Follow TV Tropes
Huh so a lie is outright in the thing.
He literally has no legs to stand on at this point.
So you believe they lied, which means you don't actually believe in presumption of innocence.
Again, the women were the defendants in this case.
Edited by Cortez on Oct 14th 2019 at 7:01:39 AM
I guess let me put it this way, based on this conversation I stand that 1) Vic has not been proven to be the myriad of things he is accused of and 2) The accusers haven't been proven to have lied about the matter of fact in question.
I think this is a fair stance.
I believe they have lied based on evidence. Innocence doesn't stand against evidence. Not enough evidence, legally, for it to be defamation. I do wish they would pull out something real, but I guess if they had that Vic would have been convicted. I choose a side, but objectively yes, they are still innocent.
The Women? I only refer to the defendants of this case under the facts, substantiated and not, that we can glean from the internet about these specific people. All criminal accusations should be given a reasonable level of scrutiny. I am not making some grandiose claim like you're are attributing to me.
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 4:41:43 AM
That evidence being...?
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Oct 14th 2019 at 7:12:10 AM
To ignore the rest of your post and answer your question, Vic admitted in hia deposition to pulling Jamie Marchi's hair four times and made a demonstration of how he did it once. He only objectwd to the word pull because he felt that sounded violent, but admitted word for word to putting his fingers in her hair and pulling down (and that he wasn't sure if it was painful or not as he didn't ask). He also admitted to having done the same with other women.
In his affidavit stated that he never put his fingers in her hair or pulled it. Obviously this contradicts his deposition and both can't be true. Thus either he lied in his affidavit or he lied in his deposition.
This. It isn't much but all I have to go by, like everyone else here, is what is presented from people discussing the topic and the affidavits and documents as we have been given them.
I haven't heard about Vic lying, I am still curious about that. But briefly going over what I can find about it is that Vic contradicted what someone else said.
But his take on it is not objectively a bad thing. Friends do this. As this is many years later, a single incident of running his heads through her hair and complimenting her on it. I'm not sure how this is lying, he was being very clear on what he meant. He described the context of the encounter.
Let's say it was exactly as she described it. How is this, a single isolated incident, reasonable proof to someone that he does the things he is accused of? It doesn't. Because of this, everything else she said about Vic is suspect. At best she is blowing small things up out of proportion that doesn't seem unreasonable to her.
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 4:29:03 AM
Vic admitted to the hair pulling incident there video out there of him saying he did it.  the link also has Vic deposition were he admits to a lot of stuff. and here a video of he saying he did it 
Stan never contradicted Monica's testimony. He stated that he had no memory of what was described, which was that he knocked on a door and invited Vic and Monica to dinner. His speculation statements are legally Worth less but show he isn't disputing that Monica was in a room alone with Vic.
In short his affidavit is worthless and doesn't help either side.
So you admit you're not being objective.
And do remember the side you picked lost the case. It seems you haven't accepted that.
Edited by Cortez on Oct 14th 2019 at 7:33:31 AM
But I must point out, this isn't lying. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say both people saw the encounter differently. I would like to hear about something he lied about. Something an involved third party disputes, or otherwise we can objectively say was a lie.
He stated in no uncertain terms under oath that he did not remember this and would have remembered it had it actually occurred. He certainly believes it, and is a third party that disputes the situation as she described it.
And I also said yea, you are right he hasn't proven defamation. Sooooo.. I did agree with you on this. That is the objective part. Subjectively, no I don't believe the defendants based on what I have already stated.
Yea I have bias, and I am trying to view it from both lenses. From what I believe is true and what is strictly proven.
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 4:39:50 AM
1, speculation statement are legally inadmissible, 2 he states that if he had noticed then he would have remembered, So if he didn't notice anything then his belief is also irrelevant. 3, as noted he was not a witness to what happened inside the room so he can't be held up as proof to events he didn't witness.
He can stand up to saying events someone else claims he witnessed, and did not.
