>Now, prosecutors say the evidence did not support criminal charges, and the case has been closed.
love how they put this part right at the bottom.
1845
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
+557
Yeah kind of an important piece of info and the headline makes it sound like he got off on a technicality.
"Not enough evidence" is another way of saying there's no proof to support the claim
**Edit:** going to remove the stuff accusing the accuser of lying because I have no evidence to say that's the case... ironic, eh
557
blackdynomitesnewbagApr 22, 2026
+119
Not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.
119
visforvienettaApr 22, 2026
+77
The problem is there's no evidence *of r**** in many cases.
If the man says the sex was consensual but doesn't deny having sex with her, the physical evidence won't contradict his story for the most part - especially if there was no violence or struggle involved.
It's why r*** is so hard to convict, it so often comes down to he said she said and "she said" frankly isn't enough for a conviction without completely up-ending the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"
77
blackdynomitesnewbagApr 23, 2026
+7
I don't know the details of this case, and I don't care to know. I was just pointing out the flaw in op's logic
7
ShinjischneiderApr 23, 2026
+2
Only about 3% of rapes lead to a conviction because of that.
I've seen cases where there was actual video footage of the woman being almost beaten to death and yet the culprits walked free because the Cops didn't do their job (or outright were in cahoots with the culprits).
I've seen cases where the culprits walked free at first because the woman had sex with a completely different man the same day...
2
visforvienettaApr 23, 2026
In the first case, that's completely unacceptable and is a clear failing of the justice system.
In the second case, I suspect it was less "because she had sex earlier so she can't be a r*** victim" and more "she had sex earlier so all the forensic evidence from the r*** is compromised by the earlier sex, meaning we can't get a conviction"
0
ShinjischneiderApr 23, 2026
+2
No. It was that she had casual Sex that evening and that the judge considered the r*** "not that bad" because of it
2
ShinjischneiderApr 23, 2026
+3
Judges will always find a reason to blame the victim.
If she wore a skirt she made it too easy.
If she wore jeans she made her ass too s***
And yes. Both are actual quotes
3
xlews_ther1nxApr 22, 2026
+2
This is where civil cases (Trump) come in
2
iiSpookApr 23, 2026
+1
Neither does it mean that he's guilty.
1
blackdynomitesnewbagApr 23, 2026
+1
Well, clearly
1
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+19
> Edit: going to remove the stuff accusing the accuser of lying because I have no evidence to say that's the case... ironic, eh
Not irony. Just hypocrisy. Either way, that now-deleted sentiment was the only part I took issue with.
19
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
-10
explain how it's hypocrisy, I realized I incorrect and rectified it... please explain the hypocrisy.
-10
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+30
It was hypocritical to accuse the woman of lying without evidence. Not ironic.
30
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
-6
Oh okay so you do think that it's bad she accused the guy without enough evidence?
I don't agree with that, hence why I removed that part.
-6
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+26
> Oh okay so you do think that it's bad she accused the guy without enough evidence?
What? No. What even is this? I will answer as if this is a legitimate question, but I doubt it is.
I think if she believes she was raped, she should be allowed to report it, even with a lack of what a prosecutor calls "evidence." Don't you? To me, this was never in question, but maybe to you it was? I'm genuinely confused.
If she believes she was raped, what do you think she should have done?
> I don't agree with that, hence why I removed that part.
This confuses me.
You said she was probably lying because it couldn't be prosecuted, and the reason given was a lack of evidence. You accused her of lying with zero evidence. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and was the only part of your statement I took issue with.
26
TymaretaApr 23, 2026
+8
If I were to follow you from your workplace one night, and take your wallet at knife point, but never actually lay a hand on you, and the incident is witnessed by nobody, would you genuinely argue that -you- would be in the wrong for reporting the incident/accusing me of mugging you?
Because that is the reality for most r*** cases, the police don't give a f***, so r*** kits often sit untested or ignored, so what evidence is there left to present when the bar to clear is "beyond a reasonable doubt"? This is why myself and near every victim of SA I know never bothered to report, as not only would the case go nowhere, we'd deal with walnut's like yourself claiming that we're lying and openly deriding us for daring to speak up.
8
monaforeverApr 23, 2026
+5
Wait, are you saying you think people should only report crimes if they're sure that there's enough evidence to prosecute the crime?
5
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+157
> "Not enough evidence" is another way of saying there's no proof to support the claim i.e. this is probably bullshit
This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
"Not enough evidence" actually means "not enough evidence." Using critical thinking, can you imagine a scenario in which a r*** occurred with no physical evidence? Do you know how many r*** accusations go un-investigated for this exact reason?
