Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes you made that point yesterday. And I explained what hearsay was. You conceded that " I might be right" (I am right, something you know if you have any legal background) you changed your parameters to I'm claiming the events are to long ago to remember. And now a day later you pretend the hearsay point all of a sudden is valid again.I made that point yesterday. They could only tell a court things they allege she said.
One has nothing to do with the other. Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Apparently not. Your handle is appropriate.
There was none. The dress she claimed she wore was not created when she said the event happened. Strike one. She could not remember the hour, date, month or year that this life-changing event allegedly occurred. Strike two. There were no witnesses. Strike three.
Please link to the names of these accusers.
Irrelevant to any case before the courts. Next.
Again, relevance. She's not my type either and I could confuse her with any number of women. Does that make me a rapist in your mind? Why did EJC's testimony follow a L&O script that she admits to watching? That is more relevant than your last two points.
Make that three irrelevant points. You haven't ever sat on a jury have you?
He doesn't have to say a word. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, commie.
Nope, you haven't been correct in any point you've posted. Hide and watch. The appeal will deny EJC and the rest of you commies. She'll never see a dime and you'll cry a bucket of tears.
I do know that. I'm afraid you don't. This is how I know that.One has nothing to do with the other. Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?
There was tons. A testimony to what was done by Caroll what was done is direct evidence. A photograph to him knowing Caroll is circumstantial evidence. The testimony of her friends is circumstancial evidence because they didn't see it. It is however not hearsay since they heard it directly from Caroll. Etc.etc.There was none.
If you are capable of stating that there wasn't any credible circumstancial evidence you should know their names. What you are saying is that you don't know what all the evidence was. This is the list of all the witnesses provided. 11 witnesses testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial. Here’s what they said.Please link to the names of these accusers.
Only thing is the judge said it was relevant. And it is relevant.Irrelevant to any case before the courts. Next.
You haven't addressed any of my points. You simply hid behind a bogus understanding of evidence and relevance in the courts. Something that in itself is telling because I asked you about your position NOT how the court would rule on your position.Nope, you haven't been correct in any point
This is from YOUR post #494--Nobody is claiming Trump talked to Carrol. You can't have it both ways. Did you claim he talked to her or did you claim he didn't talk to her. Make up your mind. BTW, why wasn't Tara Reid given the same treatment as EJC when she made the nearly exact same accusation about the vegetable? Are you suggesting, as special counsel did yesterday, that the vegetable is a doddering old man that has a bad memory and cannot be held responsible for his actions? And you morons think that is what you want to run the country.I didn't claim he didn't talk to her.
The two witnesses gave hearsay evidence. And you can stop pretending this is between you and myself. It is just information.Yes you made that point yesterday. And I explained what hearsay was. You conceded that " I might be right" (I am right, something you know if you have any legal background) you changed your parameters to I'm claiming the events are to long ago to remember. And now a day later you pretend the hearsay point all of a sudden is valid again.
As I said in my previous post to you. If you aren't willing to be honest about the premises you engage in, you simply can't have an honest debate.
He said /she said is not direct evidence. Neither is hearsay. Testimony as to what was said about an event that wasn't personally observed is hearsay. You're a shithouse lawyer and you contradict yourself. Are you a sock for the vegetable? Run along. I've better things to do than to school you about your nonsense. The courts will decide as the will with the CO ballot case and you'll be chirping with the crickets.A testimony to what was done by Caroll what was done is direct evidence.
I propose scenarios and you get angry. Try this for size. Act as if this is a legal course and students here, me too, bring up issues and problems. Try to stay calm.This is what I said.
This is what you claimed I said. Changing the parameters from several witnesses and tapes to simply. 2 Woman.
This is what I said.
This is what you claimed I said.
Changing my statement of credibility. To implying I said that any conviction is infallible.
This is what I said.
This is what your response it.
Changing the parameters of statement about being able to remember traumatic events. To being able to remember a basic conversation.
I've seen you repeat a statement about Trump not being able to deny rape when being charged with defamation a second time as unusual, while I before already showed the common legal principle that explains that position, etc. etc.
The point is this. You routinely in the course of this OP. Try to use strawman. Ignore what is being said and actually change the premise. These are cheap little debating tricks, me and others keep calling you on, and you nonetheless keep on repeating.
Asking you questions does not solve that. Only you actually honestly engaging the premise does.
