Eisel says that what rape victims say immediately after 'the event' REALLY MATTERS in retrospect. That's why Hannah and I are happy to subpoena Hannah's friend to court as she was there when Hannah came back from 'the event': [ Ссылка ]
You know who didn't talk to Hannah immediately after 'the event'? Eisel. As proven in the link above, the rape happened in 2015. Eisel didn't speak with Hannah until 2016 and the emails he's showing from Hannah are from 2017 so the whole premise of Eisel's comment about what rape victims say immediately after isn't even valid in his case as he didn't speak to Hannah immediately after.
Eisel also claims that with his testimony against Hannah her case wouldn't stand in court. So why is it that Hannah, or me for that matter, aren't sued? We've gone out of our way to provide all the details the narc, aka the rapist, needs to take us to court, yet he's not doing so. It's very strange that an 'innocent' man who has been 'falsely' accused of rape doesn't want to clear his name. If what we've said is not true we've made serious defamatory statements and Eisel knows everything about taking someone to court for defamatory statements. Or does he?
What happened to that case?
It would certainly be interesting to see Eisel testify for someone he himself has sued for defamation! To me, that sounds like something that wouldn't hold up in court.