Two possible explanations:
A. The accusers are all (or mostly) liars.
B. Unless you witness it happening, while also having witnessed what led up to it, it's hard to present concrete evidence of a r***.
Life isn't the movies. Rapes aren't always bad guys physically forcing damsels into distress.
157
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
+305
> This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
This woman WAS believed... the idea behind believing women was to take it seriously and investigate the crime. It is not to crucify someone based on an accusation.
She was believed, the crime was investigated which I know because they produced evidence for it but in the investigation they realized there was not enough evidence to support the claim so they didn't charge the crime.
Prior to that movement and the #metoo movement, women were straight up not believed when they made an accusation or worse yet they wouldn't even make the accusation because they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously we still have work to do on this but the fact that this accusation was taken seriously and investigated means she was believed.
Also I do agree with people that the crime may have taken place but that isn't for us to decide. We don't know the evidence, we know nothing about this.
305
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-125
> This woman WAS believed... the idea behind believing women was to take it seriously and investigate the crime. It is not to crucify someone based on an accusation.
Again, please see the comment I responded to. The implication was that she was probably lying. Based on zero evidence.
So, we don't have enough evidence to prosecute a r***, but we *do* have enough evidence to accuse her of lying about it? Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical to you?
> Prior to that movement and the #metoo movement, women were straight up not believed when they made an accusation or worse yet they wouldn't even make the accusation because they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously we still have work to do on this but the fact that this accusation was taken seriously and investigated means she was believed.
This makes me feel like you don't have any real prior knowledge about how r*** accusations or MeToo, or BelieveWomen actually relate to each other. It kind of seems like you're just pulling things out of the air that sound like they support your biased argument.
42% of rapes go unprosecuted. 98% of rapists go free. Does that sound like success to you? You think we've solved that problem? I think we can do better.
-125
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
+106
All right well I have been taking this conversation seriously up until
> 42% of rapes go unprosecuted. 98% of rapists go free
Which I can find no evidence to support, in actual fact 84% of SAs do not result in an arrest and 91% are not prosecuted. Your numbers are made up, you are not credible.
[Source](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136376/)
I actually do care about this issue, enough not to make shit up on the internet lmao
106
XilenceBFApr 22, 2026
+9
The person you responded to changed
>”The evidence did not support criminal charges”
To
>”Not enough evidence”
So that person changed the whole narrative with that subtle change. The original statement indicates that there *was* evidence but that it didn’t seem like a r*** I’m legal terms beyond a reasonable doubt. The altered statement sounds like the justice system shrugged their shoulders saying “we dont know”.
Highly different.
Rapes are endlessly complicated because for the most part it’s a he said/she said situation. So many circumstances could have led him to believe she consented. I don’t know if there are any more details known. Without more details we have not enough to judge the situation on.
I absolutely hate the fact that so many people who commit r*** go unpunished. I’ve heard about several situations in my environment and it really pisses me off. (I was shocked how much harassment women have to deal with in general, specially when they’re not with men).
But at the same time I was a friend to someone who got falsely accused of r*** by a girl he was convinced was the one for him, was friends with for a long time and who made a move on him. She then regretted it, told her sister it was a mistake who then reported it to uni who reported it to the police. His life got put on hold for close to 2 years because of this. His academic career is basically over, his mental state is ruined and he no longer trusts women.
So I think it’s good that we don’t always end up believing women fully. It’s just too complicated.
9
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-1
> So I think it’s good that we don’t always end up believing women fully. It’s just too complicated.
You had me up til this point.
The problem is the legal system, not untrustworthy women. Because you know who else lies? Men. Non-binary people. Everybody lies. Ask Dr. House.
Not to mention the fact that "believe women" doesn't mean "believe everything anyone who is a woman says without questioning it." That would be wrong to do, obviously.
-1
XilenceBFApr 22, 2026
+6
Yeah okay I apologize. I meant “believe women blindly” instead of fully. In this case the woman was believed and therefore the case was investigated.
6
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-4
> I meant “believe women blindly” instead of fully.
Still wrong.
> In this case the woman was believed and therefore the case was investigated.
Wrong again.
The comment I replied to labeled her a liar due to the lack of evidence. My only point was that a lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean she lied. That's it.
-4
ShinjischneiderApr 23, 2026
+2
Damn. The incels really hated your facts there.
2
08TangoDown08Apr 22, 2026
+50
> This is why we need the hashtag "Believe Women." JFC.
She was believed. It was investigated, brought to a court and there wasn't enough evidence to prove her claims.
What exactly are you asking for here? That the court ignore the fact that there's a lack of evidence and find him guilty based entirely on her word?
