Comments by "OK" (@OK-pi6fq) on "New York Times Podcasts" channel.

Though I know that the witnesses were a number of witnesses pertaining to their own cases and they’re arguing in those cases do not directly interact with this case they in fact did. Because the only reason they used those witnesses was because the girls there they had some instances of consent. They also had instances of being forced into things they did not want to do, and in order for the jury to understand they had to use other examples, so you could understand normal things. So those examples were essential to the case and therefore did relate to this case because they happened to those particular girls but because the things he did happen to those girls and you had to show that this is something that he did. The argument that they’re making is that it doesn’t count as their evidence, but I say it does actually count as their evidence as it does pertain to this case because if it didn’t pertain to this case, it wouldn’t have been useful to this case. Wouldn’t have been useful to this case. Hope that was useful was the predation and the history of predation not the individual cases however, the actual character was on trial here today and that is what is part of their case so I feel like they had bad counter arguments that could’ve argued that this extended court case was extended pieces to it were a part of this case because they weren’t trying him for those other assaults they were trying him for these assaults with an action or historic predation.
1