Vic Mignogna

[WittyUsername]

I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but Vic is the one suing for defamation (among other things). He just has to deny the allegations under oath and it's the defendants job to prove said allegations to the court.

It just occurred to me, but didn’t he already issue at least two apologies for his alleged behavior? That seems like it could potentially hurt his case.

Yes and one of those he said it was not his intention to hurt anyone if he did. Vic said months ago he was likely guilt just that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone which would have been a better argument to go with versus he never did anything.

If FUNimation, Rial, Marchi, and Toye are smart, they’ll use that as part of their defense.

[Wezenheim]

People seem to be a little confused as to how defamation cases actually work, so this is a simple read that outlines it very well. https://www.mylawteam.com/business-part ... tion-laws/

[coola]

So now they attack Vic family? I'm ashamed i ve ever watched Marzgurl, she is deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KDdrb7UMc

[JulieYBM]

So now they attack Vic family? I'm ashamed i ve ever watched Marzgurl, she is deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KDdrb7UMc

There is literally nothing wrong with Marzgurl's theory. Mama Mignogna apparently has enough money to buy a house in Costa Rica and uses that wealth in her attempts at aiding her son. She's run his fucking fan club for nearly twenty years. If Helena Cassadine hasn't recused herself from this little story arc then it's fair game to at least fucking mention her.

[MozillaVulpix]

So now they attack Vic family? I'm ashamed i ve ever watched Marzgurl, she is deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KDdrb7UMc

There is literally nothing wrong with Marzgurl's theory. Mama Mignogna apparently has enough money to buy a house in Costa Rica and uses that wealth in her attempts at aiding her son. She's run his fucking fan club for nearly twenty years. If Helena Cassadine hasn't recused herself from this little story arc then it's fair game to at least fucking mention her.

Looking at the things that Youtuber uses as "evidence", all I can see is Marzgurl guessing and/or stating Vic's mum has at least a decent amount of money, so he wouldn't be in financial peril if he lost his job. I can't see any "attack" there. Unless you think someone saying you might have money is a personal insult.

[Saiga]

Wow. That post was mild as fuck and based off public information.

The comments on the youtube channel are just completely insane. As much as it shouldn't surprise me at this point, it really blows me away how much Vic's supporters will blow things out of proportion and woefully misinterpret things to fit their narrative.

[Cursed Lemon]

Wow. That post was mild as fuck and based off public information.

The comments on the youtube channel are just completely insane. As much as it shouldn't surprise me at this point, it really blows me away how much Vic's supporters will blow things out of proportion and woefully misinterpret things to fit their narrative.

Oh you mean like this?

Victims dont go out and attack people not even involved in the situation...this is just sad and low.
I dont blame men for not taking us women seriously when women like this exist

Like, the genuine naked motive of all Vic Stans out there?

[Saiga]

Wow. That post was mild as fuck and based off public information.

The comments on the youtube channel are just completely insane. As much as it shouldn't surprise me at this point, it really blows me away how much Vic's supporters will blow things out of proportion and woefully misinterpret things to fit their narrative.

Oh you mean like this?

Victims dont go out and attack people not even involved in the situation...this is just sad and low.
I dont blame men for not taking us women seriously when women like this exist

Like, the genuine naked motive of all Vic Stans out there?

Exactly that, yeah.

[SaiyaSith]

So now they attack Vic family? I'm ashamed i ve ever watched Marzgurl, she is deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KDdrb7UMc

There is literally nothing wrong with Marzgurl's theory. Mama Mignogna apparently has enough money to buy a house in Costa Rica and uses that wealth in her attempts at aiding her son. She's run his fucking fan club for nearly twenty years. If Helena Cassadine hasn't recused herself from this little story arc then it's fair game to at least fucking mention her.

Looking at the things that Youtuber uses as "evidence", all I can see is Marzgurl guessing and/or stating Vic's mum has at least a decent amount of money, so he wouldn't be in financial peril if he lost his job. I can't see any "attack" there. Unless you think someone saying you might have money is a personal insult.