50
DaddictApr 22, 2026
+36
I don't think anyone is suggesting we find him guilty. The point here is that she isn't guilty of lying either. He wasn't exonerated, it's just that a crime which is hard to prosecute didn't have enough evidence for the prosecution to believe they could clear reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean he's a rapist, doesn't mean she made it up. Hell he could be innocent and she could be telling her honest perception about whatever happened.
What this case should not be used as is "proof" that false accusations are at all a common issue, because there's no evidence that this is a false accusation.
36
08TangoDown08Apr 23, 2026
+3
I never accused her of lying either. But this cuts both ways, there can be, and have been, cases where false accusations have destroyed people's reputations and livelihoods.
Having the case dropped for a lack of evidence absolutely doesn't mean he didn't commit the act, you're absolutely right. And we know that a lot of r*** cases can leave very little evidence. But we don't have a perfect way to get to the truth of these claims in our society yet so we have no option but to work within the systems we have.
It's a horrible situation all around, and if she is telling the truth then it must be utterly crushing for her to see him walk. But that's the world we live in, this happens for lots of assaults and even murders because there's a lack of evidence or the evidence was mishandled. I'm not really sure how we resolve that as a society without advancing to the point where we have better ways to prove these crimes.
3
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+2
> What exactly are you asking for here? That the court ignore the fact that there's a lack of evidence and find him guilty based entirely on her word?
Another strawman.
I've explained it so many times at this point.
The (now edited out) phrase i was responding to implied that a lack of evidence meant that the woman was lying. You guys are working really hard to find ways to misinterpret a simple two-word phrase.
2
08TangoDown08Apr 22, 2026
+17
How is it a strawman? I asked you a question. You not liking how I worded the question doesn't make it a strawman.
You still haven't answered it either, what do you expect the court to have done differently, if anything?
17
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+14
>How is it a strawman?
Go back through every comment I've made in this thread. Point out where I said anything about the court doing anything differently. You can't, because I didn't.
My entire point - which i have explained so many times... - was that calling her a liar without evidence was hypocritical. The original comment is now edited because the guy ended up agreeing with me, btw.
> You not liking how I worded the question doesn't make it a strawman.
Coincidentally, *this* is also a strawman. You're really bad at this!
> You still haven't answered it either, what do you expect the court to have done differently, if anything?
I have. You just don't like my answer because there's nothing for you to argue against. I don't have any evidence of the court, the cops, or anyone else doing anything wrong. The *only* part is took issue with was the hypocrisy of calling her a liar without evidence.
14
BossButterBoobsApr 22, 2026
+68
^ This is why we DON'T need the phrase "believe all women" because people genuinely take it literally and consider all accusations real just because a woman said so and anything less than a conviction means the man "got away with it".
The phrase should be understood as "don't discredit women" but that doesn't hit the same I guess.
68
violueApr 22, 2026
+28
> This is why we DON'T need the phrase "believe all women"
It's "believe women" and yes there is a difference. No one is advocating for "believe *all* women". As though they are a universally infallible group.
28
BossButterBoobsApr 22, 2026
-2
Ok, fair, but that is how it's taken.
-2
notathrowaway75Apr 22, 2026
+18
Well, no. They said believe women and you changed it to believe all women. It's not taken as given, it is being changed.
18
BossButterBoobsApr 22, 2026
-1
No, it is genuinely taken like that. It was also phrased like "believe all women" plenty times before so it's not like I was just misinformed. This is the first thing that pops up when you google it,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html
I've heard it both ways. I just don't feel like arguing over what amounts to split hairs in the scheme of things. Simply saying "women" itself implies "all women" by default anyways.
-1
DiscoInferiorityCompApr 22, 2026
+6
It’s interesting how that literal reading seems to solely show up in criticism of the phrase, and, not in how anyone actually uses it. "But I saw a reply guy use it as a strawman. therefore it is dangerous".
6
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-8
> Ok, fair, but that is how it's taken.
You see why that's a ridiculous thing to say, right? You could use that argument against literally ANY statement.
"Hey, don't stare at the sun."
"Oh, you mean I shouldn't ever even look at a drawing of the sun? Or a photo? Or my son? That's ridiculous, I'm not doing that!"
Literally just as dumb.
-8
BossButterBoobsApr 22, 2026
+24
That's a pretty fallacious argument you just made.
Obviously we disagree so have a good one.
24
juanjingApr 22, 2026
> That's a pretty fallacious argument you just made.
That's rich coming from someone who purposefully warped the meaning behind a two-word phrase by literally adding words to it... just so they could argue against it.
