OT - Bring Jose Canseco Back to 'This Week in the Twitterverse'?
Now that Jose Canseco's Assault Case has been closed, can we welcome his crazy-a$$ back to the weekly 'Twitterverse' story?
I for one found his rants hilarious - but don't feel the strong desire to personally follow his constant updates - getting the hilarious heavy hitters here (alliteration people!) used to be a highlight of the segment.
Thoughts?
I AM HERE FOR THE POS-BANG
But if he was falsely accused, doesn't he have a right to be pissed?
I have no vote one way or another, but it is interesting. (Bring out jump to conclusions board).
I'd blow up if this were me - and the fact he jumped right out in front of it and took two polygraphs made me think he was probably innocent at the beginning.
Just because charges aren't being pursued by the police does not mean that there has been some kind of determination that the claims were false. It may simply mean that there isn't enough evidence to pursue criminal charges (not unusual in the case of a sexual assault accusation, which tends to rely solely on conflicting testimonies of the accusor and accused).
But since it all moved so quickly and was closed to fast - it makes one wonder whether there was ANY substance to the claims. You would think if it were even the slightest bit fishy this would have dragged on for a while...
The reality is that we don't know anything other than an accusation was made and police aren't filing charges. That's it. He wasn't "cleared," as you say. It's still a he-said-she-said situation, unless she ends up recanting or he ends up confessing.
But guilty until he can prove he's innocent?
Should an accusation carry that much weight? This isn't he was tried but they made a bad case or didn't have enough evidence; or even one of those where the DA comes out and says "I just can't take this case to trial with the evidence I have." Sure, lots of people do things and don't get tried for it. But it's a big leap to assume they did it even though they're not being charged.
I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. All I said was that OP's claim that he was "cleared" (OP's word) isn't entirely accurate. We have an accusation and a decision to not file charges. Beyond that, it's a woman saying she was assaulted and the accused saying he's innocent.
The fact is we are all Innocent until proven Guilty in a court of law...not the court of public opinion...which unfortunately, despite the charges being dropped and nothing being pursued at this time, the accusation still tarnishes Jose's "image" (what's left anyways) and he can never get that back. There will always be the specter of this hanging over his head and his name despite no conviction (or even charges) brought against him.
I really could not care less about Jose Canseco. I was just clarifying the difference between a decision to not file charges and somehow determining that the original accusations were false.
Regardless of whether or not he was innocent, it's never OK to post the personal details of someone who you're angry at on Twitter for all the world to see, especially if you're a celebrity, which drastically increases your likelihood of sending those details to someone who's mentally imbalanced and likely to take inappropriate action.
Canseco had a situation where he could have been a very sympathetic person. Instead, he managed to make himself a bigger asshole than the person who (appears to have) falsely accused him of a crime.
True. However, the fact that this seems to be a he-said-she-said deal without any proof either way and the fact that he took two polygraphs has me leaning toward him being falsely accused.
POSBANG'D
of this week in the twitterverse after he said "Fuck Michigan" or whatever.... so no. Fuck him.
I don't recall ever seeing that...I musta missed that Tweet by him...might have to rethink things LOL
Any chance you can link to the post with that tweet?
It was actually "muck fichigan" and "vulvarine."
does Canseco also post on 11W or RCMB??
He followed his vulvarine tweet with a BuckeyeNation hashtag.
His banishment wasn't even about the accusations against him as it was about his actions on Twitter afterward. He published her name, photo, contact information, place of employment, and a bunch of other stuff, and encouraged his MANY followers to harrass her.
If he is indeed innocent, then I am glad he was exonerated, and I wish his crazy ass well. But his example of how to use social media is about as bad as anyone in recent memory, so it'd tough for me to hold out weekly to be amusing or whatever.
On the other hand, DAMN content has been difficult to scrounge up recently.
If he's innocent, she got what she deserved. It's a big 'if'.
He could very well be innocent, and she could very well still be telling the truth - his guilt or innocence depends on what he believed at the time concerning her consent. In any case, even if she lied (and there is no reason to believe that she did), she doesn't "deserve" to have her name and address spread all over the internet by a vindictive man.
I vote to ignore Canseco and deny him his soap box to the extent that we can.
True accusations can be made when no crime has occurred, or when a crime has occurred but there isn't enough evidence to support a charge or an arrest. We simply do't know enough about this case to cnclude that the woman "deserved" to have her name and personal details spread all over the internet. Canseco had nothing to gain by behaving like this. It was pure vincictiveness.