Chloe Dykstra, Chris Hardwick in She Said/He Said

[msduncan]

Thanks for the info on testimonies Victoria. That’s enough for me to feel better about what went down.

[Victoria Raverna]

Statement from two more ex-GFs:

http://latimes.com/entertainment/la-et- ... story.html

“Over the seven years Chris and I were together, I was never subjected to any kind of sexual abuse or controlling behavior whatsoever,” Varney said. “Since our breakup in 2011, we have remained friends.”

https://people.com/tv/chris-hardwick-ex ... legations/

“I’ve known Chris for over 15 years. We dated years and years ago,” Savage tells PEOPLE. “He is one of the kindest, most supportive, women-supporting, intelligent people I’ve ever met.”

Based on her own experiences with Hardwick, Savage, 45, says she did not recognize the person described in Dykstra’s post.

“None of this rang true in terms of my experience with him,” she says. “He’s truly one of the least controlling people. That’s not the Chris I know.”

Savage dated Hardwick from 2002 to 2003 and the two have remained close friends in the years since. The actress reached out to him shortly after the allegations first surfaced.

“I was just like, ‘Hey, I’m sure you’re having a really, really terrible day. Just wanted to say you have support out there if you need it,’ ” she says.


So far 3 ex-GFs defended Chris Hardwick.

[McNutt]

Doesn't matter. One woman, who clearly has issues, makes a claim and that's it for him.

[GreenGoo]

It's a shame one of these ex-gfs wasn't his employer.

But that's how it works with crime. You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.

Let me rephrase: Past performance is not indicative of future results.

[El Guapo]

It's a shame one of these ex-gfs wasn't his employer.

But that's how it works with crime. You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.

Let me rephrase: Past performance is not indicative of future results.

I mean, yes, but testimony of his other ex-girlfriends (as well as his current wife) is probative of whether he's the kind of person to engage in the activities of which he is accused. Not dispositive, obviously, but probative.

[McNutt]

I get that, GreenGoo. Just because his ex girlfriends are sticking up for him does not mean he didn't do it. Just like because some coworkers are saying he was an asshole also does not mean he sexually assaulted Dykstra.

[GreenGoo]

I don't think you do.

You want him to be innocent so you give weight to evidence in support, and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

Particularly vexing is your characterization of the potential victim as "obviously troubled". Maybe it's appropriate in this one, particular case. Perhaps. It's also a decades old attack used to undermine actual, proven victims.

I have an issue with character references "proving" anything one way or another. The idea that an accuser or the accused can be judged re:the accusation because unrelated 3rd parties have an opinion is not how justice should work. I think you'd agree with that, but you're voiced opinions don't seem to.

[GreenGoo]

It's a shame one of these ex-gfs wasn't his employer.

But that's how it works with crime. You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.

Let me rephrase: Past performance is not indicative of future results.

I mean, yes, but testimony of his other ex-girlfriends (as well as his current wife) is probative of whether he's the kind of person to engage in the activities of which he is accused. Not dispositive, obviously, but probative.

Sure. Agreed. On the plus side it's not up to me to decide the truth. Outside of hoping justice is served, I don't have a vested interest in the developments of this public opinion trial.

It's like watching a damage control PR campaign that we see on a regular basis for lesser offenses, like a celeb accused of cheating on a spouse or something.

Good luck to you, buddy. Some people are counting on you not to be the scumbag you're accused of being. Maybe try going into therapy. That seems to help, sometimes.

[McNutt]

You want him to be innocent so you give weight to evidence in support, and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

Everything you said there was wrong. I don't know Chris Hardwick and the only times I've ever heard him I found him somewhat annoying. I don't want him to be innocent. I want him to get a fair shake before his career is ruined.

I have neither endorsed nor dismissed any evidence because I haven't seen any. I've heard coworkers say he was an asshole. That has nothing to do with whether or not he sexually assaulted his girlfriend. Neither does his ex girlfriends' claims that he is a nice guy.