Do you know what a strawman is?
> Obviously we disagree so have a good one.
Do we? Do you think we shouldn't believe women?
0
RellenDApr 22, 2026
+1
This is a comment thread in response to a comment where someone suggested the woman was a liar just because the case wasn't prosecuted.
1
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-9
Wrong.
Please re-read the thread.
The comment I replied to said she was "probably lying." That's the sentiment I'm responding too.
-9
BossButterBoobsApr 22, 2026
+16
Yeah, I read it. And my comment remains the same.
16
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-1
Lol great. Resist that urge to think critically.
-1
jab136Apr 22, 2026
+10
Police solve less than 50% of murders, and that doesn't even include missing persons cases. There are tens to hundreds of thousands r*** kits untested across the US. Police and the rest of the legal system are corrupt AF.
You forgot option c where either the cops fucked up collecting evidence, or someone got bribed
10
PJSeedsApr 22, 2026
+15
Lol for f***'s sake, this guy is a relatively unknown character actor with occasional small roles on tv. He does not have bribe your way out of legal trouble money.
15
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+8
> You forgot option c where either the cops fucked up collecting evidence, or someone got bribed
Do you think that's what happened in this case? Which one was it? Did the cops f*** up, or did this guy bribe them?
8
FoosrohdohApr 22, 2026
+5
Are you suggesting we should still believe her accusation? You seem to be supporting the idea that even though there was “not enough evidence” that we should still believe what she was saying. If you’re suggesting we don’t know either way then the tone of your comment is too aggressive when making that case.
5
mackzarksApr 22, 2026
+2
It's entirely possible that THIS specific accuser is a liar, not all (or mostly).
2
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+51
It's also possible that she's not lying.
Notice the comment I replied to, and how it implies that she is probably lying. Then please notice how my comment is a response to that comment.
51
Bulky-Bad-9153Apr 22, 2026
+1
There has to be a point where we accept that the accuser was lying. What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty. That's insane. There has to be a line.
Pray tell, what what you accept as proof that he didn't do it if not this?
1
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+25
> There has to be a point where we accept that the accuser was lying.
Of course. Find some evidence and let's do it. Otherwise you are declaring them guilty without having proven it, which would be blatant hypocrisy.
> What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty.
Lol no. What the f*** are you talking about? This is the wildest strawman yet. Congrats i guess.
> There has to be a line.
Okay, what's your line. When do you think it's appropriate to label someone a liar?
> Pray tell, what what you accept as proof that he didn't do it if not this?
You can't prove a negative. There's no way to prove it wasn’t r***, especially if they can prove they actually had sex.
You know what you can do though? You can take the facts at fave value. They say there's not enough evidence to prosecute. To me, that means (i hope you're sitting down) that there's not enough evidence to prosecute.
I don't have any idea if he raped her. I don't have any idea if she believes she was actually raped or not. But the original comment i responded to originally said she was "probably lying," based off the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in that statement, and followed up with the fact that this is literally why we have that hashtag. Any other strawman misinterpretations are on you guys.
25
RellenDApr 22, 2026
+5
>What you're suggesting is that a man that's been investigated and completely cleared should be judged as still potentially guilty
You're suggesting we condemn someone because there wasn't enough evidence of a crime that they may have been a victim of.
There's no reason to conclude either way in this case.
"Completely cleared" is also not an accurate description of the occurrence.
5
helendestroyApr 22, 2026
+18
not what i took from it at all
18
Missa1819Apr 22, 2026
+5
There's a difference between not enough evidence and the evidence not supporting criminal charges. The evidence not supporting criminal charges more likely means that the investigators have evidence but that the evidence shows that nothing criminal occurred.
5
lockethebroApr 22, 2026
+8
no? there's not enough proof for most sexual assault claims to be prosecuted. that doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that they're bullshit.
8
SabrinasockzApr 22, 2026
+14
That's a major leap from "not enough" to "no proof". It literally just means there isn't enough evidence that they think would convince a jury. Y'all are so quick to support a rapist
14
CrocoPontifexApr 22, 2026
+44
And you are quick to call someone a rapist.
Whats even the point, there is no avenue to prove innocence in the eyes of self appointed social media judges like you.
44
L0rdSkullzApr 22, 2026
+14
"Inncoent until proven guilty" doesn't exist anymore, it's WILD to call this man a rapist when the courts literally just went "well we can't convict him".
These people have lost their minds
14
redcoatwrightApr 22, 2026
+10
Evidence is the stuff that supports a case, if there's enough evidence to say he did it then they'd charge him with the crime. It's literally how this system works, he may be a creep but it's a bit of a stretch to go from creep to straight up rapist without there being evidence to support it.
