when I was in an incredibly toxic relationship with someone (we were married for less than a year, because I was young and dumb, and she was beautiful). 

    One of the honestly lesser bad things that occurred was when we were arguing, she bold faced lied on the phone with her father right in front of me inferring or outright saying that she was scared and I would harm her. This could not have been further from the truth. She knew it. I knew it. She even smiled at me when she said it. It wasn't a misunderstanding or toxicity gone wild. It was just a shitty lie, and it was a surreal experience for me to see unfold at that time. I'm not going to refer to myself as a "nice guy", but I'm incredibly laid back, both in public and in private. I'm opinionated but also very agreeable, even to my detriment at times (I've worked on that and improved a lot). Even when I'm at my angriest, I generally keep my cool and I don't get physical with anyone, including other guys (outside of sports). She was on the opposite side of the spectrum. She was more emotional, hot-tempered, and although I never so much as touched her in anger, she hit me a few times when she got angry.

    Now her father was a protective guy who worked in construction and I'm quite certain he might beat someone nearly to death for messing with his daughter, but luckily the man knew me as a person and moreover he knew how his daughter could be. I'm certain she did this with her others and the point was to garner sympathy, perhaps in order to excuse her behavior. I don't know. Whatever the reasoning behind that type of outrageous and hurtful lie, I finally left that insanity and moved on. I'm better for it, and I have a healthy marriage and 4 year old daughter with someone I've been with for over 10 years now. I genuinely hope she has grown as a person and found happiness as well.

    ****NOW, WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID: I'm not wanting to turn this into some woman hating story time. I realize that just as many women, if not many more, have been left with emotional and physical scars from past and present relationships with men, including rape, physical abuse, verbal abuse, etc. I realize that the vast majority of the #metoo accusations are true, at least from some perspective, and there are many more that are left silenced. And I don't think that these past issues in a toxic relationship should ever be any excuse for men to treat women poorly or be completely dismissive towards them when they claim to have been abused in their relationship. I would also point out that my ex was the outlier of the relationships I've had as an adult, so I realize that she is not the typical female in a relationship, nor do I think that what she did is typical.
    It does, however, embed some cautionary skepticism when I read accusations sometimes that simply don't add up, despite the fact that I do realize that people aren't always what they seem in their public persona. 

    I guess the point of what I'm saying is that when a guy has some doubt of an accusation or simply says that we should wait to break out the pitchforks and torches, it's not necessarily coming from some patriarchal Boys Club. It could very well come from some formative experience(s).
    Flukes
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Flukes said:
    I feel like I should chime in on this thread after participating heavily in the one that was closed.

    I actually feel like this one was handled pretty well by all the involved parties, with one notable exception. Leaking the private and carefully selected text messages through TMZ was bizarre. If you really want to tell your side of the story, stand up and tell it.

    I'm willing to let people, who outright said Chloe was lying, walk their comments back as nothing is gained by calling it out. The relationship was clearly toxic and memories (especially in situations like this) are about as reliable as a cheesecloth condom.

    Speaking out was the right thing to do. Stepping down was the right thing to do. Investigating was the right thing to do. Reinstating him was, well, a business decision. I don't think people who do shitty things should be barred from employment, so I guess it's the right thing to do. If ratings plummet, who'll know if it's because of this or because the show is bad?

    I have a feeling the investigation was probably into how much of this leaked into their employee's professional behavior and less into whether the allegations about his behavior inside the relationship were true. After all, it's only his actions as an employee or contractor that AMC could be potentially liable for.

    I heard enough from primary sources that my opinion of Chris Hardwick is about the same as it was. He's an opportunist, a shameless self-promoter, kind of hard to work with, and really a person I'd want someone I care about to be in a relationship with.



    That's cold Flukes.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited July 2018
    I never posted this in the original thread, and I was about to but it locked before I was done.

    I was in a situation where a girl at my job tried to get me in trouble with both the company and my wife who worked there.

    I was a trainer so I got every newbie in the building for 16 weeks before they moved onto their jobs.

    At the end of class this girl hit on me and offered some services. I told my wife that night and while she wasn't happy, we brushed it off.

    A month later this girl filed an HR complaint against me saying I flirted with her in class and hit on her as her supervisor.

    Lucky for me, I had over 100 people that had been through my class at that point and a dozen or so told me they were questioned about my behavior. Since I'm not a douche bag, it was all cleared up, but my reputation was hit pretty hard for the next year or so.

