| |
Celeb News: Kesha Swore Under Oath Dr. Luke Did NOT Sexually Assault Her
Member Since: 3/13/2012
Posts: 9,318
|
This whole mess kinda makes me want to study Law tbh. It's interesting.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,375
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ressti
We don't know who's lawyer was asking the questions... which could explain why it's worded like that.
|
That's true, tho why his or her lawyer would ask her that is a new question.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 3,420
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihannaRTT
No. I wouldn't have.
|
And that's all I needed to hear. That's enough from you.
Quote:
And I completely disagree with what you said. I don't agree with locking up innocent people for doing nothing wrong. The circumstances, witnesses and evidence are all required to make such a decision. "Someone said this" is not valid. Playing devil's advocate is the best thing to do in all cases because it may come a surprise, but these things DO happen. I will definitely feel sympathetic for the "victim" but the accused is still innocent until proven guilty and that is so people don't lie and get innocent people locked up for personal gain.
As I said, I'm not saying this definitely happened but it's a possibility and people should stop making decisions until the jury votes or more evidence is put forward. Innocent until proven guilty. Always.
|
Oh girl, bye with this innocent until proven guilty nonsense you keep spewing. I don't give a good god damn about a jury vote when a jury vote resulted in George Zimmerman getting off scotfree for murder.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/28/2012
Posts: 37,654
|
Literally don't know what to believe anymore
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 19,696
|
Quote:
Originally posted by YouBetterPopBitch
My first reaction was : "Wait... What ? Kesha sis, you just could not have lied about this"...
Then, "why these questions were been asked to Kesha in 2011 ?"
But if you're thinking about it, if back in 2011, she was asked to answer to these questions, she's definitely telling the thruth now. She answered "no" cause she probably wanted to protect him (they seemed to have a close relationship back then). It was before Warrior and all the mess that followed, so she was close to Luke, she was successful and had no reasons to get out of the contract. She probably swore to him that she'll never talk about what happened, by fear. Why would she have ****ed up everything at this point of her career ?
Anyway, this is such a horrible, ugly mess...  |
I think this is the best explanation with this specific problem
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 23,128
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beethoven
This whole mess kinda makes me want to study Law tbh. It's interesting.
|
You should. I study Business Law but they have been some of my best classes I've ever taken in college. You just learn so much it's like a completely different world.
Everyone should take a few classes tbh it's good to know what rights you have and which ones you don't 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 17,141
|
Quote:
Originally posted by konaa
And that's all I needed to hear. That's enough from you.
Oh girl, bye with this innocent until proven guilty nonsense you keep spewing. I don't give a good god damn about a jury vote when a jury vote resulted in George Zimmerman getting off scotfree for murder.
|
So you think it's ok for innocent people to go to jail? If I accused a random person on the street who I've never seen before of sexual assault, should they be convicted on my hearsay alone? 
You can disagree with court decisions all you want, but those are the final decisions unless appealed. A jury vote is infinitely better than just hearsay.
As I said, he needs to be convicted IF he's guilty. But until then, he remains innocent.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by konaa
And that's all I needed to hear. That's enough from you.
Oh girl, bye with this innocent until proven guilty nonsense you keep spewing. I don't give a good god damn about a jury vote when a jury vote resulted in George Zimmerman getting off scotfree for murder.
|
The problem with the Zimmerman case wasn't the jury  It was the fact that the state prosecutor overreached in the suit, and flopped, when she probably could've gotten him convicted on lesser degree charges.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 17,141
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jezang Looz
You should. I study Business Law but they have been some of my best classes I've ever taken in college. You just learn so much it's like a completely different world.
Everyone should take a few classes tbh it's good to know what rights you have and which ones you don't |
!!!
I totally agree. I study Accounting, and I did Business Law as a module last year and currently doing Advanced Business Law right now. It's really interesting (and I wish I went to more classes last year tbh).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,628
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihannaRTT
I have a question. If the victim was a male and the accused was a female, would ya'll still be the same way? Or is it just the stereotype of a male sexually abusing a female that ya'll are clearly convinced by?