Also this dude is not some A list actor who can pull his weight to get off of charges, ALSO district attorneys love to charge even remotely well known people with crimes on flimsy evidence so this NOT being charged is actually pretty telling to me.
**Edit:** DAs are oftentimes political entities so they like to charge well known people if they can for reputation and optics.
10
byllzApr 22, 2026
+2
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar, and it's the bar the justice system has to cross. There is a much lower bar to reasonably believe something true without being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This in no way exonerates him, or shows there isn't good, but doubtable, evidence of his crime.
2
IStillLikeBeersApr 22, 2026
+1
Right, but there's a gulf between "no evidence" and "not enough evidence". It's not that hard to understand...they don't mean the same thing. All we know is there is not enough evidence to support a conviction. We don't know there is *no* evidence.
1
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+64
Maybe because people find a line like this and interpret it as total exoneration.
All this means is there was no physical evidence of r***. Meaning no DNA, and no injuries. That doesn't mean that r*** didn't occur though.
We prosecute murders without bodies, but we [*often, as in 98% of the time,](https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/statistics-the-criminal-justice-system/) can't successfully prosecute r*** without "smoking gun" evidence.
ETA: There, this comment is now pedant-friendly. Complete with a source!
64
hulkhands81Apr 22, 2026
+54
It also doesn’t mean that it DID occur.
54
ManitouWakinyanApr 22, 2026
+21
Obviously. We just don't know. But the context that r*** is notoriously hard to prosecute is reasonable to keep in mind when forming opinions about this.
21
RellenDApr 22, 2026
-1
So you think that makes it ok to say the accuser was lying?
-1
hulkhands81Apr 23, 2026
+7
Equally ok to say the accuser is telling the truth as it is the accuser is lying.
7
BavlesApr 22, 2026
+18
I mean, that's not true. They got Danny Masterson for rapes that happened 20 years ago.
18
juanjingApr 22, 2026
-1
Good lord.
*Often can't
There.
-1
havewelost6388Apr 22, 2026
+18
Yeah. You said something that was objectively untrue and got called out for it. *Good Lord!*
18
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+27
Listnook loves pedantry.
I love the implication that you guys didnt pick up on the obvious meaning of what I was saying, instead zeroing in on what it would mean if I were being unnaturally literal.
In other words, Listnook gonna Listnook.
27
havewelost6388Apr 22, 2026
-12
Words mean things outside of Listnook. That's not pedantry, that's just the truth.
-12
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+19
More pedantry. Shocker.
Truly though, I wish you the best of luck navigating any conversation that isn't 100% literal and comprehensive precisely to your tastes. Big world out there. Lots of ways to get points across. You should try one.
19
ManitouWakinyanApr 22, 2026
+7
Any time you're saying "words mean something," you can be pretty confident a pedantic point is in the air.
7
tlsrandyApr 22, 2026
+13
The problem is these situations abut the American judicial concept of innocent until proven guilty.
The difficult nature of prosecuting consent based sex crimes and innocent until proven guilty make for messy public discourse.
13
RellenDApr 22, 2026
+1
Thankfully, that's just in terms of criminal prosecution. It has nothing to do with how we talk about things.
1
tlsrandyApr 23, 2026
+5
No, I was talking about public discourse.
5
RellenDApr 23, 2026
+1
Yeah, and I'm saying innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard about criminal prosecution. It has nothing to do with public discourse, thankfully.
1
tlsrandyApr 23, 2026
+4
I wouldn’t be so thankful for that. The public information you get about high profile cases is often convoluted and misleading. Thus the messy public discourse.
Unless you prefer just generally holding people responsible for hearsay and conjecture in which case, I disagree with your approach but you’re free to do what you want.
4
MrPissterApr 22, 2026
-8
So the news article buried the lede because they don’t want people to think he’s exonerated?
I fail to see the logic or the motivation.
I’d be more likely to believe they want to maximize time on the page by not giving people permission to close it out by showing readers the most important part of the story right at the top.
-8
juanjingApr 22, 2026
+9
> So the news article buried the lede because they don’t want people to think he’s exonerated?
No. This is a strawman, and a false assumption. I never said they buried the lede, and that sentence is not the lede.
> I fail to see the logic or the motivation.
Try looking at it from the other side. What sense would it make to make that the headline? It basically means the investigation was a stalemate, but the story is that he's not being prosecuted, for a really common reason.
> I’d be more likely to believe they want to maximize time on the page by not giving people permission to close it out by showing readers the most important part of the story right at the top.
