CDZ How much evidence is needed to presume guilt?

[dudmuck]

 

[Asclepias]

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You did not read the post. You missed the sentence just above what you reference. "Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012."
You have not anwered my question I think it is because you have no good answer you are merely blowing smoke.

I havent answered your question because it lacks logic. Why do you think the people that she heard discussing the assault
had to have been psychic? Once you answer that then I can answer your question.

"Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?"
I answered your question. If Ms Ford did not tell anyone of the assault until 2012 how could anyone know of it in 1980 unless they were psychic.

I think in your haste to believe she was lying you neglected to think about the fact that Kav and Judge could have told other people without Ford ever mentioning it to anyone until 2012. Why would someone have to be psychic if they heard about it from Judge or Kav himself?

 

[Asclepias]

I cant help what it seems like to you. If one followed your logic no one would ever get arrested or be charged with a crime unless the police saw them commit the crime.

I didn't think you would understand the axiomatic logic that I presented.

There was nothing self evident about your logic. Its actually a logical fallacy that doesnt conform to how the legal system works in this country.

The is no merit to a false accusation.

I agree. However there is merit to Fords accusation.

Does Ford's accusation have as much merit as Keith Ellison's girl friend's accusation?

I dont know. Enlighten me on the Keith Ellison issue. I have no clue who he is. To be honest this sounds like you parroting some talking point approved by Infowars or Faux news to move the subject to something silly.

 

[Freiheit]

Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?

Why would they have to be psychic?

You did not read the post. You missed the sentence just above what you reference. "Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012."
You have not anwered my question I think it is because you have no good answer you are merely blowing smoke.

I havent answered your question because it lacks logic. Why do you think the people that she heard discussing the assault
had to have been psychic? Once you answer that then I can answer your question.

Again you reach for straws Ms Ford went to an all girls school and Mr. Kavanaugh went to and all boys school.


"Ms Ford has said she told no one until she told her marriage counselor in 2012. Were the witness and those who dicussed the assault in 1980 psychic?"
I answered your question. If Ms Ford did not tell anyone of the assault until 2012 how could anyone know of it in 1980 unless they were psychic.

I think in your haste to believe she was lying you neglected to think about the fact that Kav and Judge could have told other people without Ford ever mentioning it to anyone until 2012. Why would someone have to be psychic if they heard about it from Judge or Kav himself?

 

[2aguy]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Her accusations don't have merit. She can't say where or when and the people she says were there all say it didn't happen.....and she didn't tell anyone at the time that it happened.....unlike the 3 women that clinton raped who all told close friends and family about his violent rape as soon as it happened........but you guys trot him out like a hero at all your events....

 

[2aguy]

I didn't think you would understand the axiomatic logic that I presented.

There was nothing self evident about your logic. Its actually a logical fallacy that doesnt conform to how the legal system works in this country.

The is no merit to a false accusation.

I agree. However there is merit to Fords accusation.

Does Ford's accusation have as much merit as Keith Ellison's girl friend's accusation?

I dont know. Enlighten me on the Keith Ellison issue. I have no clue who he is. To be honest this sounds like you parroting some talking point approved by Infowars or Faux news to move the subject to something silly.

Here........actual allegations of violence.......and the democrats are ignoring them...this is what democrat women should expect....if a democrat male wants to sexually assault them or beat them, take it for the team....

Karen Monahan, Keith Ellison accuser, sends Democrats much-needed smackdown

But here’s a “hey you guys” moment from none other than the woman, Karen Monahan, who accused Keith Ellison of — get this — domestic abuse. And who has supporting statements and medical records to prove it.

The drama just played out on Twitter. And Democrats, in the midst of chasing an Anita Hill-type victory against Kavanaugh, would do well to read Monahan’s messages.

First, from a poster who wrote directly to Monahan: “Democrats say [to] believe women, do they believe you …”

And then, the response from Monahan, that went like this: “No, they don’t. I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party.

I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”

 

[Soupnazi630]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

That is hearsay which is nothing

 

[2aguy]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

That is hearsay which is nothing

The so called Witness that said it had been discussed in school.....already recanted that and said she had no knowledge of it...

 

[Soupnazi630]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Does Ford's accusation have merit?

No. She doesn't have the time and date, or the place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody at the time either. IOW, no merit at all. Give me a corroborating witness, bragging by the perp, any kind of evidence at all. But if you got nothing, then well, you got nothing.

Actually there was a witness to the fact that the assault had been discussed in school. Thats a lot more than nothing.

