An under-oath deposition by the alleged victim in which she affirmed Altman sexually abused her starting when she was age 3 and lasting until she was age 12.
There are also countless former associates of Altman who have gone on record stating that he’s a compulsive liar and narcissist. That’s obviously not direct evidence of anything, but it establishes a clear pattern of untrustworthy and potentially abusive behavior from Altman.
The civil case was ultimately dismissed because the alleged victim refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the Judge… but such refusals are extremely common among people who have been traumatized by sexual abuse and don’t want some stranger poking around their private parts.
I’ve never understood how a oath somehow creates a form of credibility with out some other proof to back it up
It’s still just words. I know lying under oath is a crime and all that. But when most shit just gets settled and rarely actually has teeth towards the rich or famous.
It feels like an oath is just a pretend make believe thing that only the deranged actually think is real.
An under-oath deposition by the alleged victim in which she affirmed Altman sexually abused her starting when she was age 3 and lasting until she was age 12.
There are also countless former associates of Altman who have gone on record stating that he’s a compulsive liar and narcissist. That’s obviously not direct evidence of anything, but it establishes a clear pattern of untrustworthy and potentially abusive behavior from Altman.
The civil case was ultimately dismissed because the alleged victim refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the Judge… but such refusals are extremely common among people who have been traumatized by sexual abuse and don’t want some stranger poking around their private parts.
How do you define credible in this context?
And how do you know that she and/or the former associates don’t lie?
Do you mean an medical examination years after the abuse happened? What is that supposed to accomplish?
A victim giving a deposition under oath is considered a credible accusation on its face.
I’ve never understood how a oath somehow creates a form of credibility with out some other proof to back it up
It’s still just words. I know lying under oath is a crime and all that. But when most shit just gets settled and rarely actually has teeth towards the rich or famous.
It feels like an oath is just a pretend make believe thing that only the deranged actually think is real.
OK.