Obviously.
WE DON'T KNOW if she was raped.
WE DON'T KNOW if she was telling the truth.
There's no conclusive evidence either way. That's a FACT.
There's that Creationist logic again
"If you don't have 100% certainty, then anything is possible, including an invisible intangible magical universe generating wizard living in the sky!"
"If you don't have 100% certainty, then anything is possible, including a rape that has not a shred of evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence demonstrating the "victim" is actually a liar."
You are now aware that this type of absolutist logic only works on small minded retards, like yourself.
The rest of us can handle ambiguity, and can look at the sum total of the evidence, and reach a valid conclusion based on the preponderonce of that evidence, which in this case strongly indicates she is a liar, her word cannot be trusted, and that she was never raped.
If you have evidence to prove she was raped, then put up or shut up.
That's what I've been demanding this entire time, that you've been desperately trying to weasel out of.
It isn't working. Everyone here that has commented has pointed out clearly that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, you disingenuous fuck stain of a human being.
Now. For the 100th time.
Do you have evidence she was raped, yes or no?
If you do not, then the default position is that the positive claim is false. She was not raped. It is just that simple.