[GreenGoo]

I didn't say you knew him, I said you want him to be innocent. I base that on your posts in this thread. If you think you're presenting an unbiased front, you are mistaken.

But that's fine, I'm misunderstanding your position. I withdraw my views on it.

I'm not sure what a "fair" trial looks like in terms of sexual assault. Outside of a rape kit (of which hundreds of thousands go untested. http://www.endthebacklog.org/backlog/wh ... it-backlog) or video evidence or a confession, what evidence is conclusive? To the best of my knowledge all we have on Weinstein is a bunch of people claiming stuff. Is Weinstein's career being destroyed without a fair shake? If so, what should be done, if anything, about it? If not, why not?

[McNutt]

Well, Weinstein has a TON of people who claim he did the same thing to them. There is also the very unsettling voice recording of Weinstein trying to get that woman into his hotel room.

I don't mind being the guy that defends Woody Allen or Chris Hardwick. Neither are people I care much about. I just don't like seeing people vilified because one person said something. Yes, I know with Allen it's two people, but it's possible Dylan was brainwashed by her mother.

[RuperT]

I don’t understand how msduncan sees any of what VR posted as corroboration of abuse. It was clearly a “knee jerk” reaction by the companies that cancelled his gigs. That said, I’m not similarly bothered that he lost them, ultimately. It’s not ‘fair’, but his brand is his likeableness. An accusation, unfounded or not, will affect that. Similar to what others have said about caution in your relationships when you’re making celebrity money (ie, “unfair money”), you ought to be skeptical about meeting women who just can’t get enough.
Having said that, I personally think she’s weaving a carefully couched narrative, like any genuinely aggrieved person will after several years of talking to yourself through it in the car, much less writing “many drafts”, with a dash of misdirection by omission. Like she says “looking down on the freeway” and we think gosh, she’s considering suicide, but she doesn’t actually say that. Or the bit about her surgery when she was crying from fear at telling him she’s pregnant, but she doesn’t say that she actually told him or that he actually got angry.
Speaking of which, someone on twitter had linked to this YouTube video where she documents this hospital visit, and it seems to directly indicate that she didn’t tell him about the surgery until she was admitted, and generally paints a different picture of this particular ordeal (IIRC - I watched it last week).
I think she tips her hand a bit with the “no drinking” stuff. First, it seems reasonable to insist that a prospective partner not drink if you’re a recovering alcoholic, and I think he has represented himself as such. I suspect this was probably a constant bone of contention in the relationship, rather than a line in the sand she never dared to cross. His other rules seem easily misrepresented, like “not going out at night” or “no pictures of male friends”. Stated differently, some of these could be seen as normally restrictive rules in a typical monogamous relationship, IMO.
It’s interesting drama from an objective standpoint, and I’ve put in some cycles trying to reconcile it with my own evolving (or maybe revolving) views on feminism and authority, but there will be no “truth” forthcoming, and I’m not entitled to demand it anyway. I honestly wish them both good luck, up on the high wires of internet stardom.

[GreenGoo]

The really shitty thing is that I am mostly of the same position as you on these things. Innocent until proven guilty is a powerful, necessary part of a functional democracy.

The problem is the nature and history of the crime, and society's responses to them. The victims haven't had a fair shake in millennia. They *still* aren't being given one today. Sure, occasionally an innocent person will be accused of a crime they didn't commit and lose their job or other consequences, but there are 10's of thousands of victims who never see justice for every wrongful scenario. Worse, because society doesn't want to deal with the fallout of those victims' having told the truth. Enormous societal mechanisms move mountains to ensure that those pesky victims don't upset the status quo too much (Weinstein is a perfect example).

And that's the real injustice with regard to sexual assault. Not that one dude gets accused and his world shakes a little (do you have any doubt that Hardwick is going to bounce back from this?), but that thousands of accusations against thousands of people barely ripple the water.

That's not to say that I find convicting people in the court of public opinion acceptable. It's not. But it sometimes is a consequence of things shifting in the victims' direction, finally.

