Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

observer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 484 posts

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#11

Post by runevault »

_m8fo wrote: post #5
asdfologist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

Legal definition of assault is not what you'd think it is, and I'd assume sexual assault legally is the same thing, just in a sexual manner.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

edit: For reference the actual physical acts are battery in the legal sense.

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#12

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

_m8fo wrote: post #5
asdfologist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

There's also harassment, which can be textual.

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#13

Post by bsder »

_m8fo wrote: post #5
asdfologist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

Not in and unto themselves, but they certainly establish a pattern and lend more credence to the actual charges being brought.

They help move the needle from simply "He said; she said."

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#14

Post by sillysaurus3 »

drewrv wrote: post #4
_m8fo wrote: post #2

In these situations how are things actually proved? Is it just a "he said, she said" situation? In any case, it's a bold move to go on record, though I'm curious what difference it actually makes. EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone.

In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".

When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#15

Post by _m8fo »

philip1209 wrote: post #6
_m8fo wrote: post #2

In these situations how are things actually proved? Is it just a "he said, she said" situation? In any case, it's a bold move to go on record, though I'm curious what difference it actually makes. EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone.

This article seems to indicate that multiple journalists were investigating these allegations, but couldn't go to press without sources: https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html One journalist got six sources, three on the record, and claims to have verified parts of the stories (such as reviewing message history on phones), which led him to have the confidence to go to press.

Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward?

It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#16

Post by jimrandomh »

_m8fo wrote: post #5
asdfologist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

No, but they can be strong evidence if they include people talking about what happened.

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#17

Post by vkou »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #14
drewrv wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".

When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.

When it involves serial harassers, the ability to get many she-saids becomes easy, too. Do you really think that founders are lining up to put their personal and professional reputation on the line, to smear this guy, as part of a vast female conspiracy?

They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people?

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#19

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #10
_m8fo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

The texts are trivially verifiable proof of harassment, AFAIK, there is no trivially verifiable proof for the assault.

[deleted]

Re: 6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

#20

Post by lmkg »

_m8fo wrote: post #5
asdfologist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second paragraph said he sent texts. Texts can be verified.

Are texts really an example of "sexual assault?" My understanding was that sexual assault had to be physical, though I may (probably) be wrong. EDIT: Thanks for the clarification, all. As many have pointed out, there's also the harassment portion. I guess my question is now: how do you prove intent? I know nothing about due process, so I'm curious. I suppose in this case it really matters what it says in the texts.

Texts would be an example of "sexual harassment."

Some types of sexual assault can be proven by medical examination, if the exam happens soon after, although many actions that qualify as sexual assault will either not show up on an exam, or can be proven to be "sexual" but not "assault." However, in cases like this where there is an ongoing relationship before and after the incident, the text messages will often refer to physical events. These can be evidence that a physical event happened, and what the attitudes and beliefs of the involved people were towards the incident at the time. Although even that is still a large amount of he-said-she-said and drawing large inferences from circumstantial data.

Post reply on HN