That is accurate. I went to college and took courses in law. It is why i know about things like hearsay. As CA says above, the women listened to Carroll. But they were not in the dressing room. They reported what Carrol said to them. That is hearsay.He said /she said is not direct evidence. Neither is hearsay. Testimony as to what was said about an event that wasn't personally observed is hearsay. You're a shithouse lawyer and you contradict yourself. Are you a sock for the vegetable? Run along. I've better things to do than to school you about your nonsense. The courts will decide as the will with the CO ballot case and you'll be chirping with the crickets.
) Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness’s personal knowledge of that fact acquired by means of the witness’s senses.He said /she said is not direct evidence. Neither is hearsay. Testimony as to what was said about an event that wasn't personally observed is hearsay. You're a shithouse lawyer and you contradict yourself. Are you a sock for the vegetable? Run along. I've better things to do than to school you about your nonsense. The courts will decide as the will with the CO ballot case and you'll be chirping with the crickets.
That is accurate. I went to college and took courses in law. It is why i know about things like hearsay. As CA says above, the women listened to Carroll. But they were not in the dressing room. They reported what Carrol said to them. That is hearsay.
But when pals discuss it in court, it is hearsay. If the pals testify about their own rape, it is direct.) Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness’s personal knowledge of that fact acquired by means of the witness’s senses.
Like recounting how you were raped.
But when pals discuss it in court, it is hearsay. If the pals testify about their own rape, it is direct.
I'm not angry at all. I simply note your debating tactics. Find them dishonest and I WILL call you on it.I propose scenarios and you get angry. Try this for size. Act as if this is a legal course and students here, me too, bring up issues and problems. Try to stay calm.
Notice when I discuss issues like this, I don't create posts that are intended to attack you. I suggest you do the same thing.
That means the witness personally observed the act with his/her own eyes. NOT that someone told them what happened. EJC's account is an accusation. There were no witnesses to the act that she claims happened. She contradicted herself when she claimed there was rape and later recanted by saying she was assaulted with his fingers. Convenient--no DNA evidence. Wait for the final appeal and you can chirp.acquired by means of the witness’s senses.
Since I did study Law in College, I understand your point. I can't claim to know the precise words of the pair of women about what they got told. But know they did not witness any crime. The court I believe erred by allowing them to speak of a event that is so stale dated. This is why Courts all over America will not allow such ancient testimony. As I keep reporting, we can't rule out the women will get a huge reward from Carroll for what they told the court. I can't say she will pay them. That is not the matter at stake. Why can't she reward them very handsomely?Correct. And anyone that has studies the law knows there are different types of hearsay, some are admissible, some are not.
Hearsay that goes to the facts of the event in question are not normally admissible because they are not direct evidence.
However, that wasn't the evidence presented in this case as the witness testimony was NOT pertaining to the rape/assault in question.
They testified to contemporaneous communications at (or around) the time of the event and were allowed so the jury could weigh the truthfulness of Ms. Carroll's testimony. The testimony wasn't about the rape/assault, it was establishing WHEN the communication occurred.
WW
So you admit you plan to pick fights. That is all it amounts to when you attack me. What you think here is not relevant. I would say you refuse to admit you are wrong. As is shown above.I'm not angry at all. I simply note your debating tactics. Find them dishonest and I WILL call you on it.
That is MY debating tactic. I don't simply sit by and let people avoid talking about what is said without at least making clear I recognize it for what it is.
That's why I said Caroll's testimony was direct evidence and her pals testimony was circumstantial. And as I said before. Hearsay is when you relay information that wasn't gotten from a primary source. Since they were talking about what Carroll told them it is not hearsay.But when pals discuss it in court, it is hearsay. If the pals testify about their own rape, it is direct.
No, I plan to have an honest conversation, or call people on not wanting an honest conversation. What occurs is completely dependent on how you act.So you admit you plan to pick fights. That is all it amounts to when you attack me. What you think here is not relevant. I would say you refuse to admit you are wrong. As is shown above.
A Jury decided Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll. Bet you did not know that.
Here is a video that shows the facts of this case. Evaluate it honestly. Do not presume guilt. The Jury did not presume guilt. So you should not.
I can't dispute that claim because I have not, nor do I plan to, read the entire trial transcript. But Carrolls case is she got raped. She asked the women to speak up as to what she told them. I do believe if NY state allows this, they are in the minority of states who do. So, let's go back to my actual claim. I believe that a higher court will dismiss what NY state did and go to the way the rest of the states that I am aware of handle such things.They didn't testify as to the rape/assault occurring.
WW
