And the 'fact' could be that they harbour a grudge against that person for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged assault. Perhaps a spurned romantic advance, perhaps being overlooked for a promotion, or perhaps just a wild fantasy.
As someone putting yourself forward as policing the intellectual honesty of this discussion I think you ought to take a closer look at the intellectual integrity of your obvious bias.
What complete and utter BULLSHIT. Please look up the term, "due process".
No it is NOT "open ended". If a charge is brought, the accused must be PROVED guilty or he/she is INNOCENT. That's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!
By your standard anyone can "go through the trouble" of filing a complaint and completely ruin someone's life because idiots like you ASSUME "there must be something to it" just because an accusation is made. If that's your definition of "fact", a whole lot of assumptions can be made about your thought processes. Are you a theist troll? (A reasonable assumption considering the way you think.)
Meanwhile we'll just go ahead and assume you are a theist troll. The question has been raised. There must be something to it, right? The question is open ended, right? Your denials are irrelevant. The assumption has been made. We'll just go ahead and roll with that.
FACT: Sam Redmon is a a theist troll.
I don't know what sort of evidence there is that Sam Redmon is a theist troll, but these sorts of accusations don't come from nowhere, right?
You should bear the burden of proof here. The problem is not his guilt or innocence; the problem is whether or not your implication was justified. Even if he is guilty, that does not inherently justify your claim.
Sorry, I thought you were trolling. I figured you'd say, "got me". But no, you "honestly" don't accept (nor understand) the basic tenet of civilized legal systems. You want "guilty until proven innocent", eh? What more can I say?
Sorry I misjudged you. Please say a prayer for me.
Sam, I have no personal bone to pick with you, so this is simply FYI - I lived in Mexico for several years, and under the Mexican "justice" system, a person accused of a crime is guilty - why else would he be arrested? - until he or she proves himself innocent, and in Mexican jails, if you want to eat, you need to buy your own food. It doesn't take much time in a Mexican jail, which is not all the fun it's cracked up to be, to appreciate the American "innocent until proven guilty" system - and on this side of the Rio, the food is free.
The Vatican must have some kind of Nazi obsession. The last Pope was a Hitler youth. This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's. He even ratted out two monks who were subsequently "disappeared." What was their crime? Working to improve the living conditions of poor people in the Argentine slums, instead of converting them, as the abominably cruel Mother Teresa would have done.
@DaleHeadley, "This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's" is a claim. What is your evidence and reasoning? The men you mention were not "monks" by the way, they were Jesuit priests.
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for documenting the atrocities in Argentina during the "dirty war" is on record as saying that Bergoglio is innocent of the charges you just made. Do you have some evidence that he and the Argentinian legal system does not?
The reasoning is also faulty. At the time, Bergoglio was the Jesuit provincial responsible for those two men. Betraying them would have cost him everything in the Society. Ruined his career, marked him for life. To what end? What would be the motive?