They're claiming it's relevant because of tweets like this she made:



Credit: https://twitter.com/Imsupergirl11/statu ... 1922092032

[JulieYBM]

So now they attack Vic family? I'm ashamed i ve ever watched Marzgurl, she is deranged https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0KDdrb7UMc

There is literally nothing wrong with Marzgurl's theory. Mama Mignogna apparently has enough money to buy a house in Costa Rica and uses that wealth in her attempts at aiding her son. She's run his fucking fan club for nearly twenty years. If Helena Cassadine hasn't recused herself from this little story arc then it's fair game to at least fucking mention her.

Looking at the things that Youtuber uses as "evidence", all I can see is Marzgurl guessing and/or stating Vic's mum has at least a decent amount of money, so he wouldn't be in financial peril if he lost his job. I can't see any "attack" there. Unless you think someone saying you might have money is a personal insult.

God, I forget where I heard this but there really are rich people who feel like 'rich' is a slur at this point and want to be referred to as 'of means' or some dipshit alternative.

They're claiming it's relevant because of tweets like this she made:



Credit: https://twitter.com/Imsupergirl11/statu ... 1922092032

Nothing we girls love more than civility policing and concern trolling. Oh, yeah, really gets us goin'.

[Saiga]

That's really daft. Making Vic non-profitable for cons isn't malice, it's the very concept of 'vote with your wallet'.

[Cursed Lemon]

It's good ammo for Vic's case unfortunately, insofar as a court may not really care about the motivation behind it. But as usual, the right-wing Youtube outrage machine is in top form.

[Wezenheim]

To bounce off what Saiga said, I'll just post this little excerpt from what I linked earlier about defamation cases:

"It is important to note that a negative statement is not the same as making a defamatory statement."

That Marzgurl quote is not defamatory.

[Shaddy]

Not really sure what "make him non-profitable" would even entail, other than not going to cons he's at and telling other people to not go to cons he's at, or maybe complaining to con staff and those in charge about him.

And uh...well? There's really nothing wrong with that.

[Zephyr]

I'm still gonna default to innocent until proven guilty. Again, if anyone jumps to assuming that they all must be lying it's their problem not mine.

No. Defaulting to "innocent until proven guilty" is a good thing to do. However, you're using it as an excuse to avoid making an educated guess and discerning what so far appears more plausible. You're suggesting (deliberately or not) that "Vic did at least one of those things" and "every single one of them is lying" are equally plausible. Refusing to address this is your problem, not anyone else's. Don't be surprised or upset if you're repeatedly reminded of your problems in a thread where you repeatedly make them known.

You and many people like to talk very absolutely about how I should look at the info so far but unfortunately you're all wasting your time.

We're wasting our time because you're too content with not thinking too much about it?

There are things like the McMartin preschool trials where people were convinced for years that horrible things were happening and that there was too much testimony for something not have happened.

You might have a point there, let's look into that...

Oh, right near the beginning we already see an important incongruity:

Johnson's belief that her son had been abused began when her son had painful bowel movements. What happened next is still disputed. Some sources state that at that time, Johnson's son denied her suggestion that his preschool teachers had molested him, whereas others say he confirmed the abuse.

In addition, Johnson also made several more accusations, including that people at the daycare had sexual encounters with animals, that "Peggy drilled a child under the arms" and "Ray flew in the air." Ray Buckey was questioned, but was not prosecuted due to lack of evidence. The police then sent a form letter to about 200 parents of students at the McMartin school, stating that their children might have been abused, and asking the parents to question their children.

The genesis of the testimonies in these two cases aren't even remotely comparable. Johnson is making the accusations, despite not being the alleged victim. In the Vic case, the alleged victims are the ones making the accusations. The police make the suggestion to parents that their children might have been abused, and are asked to question their children. Again, the children aren't the ones coming forward on their own to make these accusations.

Farther down...

