Blake jenner

Oh and @mendussy feel free to post a full on face pic of yourself that we can all judge!
So clearly not the point. I’m just saying guys that look like him are a dime a dozen, maybe raise the bar enough to find one that doesn’t abuse people!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1133506
Higher standards than the law? What are higher standards than the law? You can make all the assumptions you want and are clearly free to do so but remember no one was convicted and you can Miss Marple the timeline all you want and nothing will change that unless the law holds him to account. Oh and @mendussy you clearly said he had a bland face and buck teeth so if you were "clearly" saying that guys like him are dime a dozen then just say so without being so judgemental. Does it make you feel better about your teeth by trashing a movie star? Oh and please post the evidence that convicted him.
 
Unless Melissa cheated on him, it's pretty fucking obvious that Blake was the culprit. The timeline matches when they were married. And if it wasn't Blake, she would have clarified the situation.

Seriously. The dude gave her an enlarged cornea after tossing an iPhone at her face. Get higher standards please.


This isn't about having low standards and giving someone a pass because they are attractive. It's about being objective and critical of serious accusations made by someone who may have their own motives. Yes, it's very coy that she didn't reveal the name of the person she leveled such accusations at but her relationships have been very few and very public. She knew everyone would instantly know who she was accusing without her being liable for defamation of character. That video was clearly planned and she knew exactly what she was doing.

She CLAIMS that is what happened NOW but at the time she said it was the result of slipping and falling. I'm not saying that he didn't throw a phone at her and cause the injury. I'm also well aware the victims of abuse often lie to protect their abuser.

My point is that it is one person's word against another. She's now saying she not only lied before but did it often. She seems like a sweet and genuine person who is now trying to be honest after lying but she's an actress. An actress who SPECIALIZES in playing sweet and genuine characters who are now trying to be honest after lying.

Of course, her account of the story would be so much easier to take without question if she had told them the hospital that's what occurred.

Did she lie then or is she lying now?

Look, I don't like even having to debate if someone who claims they were abused is telling the truth. It would be completely different if she had gone to the police and filed charges, as she should have done, where they could have taken evidence and interviewed people who would corroborate her story. Instead of just makes an accusation that clearly puts him in a position to be found guilty in the court of public opinion based solely on her say so and a public documented injury that she claimed at the time was an accident but now says is proof of his abuse.

The fact is that you chose to believe she's telling the truth most likely because you either like the characters that she has played, she seems really likable in her off-camera persona, or you have a personal reason that automatically makes you inclined to believe an accuser. You don't actually know her or him though and neither do I for that matter.

I just don't like the idea that someone, especially a person whose job it is to tell convincing lies and appear emotionally vulnerable, can just make a public statement accusing someone of a horrible crime and that person be labeled a criminal and have their life destroyed without the accuser even having to report it to the police.

It sucks that we even have to question when a person makes an accusation like this if they are being honest but when it is done so publically without police involvement then we have to be objective and ask, "Why not make formal charges?"
 
This isn't about having low standards and giving someone a pass because they are attractive. It's about being objective and critical of serious accusations made by someone who may have their own motives. Yes, it's very coy that she didn't reveal the name of the person she leveled such accusations at but her relationships have been very few and very public. She knew everyone would instantly know who she was accusing without her being liable for defamation of character. That video was clearly planned and she knew exactly what she was doing.

She CLAIMS that is what happened NOW but at the time she said it was the result of slipping and falling. I'm not saying that he didn't throw a phone at her and cause the injury. I'm also well aware the victims of abuse often lie to protect their abuser.

My point is that it is one person's word against another. She's now saying she not only lied before but did it often. She seems like a sweet and genuine person who is now trying to be honest after lying but she's an actress. An actress who SPECIALIZES in playing sweet and genuine characters who are now trying to be honest after lying.

Of course, her account of the story would be so much easier to take without question if she had told them the hospital that's what occurred.

Did she lie then or is she lying now?

Look, I don't like even having to debate if someone who claims they were abused is telling the truth. It would be completely different if she had gone to the police and filed charges, as she should have done, where they could have taken evidence and interviewed people who would corroborate her story. Instead of just makes an accusation that clearly puts him in a position to be found guilty in the court of public opinion based solely on her say so and a public documented injury that she claimed at the time was an accident but now says is proof of his abuse.

The fact is that you chose to believe she's telling the truth most likely because you either like the characters that she has played, she seems really likable in her off-camera persona, or you have a personal reason that automatically makes you inclined to believe an accuser. You don't actually know her or him though and neither do I for that matter.

I just don't like the idea that someone, especially a person whose job it is to tell convincing lies and appear emotionally vulnerable, can just make a public statement accusing someone of a horrible crime and that person be labeled a criminal and have their life destroyed without the accuser even having to report it to the police.

It sucks that we even have to question when a person makes an accusation like this if they are being honest but when it is done so publically without police involvement then we have to be objective and ask, "Why not make formal charges?"
Ain’t nobody reading this but keep bending over backwards to defend the guy who’s gone radio silent since the video came out in November. Not a word, including a denial or an apology. Melissa didn’t even NAME Blake, she has nothing to gain from this. It’s disgusting to question it. But a lot of this thread is disgusting, you won’t see me posting in it anymore. Enjoy.
 