    Just wanted to share. 
    I think that this is an aspect that many don't  consider when some men are naturally skeptical or in 'wait and see' mode whenever someone they view as a decent person without a bad reputation is accused of something like this. My own negative experience with this came in my very early 20's when I was in an incredibly toxic relationship with someone (we were married for less than a year, because I was young and dumb, and she was beautiful). 

    One of the honestly lesser bad things that occurred was when we were arguing, she bold faced lied on the phone with her father right in front of me inferring or outright saying that she was scared and I would harm her. This could not have been further from the truth. She knew it. I knew it. She even smiled at me when she said it. It wasn't a misunderstanding or toxicity gone wild. It was just a shitty lie, and it was a surreal experience for me to see unfold at that time. I'm not going to refer to myself as a "nice guy", but I'm incredibly laid back, both in public and in private. I'm opinionated but also very agreeable, even to my detriment at times (I've worked on that and improved a lot). Even when I'm at my angriest, I generally keep my cool and I don't get physical with anyone, including other guys (outside of sports). She was on the opposite side of the spectrum. She was more emotional, hot-tempered, and although I never so much as touched her in anger, she hit me a few times when she got angry.

    Now her father was a protective guy who worked in construction and I'm quite certain he might beat someone nearly to death for messing with his daughter, but luckily the man knew me as a person and moreover he knew how his daughter could be. I'm certain she did this with her others and the point was to garner sympathy, perhaps in order to excuse her behavior. I don't know. Whatever the reasoning behind that type of outrageous and hurtful lie, I finally left that insanity and moved on. I'm better for it, and I have a healthy marriage and 4 year old daughter with someone I've been with for over 10 years now. I genuinely hope she has grown as a person and found happiness as well.

    ****NOW, WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID: I'm not wanting to turn this into some woman hating story time. I realize that just as many women, if not many more, have been left with emotional and physical scars from past and present relationships with men, including rape, physical abuse, verbal abuse, etc. I realize that the vast majority of the #metoo accusations are true, at least from some perspective, and there are many more that are left silenced. And I don't think that these past issues in a toxic relationship should ever be any excuse for men to treat women poorly or be completely dismissive towards them when they claim to have been abused in their relationship. I would also point out that my ex was the outlier of the relationships I've had as an adult, so I realize that she is not the typical female in a relationship, nor do I think that what she did is typical.
    It does, however, embed some cautionary skepticism when I read accusations sometimes that simply don't add up, despite the fact that I do realize that people aren't always what they seem in their public persona. 

    I guess the point of what I'm saying is that when a guy has some doubt of an accusation or simply says that we should wait to break out the pitchforks and torches, it's not necessarily coming from some patriarchal Boys Club. It could very well come from some formative experience(s).

    Women experience lying women too. This isn't to dismiss your points, but just to say it's not like we women are like, "Tell us about these lying women please."

    MattyWeaves (whom I'm using because of his workplace situation) was hurt by an individual who was punching up. The #metoo movement is about systematic punching down. How do we account for shitty individuals? I don't know, but I do know there are ways to account for societal, systematic abuses of power. Often "wait and see" becomes "later" and then "never." Especially in workplaces!
    MattyWeaves
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited July 2018
    JaimieT said:
    Flukes said:
    I feel like I should chime in on this thread after participating heavily in the one that was closed.

    I actually feel like this one was handled pretty well by all the involved parties, with one notable exception. Leaking the private and carefully selected text messages through TMZ was bizarre. If you really want to tell your side of the story, stand up and tell it.

    I'm willing to let people, who outright said Chloe was lying, walk their comments back as nothing is gained by calling it out. The relationship was clearly toxic and memories (especially in situations like this) are about as reliable as a cheesecloth condom.

    Speaking out was the right thing to do. Stepping down was the right thing to do. Investigating was the right thing to do. Reinstating him was, well, a business decision. I don't think people who do shitty things should be barred from employment, so I guess it's the right thing to do. If ratings plummet, who'll know if it's because of this or because the show is bad?

    I have a feeling the investigation was probably into how much of this leaked into their employee's professional behavior and less into whether the allegations about his behavior inside the relationship were true. After all, it's only his actions as an employee or contractor that AMC could be potentially liable for.

    I heard enough from primary sources that my opinion of Chris Hardwick is about the same as it was. He's an opportunist, a shameless self-promoter, kind of hard to work with, and really a person I'd want someone I care about to be in a relationship with.



