>>941632567
>Ah, so he has been charged as a sex offender then?
no, there was a civil case, when was he convicted of being a sex offender?
>The evidence is widely available and constantly posted.
again, if there's so much evidence then why wasn't he arrested or charged? sounds like it would be a slam dunk
>it's because you are ignoring it
it doesn't matter what I think I'm not a prosecutor, if there's overwhelming evidence then it would be an easy thing to convict him of. sounds like maybe there isn't as much evidence as you claim
>I've never been civily convicted of rape.
that's not a thing in this country, you can't be "civily convicted" of rape