Ain’t nobody reading this but keep bending over backwards to defend the guy who’s gone radio silent since the video came out in November. Not a word, including a denial or an apology. Melissa didn’t even NAME Blake, she has nothing to gain from this. It’s disgusting to question it. But a lot of this thread is disgusting, you won’t see me posting in it anymore. Enjoy.

It's clear that you didn't read it. I'm not defending anyone.

Of course, she didn't name him. She didn't need to name him for everyone to assume she meant him. That also means she avoids any liability since she never said an actual name. It also put the accused in a situation where however they respond they appear guilty.

It isn't disgusting to question the validity of such a serious accusation. I've never said she was lying. I've said she should have reported it to the police then it becomes a matter of official evidence and testimony.

Like I've said, repeatedly, I don't like questioning the motives of someone who says they were abused but when they admit to lying repeatedly, make an accusation that obviously points a finger but makes sure that they leave out the one thing that would mean they could be sued for liable, and never makes an official police report then maybe take a moment to ask why before trying to destroy someone that hasn't even been accused of a crime.

I don't know either of them. I don't know the truth of the allegations. You don't either. I do know that I don't like the idea of living in a society where someone can be accused of a crime and punished in the court of public opinion based solely on if the person who made the accusation seems likable enough.

As for defending himself or apologizing, which should he do? If he says it never happened that way then he would be accused of hurting the victim more and not accepting guilt even when it's one person's word against another. Any form of apology would be seen as an admission of guilt. This is a no-win scenario.
 
It's clear that you didn't read it. I'm not defending anyone.

Of course, she didn't name him. She didn't need to name him for everyone to assume she meant him. That also means she avoids any liability since she never said an actual name. It also put the accused in a situation where however they respond they appear guilty.

It isn't disgusting to question the validity of such a serious accusation. I've never said she was lying. I've said she should have reported it to the police then it becomes a matter of official evidence and testimony.

Like I've said, repeatedly, I don't like questioning the motives of someone who says they were abused but when they admit to lying repeatedly, make an accusation that obviously points a finger but makes sure that they leave out the one thing that would mean they could be sued for liable, and never makes an official police report then maybe take a moment to ask why before trying to destroy someone that hasn't even been accused of a crime.

I don't know either of them. I don't know the truth of the allegations. You don't either. I do know that I don't like the idea of living in a society where someone can be accused of a crime and punished in the court of public opinion based solely on if the person who made the accusation seems likable enough.

As for defending himself or apologizing, which should he do? If he says it never happened that way then he would be accused of hurting the victim more and not accepting guilt even when it's one person's word against another. Any form of apology would be seen as an admission of guilt. This is a no-win scenario.
Wait so lying to cover up your spouse's abuse means we shouldn't trust her word when she finally comes out and admits to being abused?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinderel
Wait so lying to cover up your spouse's abuse means we shouldn't trust her word when she finally comes out and admits to being abused?

Not necessarily. As I stated in my second post, I'm well aware that victims of abuse often lie about it because they are embarrassed or trying to protect the abuser.

I'm saying take a moment to ask yourself why she would "come out and admit to being abused" but not named her abuser or go to the police instead of posting a video on social media where she says she was abused and implies who her abuser was while carefully avoiding any legal liability. She knew it would have the desired effect of destroying her Ex in the eyes of the public while not putting her in a position where she would not be accountable if it was a lie.

I keep saying this and it doesn't seem to sink in. I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. You are taking the word of a person whose job it is to tell convincing lies and condemning another person based on lines she speaks in a rehearsed video. If she was going to put it out there for him to be condemned by the public then she should have gone to the police and made a formal complaint.

This is a divisive topic. If she truly wanted to help empower victims of abuse then she would have explicitly named her abuser and filed a police report but she doesn't need to because her Ex is being punished without any verification of truth to her claims.
 
Higher standards than the law? What are higher standards than the law? You can make all the assumptions you want and are clearly free to do so but remember no one was convicted and you can Miss Marple the timeline all you want and nothing will change that unless the law holds him to account. Oh and @mendussy you clearly said he had a bland face and buck teeth so if you were "clearly" saying that guys like him are dime a dozen then just say so without being so judgemental. Does it make you feel better about your teeth by trashing a movie star? Oh and please post the evidence that convicted him.

He's never going to fuck you
 
The bit that makes me think its true the most is how he hasnt been on social media since November
 
  • Like
Reactions: focus0t
I'm sure he was advised to lay low. Once he tried to post anything he would be attacked by SJW regardless of
whether he is actually guilty or not.
See it always makes me weary of people who use the term SJW because it delves super deep into Trumpee territory and that would honestly explain why such strong defense for a guy just for your right to thirst over an abuser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinderel and Alym
And I'm weary of people who call everyone a Trump supporter when they have an opposing view point.
But also thanks for proving my point. The man has not been found guilty of anything, not even accused
by name and you label him an abuser.