The VAST, VAST majority of sexual assault accusations are based on truth, so despite living in a innocent until proven guilty world, I tend to believe there is at least a thread of truth in any particular one. If that turns out not to be the case, well, I didn't fire him. That's between him and his employer.

Public opinion is a funny thing. It can turn on a dime, it can convict on a rumour or exonerate despite mountains of evidence. It's a shitty system, and one I don't endorse. The moment someone tried to criminally convict him our views would probably align in a heartbeat.

[GreenGoo]

I find the internet ripping apart the testimony of either person involved to be obnoxious. The slightest inconsistency is used to convict/exonerate, based on how they feel about the victim/accused.

It's gross. It makes me afraid to ever be put on trial, and when people speak out with strong opinions (either for or against), it reminds me of who I definitely do NOT want on my jury.

[El Guapo]

The really shitty thing is that I am mostly of the same position as you on these things. Innocent until proven guilty is a powerful, necessary part of a functional democracy.

The problem is the nature and history of the crime, and society's responses to them. The victims haven't had a fair shake in millennia. They *still* aren't being given one today. Sure, occasionally an innocent person will be accused of a crime they didn't commit and lose their job or other consequences, but there are 10's of thousands of victims who never see justice for every wrongful scenario. Worse, because society doesn't want to deal with the fallout of those victims' having told the truth. Enormous societal mechanisms move mountains to ensure that those pesky victims don't upset the status quo too much (Weinstein is a perfect example).

And that's the real injustice with regard to sexual assault. Not that one dude gets accused and his world shakes a little (do you have any doubt that Hardwick is going to bounce back from this?), but that thousands of accusations against thousands of people barely ripple the water.

That's not to say that I find convicting people in the court of public opinion acceptable. It's not. But it sometimes is a consequence of things shifting in the victims' direction, finally.

The VAST, VAST majority of sexual assault accusations are based on truth, so despite living in a innocent until proven guilty world, I tend to believe there is at least a thread of truth in any particular one. If that turns out not to be the case, well, I didn't fire him. That's between him and his employer.

Public opinion is a funny thing. It can turn on a dime, it can convict on a rumour or exonerate despite mountains of evidence. It's a shitty system, and one I don't endorse. The moment someone tried to criminally convict him our views would probably align in a heartbeat.

It seems like you're mostly talking about sexual assault allegations in general, and McNutt and I are mostly talking about what we know about Hardwick in particular.

I also really have no knowledge of who Hardwick is, and I'm just curious about what the story is here. As to Hardwick, it also doesn't help that (as I understand it) a key part of Chloe's statement involved Chris mistreating her in and around the birth of their child, and there's contemporary video posted by Patty Hearst in which Chloe speaks (shortly after said childbirth) glowingly about how wonderful Chris was in and around the birth of their child.

Side note: it's super weird that Patty Hearst is indirectly involved in this.

[GreenGoo]

It seems like you're mostly talking about sexual assault allegations in general, and McNutt and I are mostly talking about what we know about Hardwick in particular.

Sure. So what? Is there something specific about this particular allegation that separates it from allegations in general? What is it?

[Combustible Lemur]

It seems like you're mostly talking about sexual assault allegations in general, and McNutt and I are mostly talking about what we know about Hardwick in particular.

Sure. So what? Is there something specific about this particular allegation that separates it from allegations in general? What is it?

Its isolation for one. Currently the only corroboration is that he's a controlling workaholic and probably an ass. There is zero corroboration that I've seen that he has an sexually abusive pattern of behavior across relationships, or that he engaged in predatory behavior.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Most of the other marquee cases have multiple or dozens of accusers. Louie, Weinstein, spacey, Lauer, Freeman, Masterson, etc.

[El Guapo]

It seems like you're mostly talking about sexual assault allegations in general, and McNutt and I are mostly talking about what we know about Hardwick in particular.

Sure. So what? Is there something specific about this particular allegation that separates it from allegations in general? What is it?

