myurr wrote: ↑10 Mar 2024, 12:28
izzy wrote: ↑10 Mar 2024, 10:40
All this interpretation depends on literally a few particular screenshots indicating nonconsent. Otherwise it's all fun between casual lovers. If you can't explain why she used screenshots, it's just personal imagining.
And so far, as far as we know, she hasn't simply shown anyone the actual chats and fried him.
The reason this discussion gets tedious is people avoiding the points others make, trying to have a winnnnn! If all the screenshots were real it would be awful of course, and so awful she can fry him in an instant and nobody would be charging her with breaking Apple's terms and conditions.
Who is charging her with breaking Apple's terms and conditions? We don't know what she's been accused of by Red Bull, whether she's guilty or not, whether it relates to these screenshots or other evidence, whether these screenshots are all the evidence or if there was much more, etc.
If the only defence of Horner's behaviour is to believe it didn't happen, to believe these screenshots are fake, to believe that she didn't say no to his advances and has faked the entire thing, then I personally find it strange to defend the opaque nature of the investigation and lack of information being released by Red Bull. It would be well within their legal rights to put out a statement saying that they "have thoroughly investigated the accusations and believe that Horner has done nothing wrong. Purported evidence has been leaked but it has been determined to not be genuine. Christian did not say those things to any employee, and it goes without saying that sexual harassment in the workplace is fundamentally against Red Bull's values and should it ever occur it would be dealt with in the harshest possible manner."
Red Bull haven't said any of that, they've simply said that the grievance was dismissed. That says they absolve themselves as an employer and nothing more.
An observation here but all means if what is released is legit and there is nothing of substance is left by all means he’s a dead man walking, I guess unless you go out the Horner and his backers pay there way out path, fair enough it’s hardly uncommon for people in his position to go that route.
Going back to the Saward article, Joe seemed to come up with a timeline in when these messages occurred I don’t think there was anyone before him that was that specific was there? Joe does mention one can easily work out.
Yes plenty picked up certain events that occurred and could figure they occurred over an extended period but not down to a start and end month.Iirc it was something you picked up in his article?
So it comes across as Joe knows certain details either he’s very carefully put a time together or he’s been told something?
If obviously suggest the messages are both real and there was some form of a relationship between the two and that it wasn’t wise.
Which is why the his comments on creating fake messages via an app as curious something he’s been told or just like casual observers throwing out ideas? It’s obviously very possible but Joe never really questions is the leak is real that random followers observe.
Given too Joes history with his sister and rape; granted we’re not talking about things going that far here rather it’s harassment I’m not sure it’s a subject he takes too lightly.
The accuser in has been accused of being dishonest by reports obviously a very loose term but likely one with a purpose you release that she’s being accused of falsifying evidence particularly without process I’d imagine a lawyer/PR team would want to be very careful on what they release publicly - as would her lawyers mind you.
Taking it as there likely was something between CH and his PA , and that the leak very likely came from the investigation somewhere - RBGmbH did have the dossier before the ‘independent’ investigation so maybe a few sources for it and Saward tends to indicate as much
You lawyer would likely advise against any specific points until all processes have been followed, don’t give a lawyer any leverage one you publicly accuse someone of falsifying evidence that really can’t be taken back. Implying someone faked evidence so publicly is probably opening a lawyers field day.
By all means Joe could be guessing and working back from the dispute between RBGmbH owners over control of the team; the KC dismissed the charges therefore something and used her accusations as a gambit by the Austrian side of RB. But his article just doesn’t read as someone who is guessing and I accept he does on appearance tend to gloss over the potential seriousness if the accusations. So leaves still a lot unknown and open to speculation.
I hope this is true!!