The interviewing techniques used during investigations of the allegations were highly suggestive and invited children to pretend or speculate about supposed events. By spring of 1984, it was claimed that 360 children had been abused. Astrid Heppenstall Heger performed medical examinations and took photos of what she believed to be minute scarring, which she stated was caused by anal penetration. Journalist John Earl believed that her findings were based on unsubstantiated medical histories. Later research demonstrated that the methods of questioning used on the children were extremely suggestive, leading to false accusations. Others believe that the questioning itself may have led to false memory syndrome among the children questioned. Only 41 of the original 360 children ultimately testified in the grand jury and pre-trial hearings, and fewer than a dozen testified at the actual trial.

Michael P. Maloney, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychiatry, reviewed videotapes of the children's interviews. Maloney...was highly critical of the techniques used, referring to them as...adult-directed in a way that forced the children to follow a rigid script. He concluded that "many of the kids' statements in the interviews were generated by the examiner." Transcripts and recordings of the interviews contained far more speech from adults than children and demonstrated that, despite the highly coercive interviewing techniques used, initially the children were resistant to interviewers' attempts to elicit disclosures. The recordings of the interviews were instrumental in the jury's refusal to convict, by demonstrating how children could be coerced to giving vivid and dramatic testimonies without having experienced actual abuse.

It's clear that this was a case of the children being lead to believe that they had been assaulted by outside parties.

So, by bringing this up as a point of comparison, you're suggesting that Vic's accusers are being lead in a similar manner? It's possible that they are! Nobody is denying this. What people are denying is that this is anywhere near as plausible as "yeah, he did at bare minimum one or some of those things".

Your repeated championing of "innocent until proven guilty", which is neither novel nor relevant to the present points of contention, when pressed for your views on which is more plausible speaks volumes, whether you're comfortable with it doing so or not.

[miguelnuva1]

You can treat Vic as innocent till proven guilty and still pick a side.

It's why I say I'm 99% sure he's guilty and not 100%.

[Shaddy]

Well the thing is, I would bet that EVERYONE HERE believes in innocent until proven guilty to most degrees. We just also believe that he has, in fact, been proven guilty. There is no proper origin point for the photos, the victims, their testimony, and that of his coworkers and con staff otherwise. That stuff all totally does count against him outside court when it comes to him being fired (which, lest we forget, was ALL KICKVIC WAS EVER ABOUT, THAT'S WHY NOBODY PRESSED CHARGES AGAINST HIM), and most of it would count in a proper court anyway.

[KBABZ]

Well the thing is, I would bet that EVERYONE HERE believes in innocent until proven guilty to most degrees. We just also believe that he has, in fact, been proven guilty. There is no proper origin point for the photos, the victims, their testimony, and that of his coworkers and con staff otherwise. That stuff all totally does count against him outside court when it comes to him being fired (which, lest we forget, was ALL KICKVIC WAS EVER ABOUT, THAT'S WHY NOBODY PRESSED CHARGES AGAINST HIM), and most of it would count in a proper court anyway.

I'm in this boat. Early on it felt like it could have honestly gone either way, but very quickly the evidence started piling up that made Vic's innocence go from unlikely to flat-out completely implausible to me, primarily the sheer number of accusations, their range from random con attendees to his own colleagues, and that this was an open secret in the voice actor community.

To use a more high-profile example, I felt for decades that the accusations against Michael Jackson could be either way, until Finding Neverland came out. My opinions can be fluid and are able to change if I feel it's warranted, they aren't "locked in" like I had to go through this at birth:

Spoiler:

[Fionordequester]

Actually, speaking of him having already addressed the rumors before...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmmhWMn0Lc

[KBABZ]

Actually, speaking of him having already addressed the rumors before...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmmhWMn0Lc

Not clicking that ever not knowing what it is.

Honestly I think at this point, any YouTube links should be treated as "the original source" to back up other text. For example, "Rekeita said such and such in a new video", the link will be there for sourcing purposes.