People are talking about it here? I got curious because this thread's been going on for awhile and it involves people that I don't know anything about. I don't really have a vested interest in what happens with this, I'm just curious about the evidence. And admittedly my interest spiked when I saw that Patty Hearst had written something about that, just because it's Patty Hearst and she has a weird story of her own.

It sort of sounds like you're taking any critical analysis of the evidence here as some sort of indictment of sexual assault allegations generally.

[GreenGoo]

Sure, but that does not uniquely separate it from allegations in general. El Guapo suggested that talking about allegations in general was not applicable because this is a specific case.

edit: My question was in response to El Guapo. I'm not asking about details of this particular allegation, I'm asking what puts this allegation outside the realm of allegations in general. At least I *thought* El Guapo was suggesting that general allegation discussion wasn't appropriate here, because reasons.

edit:someone else can take the patty hearst bait. I barely know who she is, so...I'm sure it will be interesting to someone who does.

[RuperT]

I find the internet ripping apart the testimony of either person involved to be obnoxious. The slightest inconsistency is used to convict/exonerate, based on how they feel about the victim/accused.

It's gross. It makes me afraid to ever be put on trial, and when people speak out with strong opinions (either for or against), it reminds me of who I definitely do NOT want on my jury.

Sure it’s gross. That’s the internet’s greatest utility, sharing gross things. Second is a YouTube video on replacing the side mirror for a 2006 Nissan Altima.
Maybe the ‘jury’ shade wasn’t meant for me, but I wouldn’t vote for conviction or exoneration based on current evidence. You?

To guapo, what is this about childbirth? Whose? Maybe I’m more out of the loop than normal.

[El Guapo]

Sure, but that does not uniquely separate it from allegations in general. El Guapo suggested that talking about allegations in general was not applicable because this is a specific case.

That's not what I said. I said that *you* seem to be talking about allegations in general, while McNutt and I are mostly at this point talking about the known evidence against Hardwick (this specific case).

[El Guapo]

I find the internet ripping apart the testimony of either person involved to be obnoxious. The slightest inconsistency is used to convict/exonerate, based on how they feel about the victim/accused.

It's gross. It makes me afraid to ever be put on trial, and when people speak out with strong opinions (either for or against), it reminds me of who I definitely do NOT want on my jury.

Sure it’s gross. That’s the internet’s greatest utility, sharing gross things. Second is a YouTube video on replacing the side mirror for a 2006 Nissan Altima.
Maybe the ‘jury’ shade wasn’t meant for me, but I wouldn’t vote for conviction or exoneration based on current evidence. You?

To guapo, what is this about childbirth? Whose? Maybe I’m more out of the loop than normal.

This is what I'm talking about (Willis) re: the childbirth.

[GreenGoo]

Sure, but that does not uniquely separate it from allegations in general. El Guapo suggested that talking about allegations in general was not applicable because this is a specific case.

That's not what I said. I said that *you* seem to be talking about allegations in general, while McNutt and I are mostly at this point talking about the known evidence against Hardwick (this specific case).

So we're back to "sure, so what?".

Nothing I have read about this particular allegation does not line up with hundreds or thousands of other allegations. Have I referred to some aspect of allegations in general that are inappropriate with regard to the Hardwick allegation?

Actually, who cares, right? I've already lost interest and if I don't care I'm sure there is no one left to do it for me.

Back to your Hardwick discussion.

[GreenGoo]

Sure it’s gross. That’s the internet’s greatest utility, sharing gross things. Second is a YouTube video on replacing the side mirror for a 2006 Nissan Altima.
Maybe the ‘jury’ shade wasn’t meant for me, but I wouldn’t vote for conviction or exoneration based on current evidence. You?

It was mostly in response to your post. The jury thing was a more general observation. I've found myself reading what people write even on the more thoughtful OO forums (as compared to the internet in general) and wondered at peoples' ability to remain objective (note: Your post reminded me of this, not that it is an example of it. An important difference, imo).

I'm already on record (several times, in fact) of saying my tune would change if criminal charges were brought and my opinion mattered. I'd probably exonerate as deciding I don't like someone based on internet rumours is pretty harmless. Putting someone in jail because one person thinks they should be is another thing entirely.

