RE: Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?
November 19, 2017 at 10:05 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2017 at 10:06 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(November 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(November 19, 2017 at 10:20 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Thoughts?
If you said, "Hearsay is NEVER sufficient evidence," but you want to lock up men who have been accused by hearsay, then there's a conflict there.
Yeah, I think I have made this mistake in the past.
(November 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.
Quote:It's the same question in this case. What evidence will there be for sexual assault that happened maybe a decade or more ago?
Right. And as others have pointed out, we have facts and information surrounding the claim, but we don't have any direct evidence of the alleged crime itself. There is no way we could for many of these cases. We're left to draw conclusions based on what little information we do have. So, in Roy Moore's case, are we accepting a claim based on hearsay? Or do we get to call that hearsay 'evidence' because it's all we have? I mean, that's more or less what we're dealing with in his case, isn't it? Hearsay about trolling the mall; "common knowledge" that he liked young girls, etc. These stories corroborate the testimony of the alleged victims (enhancing their credibility as witnesses, at least for me), but by the standard that I have put forth, they don't qualify as evidence.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.