[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Noid No it doesn't. As I've said countless times, Enzo should not be convicted if the evidence isn't there. That doesn't mean that it's logical to suggest she is lying. How can people not get this? * Most sexual assault allegations aren't baseless and there is not enough evidence to convict aren't mutually exclusively ideas. They can both be true.

It's completely logical to suggest that a person who has a history of being unstable and lacking credibility might not be credible. It's not "She's definitely lying". It's "She's not credible, so take it with a grain of salt." But for you, simply because he was accused, it needs to be made very clear that he could have still done it because women don't usually lie about being raped. Which is really skeevy. And I still have a feeling if it was some guy universally loved, this conversation wouldn't have started in the first place because no one would be desperate from now til the end of time to point out "Crazy chicks can get raped, too! Daniel Bryan still could have done it!"