[RuperT]

Thanks, Guapo, that appears to be the same video I linked above. Can I recommend a name change to ‘Guano’ which autocorrect favors?

Greengoo, that’s fair enough. I say ‘objectively’ a lot, but I don’t believe in true objectivity. Admittedly, I’d be a ‘bad’ jurist in certain cases. Maybe this is one of them. I once had a particularly harmful GF who used sex as a manipulative tool, and often.

[GreenGoo]

While I agree that no one can be completely objective, a scale of objectivity is almost as good in most situations. Knowing a person's biases, including our own, allows us to work around them (or exploit them, if you're the president, for example).

[Victoria Raverna]

Those ex-GFs words don't prove Chloe was lying. But it showed that some people that know him are willing to come out to defend him.

Based on their words (including Chloe) so far, Hardwick was a nice boyfriend up until when he was with Chloe then after that he is a nice boyfriend and husband again.

[Victoria Raverna]

I don't think you do.

You want him to be innocent so you give weight to evidence in support, and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

Particularly vexing is your characterization of the potential victim as "obviously troubled". Maybe it's appropriate in this one, particular case. Perhaps. It's also a decades old attack used to undermine actual, proven victims.

I have an issue with character references "proving" anything one way or another. The idea that an accuser or the accused can be judged re:the accusation because unrelated 3rd parties have an opinion is not how justice should work. I think you'd agree with that, but you're voiced opinions don't seem to.

And you want him to be guilty so you also give weight to evidence in support and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

[El Guapo]

Sure, but that does not uniquely separate it from allegations in general. El Guapo suggested that talking about allegations in general was not applicable because this is a specific case.

That's not what I said. I said that *you* seem to be talking about allegations in general, while McNutt and I are mostly at this point talking about the known evidence against Hardwick (this specific case).

So we're back to "sure, so what?".

Nothing I have read about this particular allegation does not line up with hundreds or thousands of other allegations. Have I referred to some aspect of allegations in general that are inappropriate with regard to the Hardwick allegation?

Actually, who cares, right? I've already lost interest and if I don't care I'm sure there is no one left to do it for me.

Back to your Hardwick discussion.

I'm honestly not sure what your point is. My sense of the Hardwick situation (and I haven't gone deep on it) is that she made allegations against him, there isn't much other evidence (or other testimonials of similar misconduct), so he may or may not have done the things that she accused him of (or some portion thereof). I'm not sure what other allegations tell us about whether he did the things he accused of, or whether the facts of this matter as we understand them alter that much our understanding of sexual allegations in general.

[GreenGoo]

And you want him to be guilty so you also give weight to evidence in support and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

I know you think you're being clever, but is that really the impression I have given? Really?

[GreenGoo]

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

That's interesting, because I'm fairly sure I was asking you what your point was, in a more roundabout way.

As far as I'm concerned this is a run of the mill accusation, like a million others. So if I talk in generalities, unless there is evidence they don't apply to this particular allegation, then general comments are applicable. For example, this is a he said/she said situation, with no other evidence except testimonials. That is a completely typical situation. So it comes down to do I find one side more compelling than the other? If so, why? Is that valid? What would cause your opinion to reverse without substantially changing the narrative?

The whole thing comes down to compelling story telling. It's...awful that a victim needs to be a good communicator to see justice, and it's awful a poor communicator can have their life destroyed by a single accusation.

He said/She said is an absolute nightmare as far as any sense of real justice goes. So little is based on anything substantial. We see this in the political arena all the time. The same talking point means different things to different people. Some people look at this particular woman and see someone with issues. Some people look at Hardwick and think "yeah, that's totally him".

I guess there's no harm in deciding for yourself what you think is true in situations like this. I'm sure I do it too even though I wish I wouldn't. For example, George Zimmerman.

