NY – Ex POTUS Donald Trump, sued by E. Jean Carroll, DT found liable re sexual assault, $5M award, countersuit dismissed, appeal rejected, 2023

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.
 
Jsizzle said:
Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.
Click to expand...
I think the key is that this is a civil case, not a criminal case.

The threshold for legal guilt is lower for a civil charge than for a criminal charge. But the consequence if found guilty is "only" a fine, and [hopefully] a hit to the reputation. He won't go to jail or have to register as a sex offender.

MOO
 
Jsizzle said:
Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.
Click to expand...
He should have gone to court and vehemently denied the charges during trial. I am sure the men who are falsely accused, would in a heartbeat.
However, if a person would have to go and lie under oath, and perjure themselves in that courtroom, they might hesitate and not go on the stand to deny the charges?
 
Auntie Cipation said:
I think the key is that this is a civil case, not a criminal case.

The threshold for legal guilt is lower for a civil charge than for a criminal charge. But the consequence if found guilty is "only" a fine, and [hopefully] a hit to the reputation. He won't go to jail or have to register as a sex offender.

MOO
Click to expand...
Oh I gotcha. Ok. I’ve been following so many other cases lately that I couldn’t keep up with this one. But either way, civil or not; how can lean in her favor regardless? It’s basically her word against his so to speak. Will be interesting to see what the jury does.
 
Kavya01 said:
He should have gone to court and vehemently denied the charges during trial. I am sure the men who are falsely accused, would in a heartbeat.
However, if a person would have to go and lie under oath, and perjure themselves in that courtroom, they might hesitate and not go on the stand to deny the charges?
Click to expand...
Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)
 
Jsizzle said:
Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)
Click to expand...

Are you expecting ring doorbell camera footage of a sexual assualt? What proof do you want?
 
Jsizzle said:
Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)
Click to expand...
This is why one needs to look at the circumstances surrounding the event and not see it in a vacuum. One can consider history, reputation, an alleged perpetrator's own words, character witnesses etc.
DJT's lawyers only defense was attacking E.Jean. One could instead bring a defense of how come a man would never have done such a thing he stands accused of, backing it up with character witnesses, no history of any violence or assault, etc. Look at the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial for instance. :)
 
Elliot_Alderson said:
Are you expecting ring doorbell camera footage of a sexual assualt? What proof do you want?
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not sure. My point is anyone at anytime can just accuse someone of a SA without any proof at all. It’s basically their word against the accused. Just not sure how anyone can convict with any proof it happened.
 
Jsizzle said:
Well, I’m not sure. My point is anyone at anytime can just accuse someone of a SA without any proof at all. It’s basically their word against the accused. Just not sure how anyone can convict with any proof it happened.
Click to expand...

Because he's not being convicted. She would be awarded judgment. It's not a criminal trial, there is a lower burden of proof. The point of the trial is that if someone is making up things without any proof then the jury should see that (hopefully). I just don't know what kind of proof you'd expect. It was 30+ years ago. A SA victim has to get up in front of a jury/court and detail one of the most traumatizing experiences of her life. A jury will decide whether she is believable or not.
 
Jsizzle said:
Oh I gotcha. Ok. I’ve been following so many other cases lately that I couldn’t keep up with this one. But either way, civil or not; how can lean in her favor regardless? It’s basically her word against his so to speak. Will be interesting to see what the jury does.
Click to expand...
Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO
 
Auntie Cipation said:
Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO
Click to expand...

Beautifully stated.
 
Auntie Cipation said:
Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO
Click to expand...
It is kind of a no brainer. So why am I so nervous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 57 more.
Total: 3,136 (members: 58, guests: 3,078)

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
3,079
Total visitors
3,137
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,084
Messages
18,151,623
Members
231,641
Latest member
HelloKitty1298
Back
Top