Her letter isn't damning. As it's been said a million times Vic is not the defendent and this is not a rape/sexual assault trial against him. Her letter, if true, is just hearsay and shes using it to further defame Vic without doing it on twitter and not getting sued (Good game Michele, letting Momo, Ron and Jamie take the fall but still getting your jabs in while avoiding litigation yourself LMAO). Also it doesn't really look great if she knows about statutory rape and does nothing
My current stance: no TCPAs get dismissed because between them, MoRon have TI and defamation, Marchi has conspiracy with the Discord, and Funimation is at best stupidly negligent and more likely, including people like Sabat, just as enmeshed in a concerted effort to drive Vic out of the Texas VA industry. And even if
any of the accusations against Vic were true, which we have had only evidence that people are willing to lie about his behaviour, then it reflects extremely poorly on all these people who kept criminal behaviour a secret.
I think the idea that it's been written for an audience of more than Vic is a very interesting one, because it reminded me of the public letter that Joss Whedon's ex-wife wrote to him, claiming infidelities and bad behaviour, and it was immediately believed as true by SJWs who are always eager to turn on a man, especially if he's straight and white, and by a lot of other people who found his outspoken feminism (or, yes, 'feminism') annoying.
And to me, it reminded me of Zoe Quinn's ex with
his exchanges that he made public, but he was completely vilified for that by the SJWs. So I was thinking, 'Oh, so we're believing aggrieved exes unilaterally now?' And his wasn't even written for public consumption, it was private exchanges. The idea that the timeline suggests that Specht's letter was written partly for Vic but also more because it was designed to be public at some point colours the points she makes, and notably in Vic's response, from what I saw he doesn't deny anything, but he doesn't admit to any of the specific allegations either - he just apologises for how much he hurt her, and how it seems to have been much more than he thought. Which, again, interesting that they presumably had broken up and had that discussion then, but all of a sudden when he's being #metoo'd with a bunch of trumped-up bullshit she suddenly blasts him for accusations including at least one underage girl.
Whedon and Vic both are being publicly disparaged by women, so of course the current climate means their letters are unimpeachable documents of truth, as opposed to Quinn, who was allowed to spin her chat logs with her own words as harassment and lies and the real crime was they were released in the first place (just ignore what she admits to doing in them). It's #believeallwomen, with any motivation for the women to be lying completely dismissed because why would an upset ex, especially one who has been cheated on, have
any reason to lie about worse things their partner did to make them look bad? Everyone knows in SJW land that women don't lie about things like that!
Now, whether that means Whedon cheated - he probably did. Vic certainly did, as he's admitted to it. But there is a vast difference,
especially legally, when it comes to cheating on a partner and molestation, casting couch behaviour, rape and pedophilia. So I'd say it's obvious that, as with pretty much the entire TCPA, the only reason Specht's letter is included is to make Vic look bad and suggest that, if he's willing to cheat on a partner, not only is whatever she says about him completely true, but he would also be willing to commit actual criminal acts.
Which is, of course, bullshit of the highest order, but all they have. Because they have accused him of so much worse, and have provided not even no evidence, but only evidence that we've found to be from confirmed liars or containing lies and hearsay. It's
negative evidence, because it shows that anything they have that has even the slightest chance of holding up in court is tainted by being at least partially demonstrably false, or coming from someone who has already lied in the course of these events.
Which incidentally also uses a Holmesian response to the question of 'but there's just so many accusations! Why would so many people lie?' Well, it's clear they think of Vic as a Bad Man, and so anything he's ever done gets cast through the lens of his clearly evil intentions and mental state. But also, having removed the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true. So we have proof that, though there may be many accusations, that none of them are true, or are mere hearsay usually able to be sourced to women with a grudge. So we don't know
why all these people are lying (though within these 2,000+ pages I'd say we have some pretty good guesses, and I'm sure at least a couple will have hit the nail on the head), just we know that they are.
tl;dr: There remains no evidence of Vic's guilt, and just because his ex-fiancé wrote a letter doesn't make any accusations in the letter true by default. The idea that the letter was intended to be made public at some point increases the dubiousness of its contents greatly.