It's not the most important part of the story. Again, the fact that you think this line carries any amount of importance is concerning.
42% of rapes don't get investigated. The top reasons: Lack of evidence, victim scared to cooperate, lack of police resources.
But you see one line that scratches your confirmation bias just right, and none of that matters anymore.
9
MrPissterApr 22, 2026
+2
Huh, that’s a lot of assumptions. Im pretty busy and you don’t seem to give a f*** if you are talking to someone in good faith so I’m just going to say “f*** off” and move on.
2
NoExcuse4OceanRudnesApr 22, 2026
-1
No, that's the headline.
-1
BrewKazmaApr 22, 2026
+535
He will always be Lem to me.
535
ColonelCrackleApr 22, 2026
+189
I thought he was Phil.
(Just kidding, obviously. I actually remember him most as Rufus on Timeless)
189
Vers_33Apr 22, 2026
+38
Claudia was also very on that show. I enjoyed it.
38
harrier1215Apr 23, 2026
+5
Pretty sure it was a Kripke show
5
Mxfish1313Apr 22, 2026
+36
Omg I was trying to think of the name of that show (Timeless) for hourrrrrs last week! Thank you!!!
Also, he will always be Lem to me, I miss Better Off Ted every single day of my life.
36
idontknowjuspickoneApr 22, 2026
+2
I always confuse timeless and travelers
2
ilikepants712Apr 22, 2026
+32
He was in the first episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
32
peanutmanak47Apr 23, 2026
+1
That's how I know of him.
1
Sethrich98Apr 23, 2026
+5
That was a great show. Lotta shows should have been canceled before that one.
5
ithinkther41amApr 23, 2026
+2
I feel like I only knew this dude from The Boys and the “Drax them Sklounts” Key & Peele skit.
2
goliathfasaApr 23, 2026
+1
Stanislaw?
1
BookWurm_90Apr 22, 2026
+439
I remember this guy from always sunny, wow
439
TRILLDUNPHYApr 22, 2026
+233
I TORE HIS ASS APART!
233
WhipwreckededApr 22, 2026
+81
“Now when you say sister do you mean….?”
81
luisc123Apr 22, 2026
+32
“… I mean my sister”
32
PantsDontHaveAnswersApr 22, 2026
+15
That whole situation with Dennis is a lot like what was alleged to happen here too.
15
spate42Apr 22, 2026
+41
and from Better Off Ted!
41
ManfredTheCatApr 22, 2026
+4
I loved him in that show
4
joshonalogApr 22, 2026
+70
No you’re thinking of the much more successful, longer lasting, critically acclaimed comedy Better Off Ted. (I am joking oc but I miss that show 😭)
70
bumps-Apr 22, 2026
+23
I remember this guy being warned about the terries, DRAX THEM SKLOUNST
23
Mot6180Apr 22, 2026
+7
With great power comes great respronsitrillitrance
7
Ghost-hatApr 22, 2026
+2
He was preparing in case any terries tried to get froggy
2
HungryDustApr 22, 2026
+7
First episode ever
7
Janderson2494Apr 22, 2026
+5
He was great in Preacher
5
PhilLeshmaniasisApr 22, 2026
+3
I remember him from a twix commercial.
3
Frankensteins_Moron5Apr 22, 2026
+1
First episode of the series!
1
TheSadPhilosopherApr 23, 2026
+1
Same
1
ghoti00Apr 22, 2026
+255
This guy's greatest role was in Better off Ted.
255
NovoMyJogoApr 22, 2026
+78
He and Phil are one of the greatest duos on TV. They just worked together so well
78
ghoti00Apr 22, 2026
+74
The episode where the lights don't respond to black people is one of the best and funniest sitcom episodes almost no one's ever seen. It's just brilliant.
74
the__ghola__haytApr 22, 2026
+40
"It gets dark when you leave the room."
"How can I stay mad at you when you say things like that?"
40
Fantom_RenegadeApr 23, 2026
+2
I still think of him when it takes an extra second for an automatic sensor to work for me
2
JeSuisOmbreApr 22, 2026
+473
this guy lost his ding dong to a woman with ice powers
473
BlackSpinedPlinkettoApr 22, 2026
+180
I absolutely don’t remember him in the show at all.
180
Harford0Apr 22, 2026
+207
He's the superheroes PR guy
207
Due_Art2971Apr 22, 2026
+80
Is he in episode 1 of It's Always Sunny?
80
Accomplished-City484Apr 22, 2026
+80
He was in Preacher too and Better Off Ted
80
AWorldwithoutSinApr 22, 2026
+28
Ohh, not Lem!!!