    That's cold Flukes.
    I hate the ones I love, what can I say? :innocent:

    It originally said "not someone I'd want someone" and I accidentally took the not out along with the someone when I reworded it. Fixed it. :)


    JaimieT
  • edited July 2018
    A "referendum on #metoo" is absurd, but I would hope this makes some people think about the way moral indignation about a serious issue is being used to justify public humiliation on the basis of gossip. What was particularly striking about this case, and what caused me to make the mistake of butting in on the previous thread, is how positively GLEEFUL people were to denounce him and pat themselves on the back because they "knew it all along." And while we can't know what actually went on in private between Dykstra and Hardwick, the statements of all his other girlfriends and wife don't paint a picture of the kind of "dark triad abuser" that the armchair psychologists were so quick to diagnose.

    People like to watch the powerful fall. Whether it's out of some sense of "getting justice" against white men as a class, or just regular schadenfreude, public humiliation as entertainment is nothing new. That's why I continue to say that we should be looking for constructive, systemic solutions to the real problem of sexual abuse that so many women face, not relying on mob outrage.
    JoshTheBlackJaimieTTaraC73DoubleA_Ron
  • LordBy said:
    Yeah I read this as her unburdening herself with all of the feelings and experiences that she had in a toxic relationship. She didn’t make criminal allegations or demand compensation.

    He can apparently be somewhat of a dick, but with the feedback from his exes and AMC presumably interviewing coworkers and colleagues it appears that the specifics of his relationship with Chloe may have been especially toxic and not typical of his usual behavior.

    I don’t believe that she was just spinning lies for attention. I think she had a tough time and her perceptions and feeling around what happened just don’t match up with how he remembers experiencing them.

    Now he can soldier on selling out to the highest bidder.

    Just reposting for emphasis cuz really not sure how 'not fired' makes the leap to 'it was all lies'......
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    A "referendum on #metoo" is absurd, but I would hope this makes some people think about the way moral indignation about a serious issue is being used to justify public humiliation on the basis of gossip. What was particularly striking about this case, and what caused me to make the mistake of butting in on the previous thread, is how positively GLEEFUL people were to denounce him and pat themselves on the back because they "knew it all along." And while we can't know what actually went on in private between the Dykstra and Hardwick, the statements of all his other girlfriends and wife don't paint a picture of the kind of "dark triad abuser" that the armchair psychologists were so quick to diagnose.

    People like to watch the powerful fall. Whether it's out of some sense of "getting justice" against white men as a class, or just regular schadenfreude, public humiliation as entertainment is nothing new. That's why I continue to say that we should be looking for *constructive*, *systemic* solutions to the real problem of sexual abuse that so many women face, not relying on mob outrage.
    Being familiar with Janet Varney's work and considering her to be a reasonable person, I kept looking for her statement. When it finally came, what she said definitely went a long way to convince me that whatever happened was confined to this relationship and wasn't part of a larger pattern of abuse.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited July 2018
    While I don't necessarily disagree with AMC giving him his job back and I think they handled the situation properly, it's a little worrisome how many people are immediately jumping to she told a pack of lies. It's as absurd as people wanting to fire Hardwick into the sun immediately after the accusations surfaced.

    Interviews with other girlfriends who have defended him aren't ironclad proof that he didn't abuse Dykstra. Every relationship has a different dynamic. We also hear all the time about close friends and family members of criminals who can't believe they could be guilty because it's so out of character.

    All they really cleared up with the investigation was that he hasn't been a habitual abuser of women. He still could have abused Dykstra.
    telephoneofmadnessduncanpowersFlukesphoenyx1023
  • Hunkulese said:
    While I don't necessarily disagree with AMC giving him his job back and I think they handled the situation properly, it's a little worrisome how many people are immediately jumping to she told a pack of lies. It's as absurd as people wanting to fire Hardwick into the sun immediately after the accusations surfaced.

    Interviews with other girlfriends who have defended him aren't ironclad proof that he didn't abuse Dykstra. Every relationship has a different dynamic. We also hear all the time about close friends and family members of criminals who can't believe they could be guilty because it's so out of character.

    All they really cleared up with the investigation was that he hasn't been a habitual abuser of women. He still could have abused Dykstra.
    I still haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the statements in Chloe Dykstra's post.
    phoenyx1023
  • MichelleMichelle California
    Out of sheer curiosity and a general wondering, what sort of evidence *can* be presented to prove that a person didn't actually sexually assault a person, or emotionally abuse them, or treat them horribly?   I'm 100% serious here, because there are some forms of the legal system that I'm familiar with, and a lot that I'm unfamiliar with.
  • Flukes said:
    Speaking out was the right thing to do. Stepping down was the right thing to do. Investigating was the right thing to do. Reinstating him was, well, a business decision. I don't think people who do shitty things should be barred from employment, so I guess it's the right thing to do. If ratings plummet, who'll know if it's because of this or because the show is bad?

