How dare I pretend to know that a lie that put men in jail was wrong? Easy -- I have morals. (By the way, I love that you started your posting this evening by complaining about "trolls," only to skip immediately to wild accusations and phrases like "cut the crap," "how dare you," and a bizarre injunction against "judging." It's good to know that I can still rely on the truism that those who complain about the lack of civility rarely practice it themselves.)

As a member of the public, I rarely have intimate knowledge of criminals. I don't know what makes a thief steal, whether he was coerced, whether he was confused and ashamed. I don't know his heart. I often don't see the videotape of him stealing. But if a prosecutor tells me he has clear videotape of the theft and a signed confession...I'd call that a "mountain of evidence." Oh, sure, we never truly know anything, yadayadayada -- but that's an existential argument, and not one I'd consider persuasive. This amount of evidence is ordinarily far more than enough to come to a definite conclusion -- so it's enough here.

(I find particularly persuasive, by the way, that the woman changed her story upon hearing that the videotape existed -- that suggests that she knew what the tape would show, and that it would be damning.)

Indeed, this is almost enough evidence to convict in a court of law, with one exception -- in court the jury would have to see the video themselves (in part because of the "best evidence" rule). I haven't -- and don't want to. You say "oh, well, gee, then you don't know anything because you can't trust what the prosecutor says about the tape!" And, hey, like I said -- if that's what you want to believe, then that's what you want to believe. I find it frankly illogical -- the one example of a bad prosecutor you can provide is one who lied to raise his conviction level. Why would a prosecutor lie to exonerate "rapists?"

Now, I also gave you an illustration about the necessity of relying on evidence -- which you took a bit...literally. Anyways, I'll keep it going. You say that the birth certificate from Hawaii lets you know that Obama was born there. But have you held it in your hand? Have you seen the original with your own eyes? Can you really trust the publics records clerk that swore it was real?

Oh, don't get me wrong -- the birthers are batshit crazy when they make arguments like that. But to say that we don't know that the videotape shows what the prosecutor says it shows...well, that's a weak argument for the exact same reason.

On one hand, I'm of the view that everyone has the right to make their own sexual choices, even if they're not what we would choose -- unless it's clear that they lack the ability to do so. If this woman (I don't actually know who she is) was capable of making the choice, and made it...then she did. Take away the initial rapes, and a woman entering into a fully consensual and willing sexual relationship with her father is...well, gross, but if they're consenting adults without mental impairment, then they can do what they want.

But for this particular case, does it really matter whether she was raped the 40th or 50th time? What matters is that she was raped the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. times. Even if she later forgave, and even if she did knowingly and sanely consent to later sex, we should not lose sight of the fact that the first times were undoutably rape.

Ah, but haven't you heard? The image of the birth certificate is faked -- just like the video. (Faked how? Oh, don't ask me -- something about letter spacing or smudges. I can't keep up with teh crazies anymore.)

Does context matter? Sure. Here we have plenty of that, too. We know the background, we know the events, we know the whole story. There is little or nothing additional that we could need to know to determine that her story was false. The men did not rape her.

Now, you sarcastically say "oh, she must be eeeevil," and point out that we don't know why she decided to do what she did. As an initial matter, I'm not sure I care -- the far more important point is that the men she accused are innocent. Beyond that, though, you're right -- what she did was morally wrong, but I don't claim to know her heart, or whether this was maliciously evil or merely immorally selfish. What I am claiming to know, though, is the published facts, and that those facts are unambiguous in certain ways.

The why of it -- was she afraid her boyfriend would break up with her, was she afraid of word getting around of the wild things she had done? -- I don't know. But I do know that she wasn't raped, and yet accused men of raping her. We named her accusers on nothing more than an accusation. With her, it would be a work of absurdism to hide her identity on the basis that the fully-disproved rape accusation was somehow only "possibly" false. To the contrary, it was, in fact, false.

In any event, thanks for bowing to my superior logic. You're the only one tossing invective, but, hey, I'll take any bows I can get.