28
puddStarApr 22, 2026
+23
And Timeless
23
-JimmyReddit-Apr 22, 2026
+3
Every time I see him I just think of him as Hoover lol
3
ryan22788Apr 22, 2026
+3
And studio 60
3
beamanblitzApr 22, 2026
+3
Yeah I would say his role on preachers was bigger than his role on the boys lol
3
kiddfrankApr 22, 2026
+39
So I took him to the back alley, and I TORE HIS ASS APART
39
FngrsRpicks2Apr 22, 2026
+4
Ridiculous eye stare
4
RipoutmybrainApr 22, 2026
+5
Also key and peele on a plane skit.
5
BurnerProfile69420Apr 22, 2026
+7
we gonna draxx them sklounts (edit: misspelled sklounst)
7
alterribleApr 22, 2026
+6
Ribbit
6
1______2Apr 22, 2026
+2
Yep
2
beamanblitzApr 22, 2026
+1
Yes
1
akchahalApr 22, 2026
+114
Fun fact he starred in the NBC show "Timeless" where his colleague and love interest was played by Claudia Doumit.
They also worked together on The Boys.
114
bros402Apr 22, 2026
+30
yess he was so good as Rufus.
30
DivisonNineApr 22, 2026
+8
Both have the same creators no? Tons of casting overlap
Also the VA for Anakin plays a main character Wyatt on timeless
8
milkymaniacApr 22, 2026
+19
>Claudia Doumit
Newlywed wife of Hollywood's good boy
19
MaeBelleLienApr 22, 2026
+2
I was so excited when this news beefed.
2
paparoupApr 23, 2026
+1
Back to back fun fact,Claudia Doumit just married The Boys co star ~~John~~ Jack Quaid.
1
NotFredRhodesApr 23, 2026
+1
Jack*
1
paparoupApr 23, 2026
+1
This happens when you try to put clothes on your toddler and answer at the same time! thanks, corrected
1
ahuangbApr 22, 2026
+161
Managed to slip my radar, and noticed that it wasn't posted anywhere(while the initial accusation was) on listnook. Thought it's only fair I should post it
161
Nero2t2Apr 22, 2026
+251
What's crazy is there's a much bigger actor on the same show who has admited to breaking into houses at night and kindapping young women from their homes, and somehow *that* story is flying under the radar. Granted, he can't be prosecuted, but its weird that he's not canceled after the stuff resurfaced
251
thetimeenigmaApr 22, 2026
+53
Who? Can they not be named?
53
ahuangbApr 22, 2026
+121
Frenchie
121
Nero2t2Apr 22, 2026
+79
Tomer Capone/Frenchie
archived interview in hebrew:
https://archive.md/hx9z6#selection-269.199-269.218
79
ArkatructrucApr 22, 2026
+128
Tomer Capone who is playing Frenchie was in the IDF, willingly, proudly, and did a lot of fucked up shit.
128
DiredrApr 22, 2026
+83
It's okay though, he felt bad about it when he stopped to ask himself "Are we the baddies?". Of course he never apologized for doing it, he still supports the people who keep doing it but his feelings were hurt so that makes up for it. Somehow.
83
Nero2t2Apr 22, 2026
+43
yeah the tone of his stories is as if you're basically supposed to feel bad about *him* and all the things "he's been through". There's no empathy for the victims whatsoever
43
lumpiestspoon3Apr 22, 2026
+14
Yep, this attitude is called "Shooting and Crying"
14
i_sell_you_liesApr 23, 2026
+3
So my typical wank sesh...
3
biskutgorengApr 22, 2026
+4
I dont think he ever did that self reflection part
4
Mundane_Put_5780Apr 22, 2026
+13
This is not a laughing matter but I literally laughed out loud reading your comment, just out of sheer sadness in how fucked this world is 😂 Like damn!! Dude literally did an entire interview on it and nothing happened!!
13
BusinessPurgeApr 22, 2026
+2
Series regulars get more chances.
I didn’t know that was happening, they are spending that money well to hide it.
2
ALasagnaForOneApr 23, 2026
+5
Zionists get more chances
5
LetsGoBohsApr 22, 2026
+8
Isn’t he a theatre student living in Philadelphia?
8
PolicyCommercial6392Apr 22, 2026
+35
this is from October of 2025 why are you posting this now????
