It didn’t work one of the times [just now] that I clicked on it as well. Try going to the facebook page and clicking on either the link near the top or the the one at the bottom.
It’s an 8 page PDF which comes down to basically what I said above. She has two stories that contradict each other. One that he had been molesting her from the time she was 14 until she was 17 and another that the first time they had any sexual contact was after she was 18. There’s some other stuff in there that could make it worth reading as well.
For all I know she was lying when she said the first time they had sex was way after Charles in Charge. I’ve never seen any interview with her, I’ve never heard anything about any of this until now. But clearly she’s lying about one of these things for no reason other than they can’t both be true.
It was that company that Steve Jobs created many moons ago, but that didn’t work out so well, except that Apple eventually bought it and that brought Jobs back to Apple. Except it was spelled NeXT. Close, but not all caps.
I don’t necessarily see a contradiction, and certainly no proof that she’s lying.
What does it mean “the first and only time they ‘got together’”? That’s the only time they had penetrative sex? That’s the only time it was consensual? I can think of many ways to interpret that phrase without excluding the possibility that he molested her between 14 and 18. In fact, if I wouldn’t at all be surprised if a victim of molestation didn’t count the abuse as “getting together.”
Smells like bullshit to me. As he says in his Facebook video, she’s been making these allegations for years yet not once has she approached the appropriate authorities. Far easier to destroy someone you have a grudge against by doing it online. No proof needed there just the Holy and Unassailable Word of the purported victim. Even the shakiest stories are put on a level with those that are genuine. To doubt is to be branded a sexist swine and despicable person. Well, fuck it. I doubt.
You should read it instead of relying on what I’m saying.
In it, he’s essentially quoting her as calling both of those instances the only ‘sexual’ encounter the two have had with either other. That she’s say the 14-17 year old period and the time after Charles in Charge. If you want to trip someone up on a technicality, doing it to me isn’t going change anything. I just read one thing and typed another because I’m not going to cut and paste an 8 page PDF.
Having sex with lots of people, or even one person doesn’t require you to assault any of them. Confusing the terms is what’s causing all these problems, Caligula.
This isn’t directed at you, but some of the other’s in the thread, and other threads, but I always think it’s a bit funny and a lot of unfair when people have the mindset that as long as a person isn’t getting much work these days, then it’s okay to make [possibly false] accusations against them.
Regarding the Subway comment, what if he was? That’s essentially what your job is, that is, not being a famous person. You’d be okay with losing your income, possibly for the rest of your life because someone you had sex with when they were 18 decided to say it was when they were 14?
I can’t post links right now, but AFAICT Baio’s claim that Eggert changed her story is based on saying that she lost her virginity at a different age, which doesn’t seem to conflict with claims Baio molested her (which doesn’t require losing one’s virginity) at age 14.
Can you paste these two parts here? I’m not seeing any quoting her that she said two different sexual encounters with him are both the only sexual encounters.