You are right, we don't know what else happened. But if her own story falls flat on this note, why is the rest of her story still believable? I do not find that reasonable. It makes her story suspect. What are the situations we can speculate on that would resolve this conflict of facts?
1) She mis-remembered.
2) She lied.
3) Stan mis-remembered.
4) Stan lied.
But we have a different fact to add to this, Vic's statement that it never happened. Objectively, we have 2 people refuting her story. One refutes her whole story, the other a part (the only part he was supposedly involved in). The weight of evidence, as flimsy as it is, is against her. Compound this with, as I recall being told by Nick, that her story has changed with its telling and this is the first one that included Stan into it.
What else am I missing, is there someone else that proved/supported Monica's statements directly? Are the facts I've presented accurate?
You are right, Stan's statements don't completely disprove Monica's statements. But why should we believe her over Stan and Vic? What makes her statements carry more weight than two people?
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 4:56:17 AM
First, Vic didn't deny it happened, he said he had no memory of it happening. Very important distinction.
Two, Stan isn't denying Monica's claims, he's saying that he has no memory of them occurring, and his speculation leaves him the out of saying "well I obviously didn't notice her distress because she was hiding it from me as per her own statement." Interesting that you didn't think of that scenario, that Monica is telling the truth and that Stan didn't notice the distress she said she was trying to hide. In that scenario all that is required is for Stan to forget one night when he knocked on someone's hotel room door over a decade ago.
So you have misrepresented the facts, which is Monica claimed one version of events that Vic did not deny occurring only that he didn't remember these events, and a witness who did not deny the events occurred, just that he had no memory of them occurring. Monica's claim is stronger as it is asserting Something, the other two are weaker because they aren't disputing it. At no point do they say the words "these events never happened"
There's just a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo to explain when it comes to this whole case. Trust me, I've been following this for nine friggin' months now.
But unless Light Snake decides to pop in no one else here is fit to answer your questions.
Well Vic has a couple decades worth of allegations behind his back.
Sure not all of them are probably true but as the saying goes:
Where there is Smoke, there is Fire.
Several other affidavits also claim events similar to Monica's claims, from being asked to watch his fan film to being assaulted in hotel rooms. Even discounting every claim not in an affidavit or deposition that is still over a dozen people describing a consistent pattern of behaviour.
Hmm, you are right, Vic didn't directly refute but said he did not recall. However, I don't believe Stan's assertion that 'he would have remembered if it had happened' could be construed as anything but denial that it had ever happened.
& But you can probably find that smoke for anyone with any kind of celebrity. Like on the anonymous websites that people posted to accusing Vic. Based on that kind of evidence Chris Sabat is just as guilty, as an example. I don't put any credence to it.
In any case, this is pretty dark and gloomy. It will probably go unresolved and forgotten eventually. How about a change of subject?
Difference is there are numerous accounts of Vic being a creep while only a handful for Chris, most of which was debunked and started from a guy that probably wasn't serious to begin with.
His exact words where I'm sure if I had noticed it I would have remembered. Given that the statement he was responding to stated that she was trying not to have her distress be noticed he is leaving himself an out.
Also I challenge you to name one other Voice actor who has the volume of claims against them stretching back 15 years. This isn't one or two isolated incidents, this is a consistent pattern that even people testifying in his defense admit have been going on for 15 years.
If its as bad as people say it is, hopefully someone stops him in the act, gets a recording, and he can be properly convicted of it.
Perhaps show me the 15 years of accusations for Vic?
Edited by StephanReiken on Oct 14th 2019 at 5:52:50 AM
Do you even know how real life works?
I feel like a mod or two is coming in here soon.
It does feel like we have gone off topic.
We could ask to spin this off to it's own topic, but otherwise this is probably the most appropriate place for it as Funi is one of the defendant and three of the other four parties work or used to work for Funi. So it's on topic, but is not in the spirit of the topic.
So how about Cautious Hero? Or one of the other new Anime that have popped up now?
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?