She has absolutely no proof and this just makes it worse that she lied under oath. Surely if something this serious was going on, that would have been the perfect time to say, "you know what this has been going on and it needs to stop now".
I don't see how people can make such concrete decisions and will take the "victim"'s side. Just because a victim claims something, doesn't make it true. Does this mean I should go claiming the people I hate sexually abused me so they get locked up without trial? No, that's why we have trials; so the evidence can be laid before a judge or jury. One person's words are worth no more than another person's words.
Obviously, if he is guilty, then it was a horrible thing to do and he should be locked up. But he remains innocent until proven guilty. People need to remember that. The jury, at the end of the day, will make the final decision. I'm sure they will make the right one according to the circumstances and evidence at the time of the ruling.
Also this gif is perfect tbh
 |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihannaRTT
So you think it's ok for innocent people to go to jail?
As I said, he needs to be convicted IF he's guilty. But until then, he remains innocent. |
Dr. Luke isn't innocent. We still don't know why Kesha was under oath in 2011. The most obvious answer is that Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald wanted one Kesha Rose Sebert to say, under oath, that he did not roofie her and that she did not have a sexual relationship with him to cover his tracks if ever the victim, Kesha Rose Sebert, decided to come forward with sexual assault allegations. Dr. Luke is controlling and has sociopathic tendencies. He knew exactly what he was doing by having Kesha testify in court. He wanted documentation and was thinking ahead, as is the case with most controlling sociopaths.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/19/2009
Posts: 4,416
|
So u mean to tell me she had the chance to leave him back in 2011 but lie under oath. A person with a single brain cell could use it to figure out she could have left him if she would have have made these claims back then. But since her career was going strong she decided to stay.
Also didn't these claims happen in 2005. Dr Luke wasn't a household name and was nothin more than max martins bitch with like 2 singles to his name so he wasn't that powerful. He wasn't really know until Kesha and katy found success.
I'm not on either side I think both sides have holes all through their cases. I'll just sit with my popcorn and watch as this's cluster **** explodes
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 19,696
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihannaRTT
So you think it's ok for innocent people to go to jail? If I accused a random person on the street who I've never seen before of sexual assault, should they be convicted on my hearsay alone?
You can disagree with court decisions all you want, but those are the final decisions unless appealed. A jury vote is infinitely better than just hearsay.
As I said, he needs to be convicted IF he's guilty. But until then, he remains innocent. |
This idea of expecting the best out of people is a good concept, but your way of dealing with it basically discourages anyone who was ever a victim of sexual assault to come forward. You are basically perpetuating that they have ANOTHER huge hurdle to jump to convince the judge, jury and community that they were victimized, and do you actually think that's a good thing? NOT AT ALL...
Instead we need to be supportive and show that what they did is brave.. A victim speaking out is good and positive because perpetrators will actually be caught and convicted this way. whereas the attitude of innocent until proven guilty discourages victims from coming out because it perpetuates that they are lying and that nobody will believe them until they can actually come with solid fact..
In the end, what you say, the reverse is also applicable, and so we as people that do not know about anything that is going on need to either not say anything at all, and show support to the bigger picture. For justice and for what is right.
aka, encourage victims to feel empowered where they actually can speak out
not to mention, liars of cases barely ever get convicted if you think about it. What are the stats of liars actually going all the way to court. 100% of people lie sure, but how many lie to a cop? and how many of those that lie to a cop actually go so far as to file a claim? and of that percent go to court and pay all those fees and lose all that money for a laywer? and from there go as far as to lie in court under oath and infront of tv to everyone else? I think that percentage is way lower than what your attitude towards general cases are.
so in the end, think about it more before making such a statement.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2012
Posts: 8,824
|
getting messier and messier
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 17,141
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yourfavefan
This idea of expecting the best out of people is a good concept, but your way of dealing with it basically discourages anyone who was ever a victim of sexual assault to come forward. You are basically perpetuating that they have ANOTHER huge hurdle to jump to convince the judge, jury and community that they were victimized, and do you actually think that's a good thing? NOT AT ALL...
Instead we need to be supportive and show that what they did is brave.. A victim speaking out is good and positive because perpetrators will actually be caught and convicted this way. whereas the attitude of innocent until proven guilty discourages victims from coming out because it perpetuates that they are lying and that nobody will believe them until they can actually come with solid fact..