It's just shitty, and for all the zillions of victims who have to go through the ringer, it's doubly awful. That doesn't mean I don't want justice for anyone wrongly accused, I just hate the process of finding nasty things about people are might only be tertiarily related to the situation but are then held up as corroborating evidence.

[El Guapo]

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

That's interesting, because I'm fairly sure I was asking you what your point was, in a more roundabout way.

So we're nailing our communication here.

I've just been curious what the state of the evidence is here on these accusations. My sense of it is that it's limited and ambiguous. That's pretty much it.

[El Guapo]

And you want him to be guilty so you also give weight to evidence in support and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

I know you think you're being clever, but is that really the impression I have given? Really?

FWIW the impression that I've gotten is that you seem hostile towards critical analysis of the evidence, possibly (I'm inferring somewhat here) from the history of women not being believed in these types of allegations.

[GreenGoo]

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

That's interesting, because I'm fairly sure I was asking you what your point was, in a more roundabout way.

So we're nailing our communication here.

I've just been curious what the state of the evidence is here on these accusations. My sense of it is that it's limited and ambiguous. That's pretty much it.

Yes, sorry, I went back and added more, although not sure it's on point.

Limited and ambiguous is like 90% of sexual assault cases. It sucks.

[GreenGoo]

FWIW the impression that I've gotten is that you seem hostile towards critical analysis of the evidence, possibly (I'm inferring somewhat here) from the history of women not being believed in these types of allegations.

That's not far from the truth. The problem is that guys like that dude that I'm not allowed to criticize because reasons do driveby judgments that are thick with preconceived ideas about how men and women operate. And critical analysis of evidence is often done with a tone of "this is not true, I will find something and hang my hat on it". It's very similar to political analysis, actually.

Let's face it. Enormous numbers of sexual assault cases are simply he said/she said. That means we have to rely on things that aren't really evidence, only potentially related. Since we know that most (although obviously not all) sexual assault cases have an element of truth, and that sexual assault is woefully underrated, we're kind of stuck.

He said/She said is not evidence enough to know. But statistically he said/she said is often all we have to go on, and statistically accusations have some truth to them.

That means many, many cases are found in favour of the accused, on an individual basis, although statistically many, many cases of sexual assault are in fact true.

How do you reconcile so many accusations with no evidence with the knowledge that most accusations are true(ish)?

[Victoria Raverna]

And you want him to be guilty so you also give weight to evidence in support and are dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

I know you think you're being clever, but is that really the impression I have given? Really?

Yes.

[Victoria Raverna]

FWIW the impression that I've gotten is that you seem hostile towards critical analysis of the evidence, possibly (I'm inferring somewhat here) from the history of women not being believed in these types of allegations.

That's not far from the truth. The problem is that guys like that dude that I'm not allowed to criticize because reasons do driveby judgments that are thick with preconceived ideas about how men and women operate. And critical analysis of evidence is often done with a tone of "this is not true, I will find something and hang my hat on it". It's very similar to political analysis, actually.

Let's face it. Enormous numbers of sexual assault cases are simply he said/she said. That means we have to rely on things that aren't really evidence, only potentially related. Since we know that most (although obviously not all) sexual assault cases have an element of truth, and that sexual assault is woefully underrated, we're kind of stuck.

He said/She said is not evidence enough to know. But statistically he said/she said is often all we have to go on, and statistically accusations have some truth to them.

That means many, many cases are found in favour of the accused, on an individual basis, although statistically many, many cases of sexual assault are in fact true.

How do you reconcile so many accusations with no evidence with the knowledge that most accusations are true(ish)?

Chloe claimed to have evidence. Is it okay to ask her to show the evidence before condemining the accused?

[GreenGoo]

Is that a sincere question?

[GreenGoo]

Yes.

Fair enough. That is not my position, nor a position that I have been defending.

[EvilHomer3k]

Yes.

Fair enough. That is not my position, nor a position that I have been defending.

Perhaps you should look at your posts in this thread and think about what you are trying to say as well as how you are saying it because that definitely seems to be your position.

Finally, I don't care if anyone apologizes just drop the personal attacks.