    I have a feeling the investigation was probably into how much of this leaked into their employee's professional behavior and less into whether the allegations about his behavior inside the relationship were true. After all, it's only his actions as an employee or contractor that AMC could be potentially liable for. 

    Exactly that. This was an in-house legal question. "Cleared of any wrongdoing" is a bit of a stretch considering it wasn't a trial. Whatever happened simply didn't cross into the realm of interfering with his AMC contract, given the limited receipts available at this point. It doesn't prove or disprove anything that has been said by either side, and that's fine. There isn't much more than can be or should be said about it or the Me Too movement as a whole.
  • Michelle said:
    Out of sheer curiosity and a general wondering, what sort of evidence *can* be presented to prove that a person didn't actually sexually assault a person, or emotionally abuse them, or treat them horribly?   I'm 100% serious here, because there are some forms of the legal system that I'm familiar with, and a lot that I'm unfamiliar with.
    As I said in the other thread, it's difficult or impossible to prove "dark triad" abuse. They are too good at covering their tracks. People are presenting the statements from Hardwick's ex-girlfriends, and the photos of Dykstra at a convention, as if these are some kind of slam dunk that proves Dykstra is lying. Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me that she is lying. It's also possible that it is actually Dykstra who was the dark triad person in that relationship, and that is how she is able to write such a convincing account of abuse.

    Hopefully the publicity from this will mean that people who encounter both Hardwick and Dykstra in the future will be on guard against them, and be able to avoid being harmed.
  • MichelleMichelle California
    Michelle said:
    Out of sheer curiosity and a general wondering, what sort of evidence *can* be presented to prove that a person didn't actually sexually assault a person, or emotionally abuse them, or treat them horribly?   I'm 100% serious here, because there are some forms of the legal system that I'm familiar with, and a lot that I'm unfamiliar with.
    As I said in the other thread, it's difficult or impossible to prove "dark triad" abuse. They are too good at covering their tracks. People are presenting the statements from Hardwick's ex-girlfriends, and the photos of Dykstra at a convention, as if these are some kind of slam dunk that proves Dykstra is lying. Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me that she is lying. It's also possible that it is actually Dykstra who was the dark triad person in that relationship, and that is how she is able to write such a convincing account of abuse.

    Hopefully the publicity from this will mean that people who encounter both Hardwick and Dykstra in the future will be on guard against them, and be able to avoid being harmed.
    Oh I know all that, but I meant from a legal standpoint, removing Chloe and Chris from the equation, how could something like this have evidence presented that would undoubtedly prove it a false accusation?
  • In a criminal case, which this wasn’t, the state (on behalf of the victim) has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state can’t meet the burden, then you get a “not guilty” which isn’t the same as “innocent.”

    A person found not guilty can still be pursued civilly with a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence I believe) like OJ was by the Goldman family.

    In a he said/she said kind of situation it’d be really hard to get a guilty verdict without witnesses and/or physical evidence or something. There would have to be a lot of circumstantial evidence and nothing exculpatory.
    MichelleMattyWeaves
  • MichelleMichelle California
    Thanks, @LordBy!  That's exactly what I was wondering.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited July 2018
    Michelle said:
    Michelle said:
    Out of sheer curiosity and a general wondering, what sort of evidence *can* be presented to prove that a person didn't actually sexually assault a person, or emotionally abuse them, or treat them horribly?   I'm 100% serious here, because there are some forms of the legal system that I'm familiar with, and a lot that I'm unfamiliar with.
    As I said in the other thread, it's difficult or impossible to prove "dark triad" abuse. They are too good at covering their tracks. People are presenting the statements from Hardwick's ex-girlfriends, and the photos of Dykstra at a convention, as if these are some kind of slam dunk that proves Dykstra is lying. Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me that she is lying. It's also possible that it is actually Dykstra who was the dark triad person in that relationship, and that is how she is able to write such a convincing account of abuse.

    Hopefully the publicity from this will mean that people who encounter both Hardwick and Dykstra in the future will be on guard against them, and be able to avoid being harmed.
    Oh I know all that, but I meant from a legal standpoint, removing Chloe and Chris from the equation, how could something like this have evidence presented that would undoubtedly prove it a false accusation?
    It's pretty much impossible to prove something like this as a false accusation unless the accuser is making claims that can actually be proven false. Since most of the claims are about what's going on when it's just two people alone together, you can't really prove the accusations are false.

    It's almost equally difficult to prove the accusations are true, especially if there's only a single person making accusations.

    I really hope Dykstra wasn't making it all up because it will have a negative impact on women coming forward in the future.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
This discussion has been closed.