35
ahuangbApr 22, 2026
+11
Because no one else did
11
banallfurries666Apr 22, 2026
-10
so you’re resurfacing old drama
-10
ahuangbApr 22, 2026
+7
You're free to see it that way
7
PolicyCommercial6392Apr 22, 2026
+8
and on his birthday
8
Epyon214Apr 22, 2026
-11
Because attention is on Frenchie right now for casually talking about the war crimes he committed during his time in the IDF
-11
ahuangbApr 22, 2026
+18
Are you saying I posted this to deflect attention away from Frenchie's actor being an IDF terrorist? I don't see why it would do that, but no that's not the reason I posted it.
I watched the most recent episode of The Boys earlier and it made me wonder about what happened to Barrett's character, cause I didn't remember. I then remembered about the sexual assault case I read about last year here on this sub and looked up what was going on with that. Then I saw this article and saw that no one had posted it on listnook like the initial accusation.
It's only fair that both parts get posted, no?
18
LouisianaBoySKApr 23, 2026
+4
The innocent post never get posted or attention like the accusation.
4
PolicyCommercial6392Apr 22, 2026
+1
he was in season 2 of Gen V what are you going on about
1
BlayzewhateverApr 22, 2026
+4
"I did NOT tear his ass apart!"
4
turtleofgirthApr 22, 2026
+2
Didn't he also get arrested with two others on a plane?
2
A-WILD-PATBACKApr 23, 2026
+1
Terries tryna get froggy
1
monchotaApr 22, 2026
+5
Then why was this even said? No ones name should be released unless charges are filed.
5
Excellent-Base-637Apr 22, 2026
+1
He was on an episode of The Office, he took over Stanley's job
1
flyingseelApr 22, 2026
+1
Yeah I always see him as "new Stanley" too haha.
1
PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREADApr 23, 2026
+1
For anybody else who couldn’t remember, he played Seth, one of the public relations writers for Vought.
1
mirosama2Apr 24, 2026
+1
Better off Ted actor.
1
ComprehensiveTour278Apr 22, 2026
-19
For everyone dismissing this, r*** is one of the hardest crimes to prove. The absence of evidence does not equal the absence of harm. If you only believe a woman when she brings an entire mountain of proof, that says something about you, not her. Even when evidence exists, prosecutors rarely secure convictions. That reality is not a victory. It is a failure of the system and a loss for survivors.
-19
daandriodApr 22, 2026
+43
Sorry but no, Innocent until proven guilty needs to be the backbone of any legal system. Its not perfect and inevitably some people will not be able to recieve justice, But the alternative is vastly worse. If a crime cannot be proved then we can't just randomly punish people off accusations
43
DocDerryApr 22, 2026
+19
There should be some evidence right? Other than accusations?
19
shoeboxchildApr 22, 2026
+11
So it’s assume a victim is right, not innocent until proven guilty and then when the guy is found innocent he’s still in the wrong?
To be clear, I take sexual assault very seriously but the reality is some people do lie about it, and sometimes that sucks too because it can ruin someone’s life
But if they went through the entire court process and he’s found innocent you think he should still carry the stigma that he did it? If not then why bring this up?
11
MajorFuckingDickApr 22, 2026
+10
My issue is and always will be that survivor advocates are always the worst people. You know how many r*** survivors in my personal life have called me insensitive? Zero. But every activist wants to call any sort of inaction the worst thing to do when its often the only thing to do. You dont even care about victims. You care about being vindictive to rapist.
Proving you didnt sexually assault someone is one of the hardest things in the world, the court of public and professional opinion almost only cares about the allegation because most people already know how hard it is to prove and any sort of credibility to an allegation is treated as true. Short of proving a grudge or having never met at all an allegation from people who can prove they spent time with you is damning.
I dont even doubt he did the things alleged. Drunk sex is a mess legally however and they dont have the requirements I assume. He cant consent either if they had both been drinking.
10
mofeus305Apr 22, 2026
+3
What EXACTLY are you leading at here? If someone is accused of r*** just once we should just say "Yeah, they probably did it even though there is no evidence"?? The problem with this is there is no half way approach. Either you will trust someone or not trust them.
3
pasher5620Apr 22, 2026
+6
The what the f*** is the point of Innocent until proven guilty then huh? Our entire judicial system is centered on the idea that we shouldn’t label someone a criminal if there isn’t proof showing they actually did the crime. Why is it with r*** that just the accusation is enough to label people. I’m so sick of this mentality. She was believed, her accusations investigated, and they didn’t find enough evidence to show he did r*** her. Until such time as enough proof can be found to show he did r*** her, then he isn’t a rapist.
We don’t have to label her a liar and shit talk her like some incel types would, but we also don’t have to go around thinking he stilled raped her without evidence.
6
DrFlabbySelfieApr 23, 2026
And he gets to have this attached to his name while she gets to remain anonymous.
185 Comments