That is hearsay which is nothing

The so called Witness that said it had been discussed in school.....already recanted that and said she had no knowledge of it...

True

Even if she never recanted a memory of other peoples gossip from decades ago is worthless.

 

[miketx]

You cant presume guilt. You can only say someones accusations have merit.

Without proof there is no merit.

 

[JoeMoma]

I was in high school in 1982. I overheard some high school kids talking about getting drunk at pool party, A girl came running and crying from a bedroom for some reason, so I heard. I'm pretty sure they were talking about Ford running from Kavanaugh.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I was in high school in 1982. I overheard some high school kids talking about getting drunk at pool party, A girl came running and crying from a bedroom for some reason, so I heard. I'm pretty sure they were talking about Ford running from Kavanaugh.

High school is where it starts it never ends though.

Where i work the gossip is endless and awful.

Everyone is having sex with everyone if the rumors are to be believed. Specific rumors like men running a train on a certain girl get spread and inflated as they spread.

This is things overheard are called gossip and rumors. In court gossip and rumors are called hearsay. hearsay usually not allowed as admissible evidence for very good reasons.

True he is not in court but gossip is gossip and is not valid anywhere.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

This makes no sense – you state this isn’t a criminal issue but make references to ‘evidence’ and ‘establishing guilt.’

The notion of evidence with regard to establishing guilt concerns solely criminal law, which isn’t the case with Kavanaugh.

The evidence is Ford’s statement; and the Senate is hearing that evidence not to determine ‘guilt,’ but to determine whether it renders Kavanaugh unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

This thread’s premise is yet another example of conservatives’ ignorance of the law and the political process – which is both pathetic and disturbing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't even see a reasonable doubt here. If she was not a lib/dem and an Anti-Trumper and this had been done back in July when there was time to vet the story, then I'd be more willing to keep an open mind about it. But this is political BS, she may have been attacked, but the circumstances make it appear to be very contrived.

Wrong again.

This isn’t a criminal matter – the notion of ‘reasonable doubt’ doesn’t apply.

 

[JoeMoma]

The evidence is Ford’s statement; and the Senate is hearing that evidence not to determine ‘guilt,’ but to determine whether it renders Kavanaugh unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

Wow! Simply Amazing1

 

[percysunshine]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

The question seems to presume the context is a trial subject to the rules of the Judicial branch of government. But the circumstances are the opposite. The Executive branch, and the Legislative branch, are making the decision. The familiar rules are not manditory.

That said, the reason the Judicial branch has rules about 'burdens on an accuser' are well founded. A lot of injustice can be found in false accusations in the past.

I thought we had gone past the Salem Witch hunts, directed at women, and had a society which could recognize the phenomena...eh...

 

[task0778]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

The question seems to presume the context is a trial subject to the rules of the Judicial branch of government. But the circumstances are the opposite. The Executive branch, and the Legislative branch, are making the decision. The familiar rules are not manditory.

That said, the reason the Judicial branch has rules about 'burdens on an accuser' are well founded. A lot of injustice can be found in false accusations in the past.

I thought we had gone past the Salem Witch hunts, directed at women, and had a society which could recognize the phenomena...eh...

Salem witch hunts? Really? You don't think this society is way past that?

This thread is basically about the principle of Burden of Proof, using Ford/Kavanaugh as a case in point. It's all well and good to be concerned with the rights of the victim, which in this case is certainly being observed even though the circumstances do indicate a political influence, to put it nicely. There's no rush to judgment on Ford, no more than that on Kavanaugh. There are many who say either is lying, and everybody is allowed their opinion. Both are receiving death threats and threats of violence against them and their families, but I don't see that Ford is being singled out that much more than Kavanaugh is, so I think your reference to the Salem witch trials is way out of bounds.

Beyond that, there is the question of the rights of the accused, just as much as the rights of the accuser. This has become a political matter, each side taking a supporting position not based on gender but instead on which party they belong to. Just as they did during the Clinton years when several women accused him of sexual misconduct, only then it was the Dems slandering the women and supporting the man. It seems as though the facts and evidence don't matter as much as the politics does, and that is a shame. We cannot presume that Ford is lying, she very well may be a sexual victim and shouldn't be victimized a 2nd time, BUT neither can we assume that she is truthful and correct when she names Kavanaugh as the sexual predator. In this country, the accused has rights; yes, this isn't a court of law where justice is decided, but there are serious concerns here for all of us if we are going to deny somebody a position based on nothing more than an accusation. An 36 year old accusation. We should be just as concerned over Kavanaugh's rights as we are Ford's.

