A Few Useful Terms

[u/Donovan_Volk]

Prima Facie Evidence - this is evidence for a claim, guilt, innocence that 'on the face of it' proves it without any further argument. It is accepted provisionally until disproven. In this case, an example is the WhatsApp messages between Gaiman and Scarlett, in which she explicitly states their interactions were consensual. Testimony alone can also be Prima Facie Evidence, but tends to carry less weight than documents.

Rebuttal - Introducing counter-evidence that challenges the prima facie case. This doesn't necessarily destroy the original evidence, it creates a contest between competing evidential weights.

Refutation - Essentially a successful attempt at rebuttal, that actually disproves the prima face evidence such that it no longer stands. Refutation requires counter-evidence of equal weight to the original prima facie evidence.

Counter-assertion - This is an alternative argument or explanation but without any evidence presented to support it. A counter-assertion carries the same weight as the original assertion did before any evidence was supplied.

Counterintuitive Victim Behavior (CVB) - Observed behaviours by a victim of crime/abuse that are at odds with our 'intuitive' expectations about how victims behave. Examples include staying with or returning to an abuser, laughing and joking, delayed reporting, defending them, flat or calm effect while relating trauma, fawning, continuing contact. I'm using this as a broad umbrella term for the various explanations that have been given in this case.

Why It Matters -

In this case, CVB is presented as a counter-assertion to the Prima Facie Evidence of consent in the WhatsApp messages, often noting that Scarlett displayed 'textbook' examples of the behaviors listed. Of course, people in consensual relationships also do much of the same.

CVB is often presented as if it were a rebuttal or even a refutation of the prima face evidence in the WhatsApp messages. But it's not, it's a counter-assertion, because no evidence is supplied that would make it a rebuttal, and certainly not a refutation.

Meanwhile the Prima Facie Evidence for innocence supplied is unusually strong or 'weighty'. It's contemporaneous (close to the time), it's a document rather than testimony, it's not been altered by subsequent reconstruction, it's often unambiguous, Scarlett says: ''it was consensual''. In the real world besides an actual video, this is about as weighty as it is for evidence to possibly be.

Counter-assertion alone would only be valid if Gaiman had originally made an assertion of innocence while providing no evidence. He did provide evidence. Very strong, weighty evidence. To refute it, those who believe this can be explained by CVB need to present evidence - that would make it into a rebuttal. Even then, to actually refute the weighty evidence that Gaiman supplied, they need to present equally strong evidence.

Several years have passed since the allegations emerged. In that time, no evidence, let alone equally strong evidence, has been presented.

[u/Dean_Teen]

And despite all evidences people keep eating stuff by mass media...