In the end, what you say, the reverse is also applicable, and so we as people that do not know about anything that is going on need to either not say anything at all, and show support to the bigger picture. For justice and for what is right.
aka, encourage victims to feel empowered where they actually can speak out
not to mention, liars of cases barely ever get convicted if you think about it. What are the stats of liars actually going all the way to court. 100% of people lie sure, but how many lie to a cop? and how many of those that lie to a cop actually go so far as to file a claim? and of that percent go to court and pay all those fees and lose all that money for a laywer? and from there go as far as to lie in court under oath and infront of tv to everyone else? I think that percentage is way lower than what your attitude towards general cases are.
so in the end, think about it more before making such a statement.
|
Yes they should be encouraged to speak out if someone has wronged them, but it is absolutely ridiculous to take something like this at hearsay.
The chances may be slim, but they are NOT non-existent. These things DO happen, and that is why people are not convicted on hearsay. That is why we have trials; which need evidence, witnesses and other rules and regulations. It doesn't matter if it's 10% or 0.1%; these things do happen.
If they are telling the truth, the evidence and the circumstances will confirm this. As so, the right outcome will happen in the end. Innocent people should not be convicted for no wrongdoing. Period.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
i think a lot of the K$ supporters should just move to China or Cuba  There, you won't get a fair trial or a trial by jury, the case is over within 2 weeks, and the best you can hope for, if you are sued, is that you will not be executed via firing squad
just let the case play out, and if Dr. Luke is found innocent, than that is what he is, under the justice system of these United States
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 5/2/2010
Posts: 6,088
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
Dr. Luke isn't innocent. We still don't know why Kesha was under oath in 2011. The most obvious answer is that Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald wanted one Kesha Rose Sebert to say, under oath, that he did not roofie her and that she did not have a sexual relationship with him to cover his tracks if ever the victim, Kesha Rose Sebert, decided to come forward with sexual assault allegations. Dr. Luke is controlling and has sociopathic tendencies. He knew exactly what he was doing by having Kesha testify in court. He wanted documentation and was thinking ahead, as is the case with most controlling sociopaths.
...Vin |
I really believe this!
-
I am shocked because Dr. Luke never striked me as shady/dodgy and it's really sad for me to hear that Kesha has gone through all this.
I feel that either way someone's rep is gonna be badly damaged and I just hope that it's Dr. Luke's and not Kesha's.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/27/2012
Posts: 6,308
|
She is not lying. her lawyer is trying to distract us with irrelevant ****. There is still a 3 year gap between THEN and NOW when anything else could have taken place. The emotional abuse could have all taken place before 2011 then the rape and assaults could have happened after 2011. Those documents only prove the date raping and sexual activity didn't occur at that particular point. There are countless other accusations to be proved and the fact that some of you think this case is over purely because she answered no to being drugged by him in 2011 doesn't mean she's going to lose, it's just one accusation scratched of the list of around 30 accusations. 29 to go! She will win this.
I swear I'm posting among monkeys in here sometimes 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 17,141
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
Dr. Luke isn't innocent. We still don't know why Kesha was under oath in 2011. The most obvious answer is that Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald wanted one Kesha Rose Sebert to say, under oath, that he did not roofie her and that she did not have a sexual relationship with him to cover his tracks if ever the victim, Kesha Rose Sebert, decided to come forward with sexual assault allegations. Dr. Luke is controlling and has sociopathic tendencies. He knew exactly what he was doing by having Kesha testify in court. He wanted documentation and was thinking ahead, as is the case with most controlling sociopaths.
...Vin
|
He is until the jury rules otherwise.
Wasn't it said that HER former manager was filing a case against her and Luke? Wouldn't that lead to more of a suggestion that Luke was behind her manager becoming her former manager? And she wanted that asked to see if it was because they were in a relationship. To me, that is the most logical theory, but once again, both mine and your posts are nothin but theories. We don't know why she was under oath so people should stop jumping the gun until we know exactly what it was for.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/15/2012
Posts: 35,409
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