 

[percysunshine]

As if you didn't know, I am referring to the accusation of sexual misconduct levied by Christine Blasey Ford against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Obviously, as things stand now there is no criminal case, it's nothing more than he said she said. After 36 years. She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place, supposedly isn't even sure of the year. Doesn't remember where the event took place, or how she got there. Didn't tell anybody about it at the time, not her parents or closest friends. And the only witnesses say it never happened, except for herself. And to this day we have not yet seen the letter that was sent to Diane Feinstein and the Washington Post.

So, I'm not seeing any evidence here to support her story. Maybe it happened as she said, and maybe it didn't as he said, but are we really going to presume guilt based on nothing more than an unverifiable accusation from 36 years ago? Is that all it takes these days to disqualify somebody from a job? Ok, so the seat on the SCOTUS is not just any job cuz it's for life, although I believe it is possible to impeach a SCOTUS judge. But I am not sure that an unverifiable accusation with no supporting evidence should be enough to vote down the confirmation.

We know there are cases in the past where a woman has accused someone of sexual misconduct, and subsequent investigation has determined the charge to be a lie. Everyone should understand that such cases do some damage to the issue; when such cases reach national attention and are found out to be false then it makes it harder for most people to believe the stories that are true. In addition to that, when we see the Democrats pillorying Kavanaugh for the same thing that Bill Clinton was accused of 20 years ago and excused by the media and the Democratic Party, it has to undermine the credibility of both institutions.

Have we reached the point where a person's reputation and career can be ruined by unfounded accusations, purely for political purposes? Mrs Ford is an Anti-Trump, a true blue lib/dem. And some of them can be pretty extreme and even radical, like the guy who showed up at a GOP baseball practice and started shooting at Repubs, seriously wounding Steve Scalese. We know that both Ford and Kavanaugh and their families have received death threats and other threats of violence, the rhetoric from the Democrats may well stir up some wingnut to do something extreme. Based on nothing more than one woman's accusation of an event that may have taken place 36 years ago. This isn't the way it used to be, and it sure as hell isn't the way this country ought to be governed.

The question seems to presume the context is a trial subject to the rules of the Judicial branch of government. But the circumstances are the opposite. The Executive branch, and the Legislative branch, are making the decision. The familiar rules are not manditory.

That said, the reason the Judicial branch has rules about 'burdens on an accuser' are well founded. A lot of injustice can be found in false accusations in the past.

I thought we had gone past the Salem Witch hunts, directed at women, and had a society which could recognize the phenomena...eh...

Salem witch hunts? Really? You don't think this society is way past that?

This thread is basically about the principle of Burden of Proof, using Ford/Kavanaugh as a case in point. It's all well and good to be concerned with the rights of the victim, which in this case is certainly being observed even though the circumstances do indicate a political influence, to put it nicely. There's no rush to judgment on Ford, no more than that on Kavanaugh. There are many who say either is lying, and everybody is allowed their opinion. Both are receiving death threats and threats of violence against them and their families, but I don't see that Ford is being singled out that much more than Kavanaugh is, so I think your reference to the Salem witch trials is way out of bounds.

Beyond that, there is the question of the rights of the accused, just as much as the rights of the accuser. This has become a political matter, each side taking a supporting position not based on gender but instead on which party they belong to. Just as they did during the Clinton years when several women accused him of sexual misconduct, only then it was the Dems slandering the women and supporting the man. It seems as though the facts and evidence don't matter as much as the politics does, and that is a shame. We cannot presume that Ford is lying, she very well may be a sexual victim and shouldn't be victimized a 2nd time, BUT neither can we assume that she is truthful and correct when she names Kavanaugh as the sexual predator. In this country, the accused has rights; yes, this isn't a court of law where justice is decided, but there are serious concerns here for all of us if we are going to deny somebody a position based on nothing more than an accusation. An 36 year old accusation. We should be just as concerned over Kavanaugh's rights as we are Ford's.

Yet, this is entirely a Legislative branch of government process....with the Executive branch wondering what will happen...

 

[Windparadox]

Without proof there is no merit.

`
Huh? Merits, in law, are the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical bias. The evidence is applied solely to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.

 

[sartre play]

If it was not a lifetime commitment to the highest court, would be a he said she said sad case. making sure we don't put someone on that court who's behavior has come into question in many areas not just sexual. is worth some extra days of fact checking. to big of a deal to allow it to be party over country, that's both sides.