There's A Verdict in the E. Jean Carroll/Trump Case

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I gather that Trump didn't show up, but presumably his lawyers did.

If, as some here seem to be saying she had such a poor case, it should have been easy for them to have totally trashed her claim?

He's his own worst enemy.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

It’s just flat out bull crap.
Don’t forget who is cheerleading this massive mountain of plant growth enhancer.
They expose their actual distaste for justice with such.
Rules for thee
Not for me

Oh the statute of limitations were up so it didn't happen......if it weren't for the left hating Trump......she is obviously lying because...Trump never lies......it's part of the witch hunt...... she wasn't Trump's type anyway

Sounds like we got a bunch of rape sympathisers here, or potential rapists in the making. If you don't believe in rape, you can't be a rapist, right? Rape is ok if you don't get caught until after the statute of limitations is up. I love the Trump worshipers, all the evidence in the world couldn't convince them he isn't the second coming of Jesus. Even Goliath fell. Waiting for the whiney "TDS" reactions, since the one trick ponies seem fairly active......

Wonder how many people were very sad that the sex abuse statute of limitation extensions helped round a lot of pedophile priests.

"That's wrong! It was too long ago!!!!! Let those pervs go free!!!!!"

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

Do you belive the statue should protect people even if guilty, not that I am casting anyone as guilty in this case (that was upto a jury) but in the UK would you be happy for Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris et al to get away with their crimes because of time?

How about Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein in the US, should they have been allowed to walk scot free, thankfully none of the nonces/rapists I mentioned got away with it forever, shame they werent caught earlier, but IMO the statute of limitations does nothing but allow rich creeps to evade the law long enough to walk free.

does evading the law for 10+years make any of those I have mentioned who were guilty suddenly innocent? why is 10 years to long?

a reply to: shooterbrody

No, I don't have any great expertise in American Law, nor have I claimed to have any. Not surprising what with me being a Brit.

Yep, I don't know, but as you apparently feel sufficiently knowledgeable on your Statute of Limitations to whine about it I simply asked you to share your knowledge.

Would be kind of you if you would.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
You are ok with changing the law, just this one time?
Lol
Not surprising
Rules for thee
Not for me

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: scrounger

It was a civil defamation trial.

Yes and? still requires PROOF.. not just someone said and you dont like the other person or they are scum.. we are dealing with this specific case

Proof of guilt did not apply.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Your claiming "proof of guilt does not apply"? isnt the whole idea of court and trial to PROVIDE PROOF one side is right and one side is wrong? wow this statement shows it all and i might say does apply in places like russia , germany in WWII and other such tyranical places.

Racist south?

hmm compare and contrast concept above you or you ignore it when it doesnt help your case? which is it?

What has that got to do with anything?

The jury heard evidence.

again WHAT EVIDENCE? her word? um she cant remember the date and year of the claimed rape. kinda hard to be "evidence" when you cant even give a date . how do you know he was even at that store on that date if you dont have one.

I don't need to produce any proof.

yes you do.. you make the claim there was "evidence" and now must back it up.. i backed up my claim with FACTS (from her own mouth, oh the irony).. sorry but in debate your are not elected king and beyond reproach.

I wasn't involved.

accurate and irrelivant.. using your logic if your not "involved" then you dont have the right to comment.. your point again?

Rape victims lie?!!!

Um YES THEY DO.. rare but does happen. need i remind you of kavanugh (no proof) as one recent.. BTW rape (as horrable a crime as it is) still does not remove your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN (AGAIN PROVEN) GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. btw rape victims can remember date of attack . even bill cosby cases had DATES.. again your point

If that's what you think, I feel sorry for you.

ok thats what you think.. fair statement ruined by the need to be a troll and use a childish attack..

Actually, more like disgusted?

and double down on trolish/childish comments... tell me how exactly does this make your point much less give you crediblity.

sigh
AGAIN to defend yourself in criminal or civil cases you need FACTS to support the accusation.

this lady COULD NOT PROVIDE A DATE of the claim of rape
this alone should have caused the dismissal of the case.

now you and others keep claiming proof but ones word alone is not proof.
she could be lying (does happen even in rape cases) and even worse mistaken given its been 30 YEARS.

To demand trump testify i ask TO WHAT?
how can he defend himself if you dont even have a date of the claim?
he cant prove he wasnt there because WE DONT HAVE A DATE to go back to and see if he was/could have been there.

to claim "well he said XX before" and "he is a bad person" is NOT PROOF ANYTHING HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

so all his "testifying" would be is attacks on his person , nothing DIRECTLY PART of his case.

what should be disturbing is they CHANGED ESTABLISHED STATUE OF LIMITATIONS on when she could file charges (be civil or criminal) so this SPECIFIC CASE against a SPECIFIC PERSON.

i bet there are LOTS OF JUST PLAIN PEOPLE who have similar claims, but no "justice" for them?

now throw in ONLY ON SOMEONE WORD ALONE you can get convicted because people "dont like you"

thats the law you want?

so (not saying you are sir) if say I claim you sexually assaulted me 30 years ago and thats all the evidence (key word EVIDENCE) I have you ok if a case goes forth and a jury says guilty?

waiting for reply

scrounger

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
You think Carroll was under oath when she told her friends (the witnesses) what happened?

She was when she repeated it in her deposition. Do you even know how this stuff works or are you just outraged?

Her witnesses were supposedly friends she told about it when it happened some year in the mid 90's, and she wasn't under oath when she told them.

As far as lying under oath, do you remember what happened to Christine Balsey Ford when she lied under oath after accusing Trump's nominee of sexually assaulting her in the 80's?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Wonder how many people were very sad that the sex abuse statute of limitation extensions helped round a lot of pedophile priests.

"That's wrong! It was too long ago!!!!! Let those pervs go free!!!!!"

Yeah
Were it for that why is it only A ONE YEAR WINDOW?

More east coast elite bull crap rules for me not for thee.

Also why no criminal charge?
Not so painful to do a civil suit, but no criminal charges?

Bull
Crap

a reply to: UpThenDown

Yes. Fortunately here there is no limitation on serious crimes.

But this was a civil claim.

I'm waiting for some more information about this from m'learned friend.

originally posted by: LSU2018
Her witnesses were supposedly friends she told about it when it happened some year in the mid 90's, and she wasn't under oath when she told them.

They all were in their respective depositions. Again, do you know how this works?

Did you see Trump's? He basically agreed he does this, it was comically sad.

a reply to: scrounger

Well, this was a civil claim and the jury heard her evidence. Trump didn't show but was represented.

If things were as straightforward as you think then his legal team should have had no trouble getting her claim thrown out.

But they didn't.

So, there you go.

Don't whine to me about it

originally posted by: shooterbrody
More east coast elite bull crap rules for me not for thee.

Do Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Arizona full under that category since they changed theirs too?

Didn't think so. Probably a good idea to look things up prior to posting.

I agree that people are polarized and this verdict wont change many minds. My prediction is that some states now have a reason, sex offender, to keep him off the ballot in 2024. Personally, I'd like to be able to pick between two better candidates.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
Ive only had one question all along in this case. This was a public place! A deptment store dressing room. Why didn't she scream, before, during or after?

It's not OK to come back 30 years later and ask someone to defend themselves.

I don't care who they are.

She didn't have to. She accused Donald Trump of something so evidence and proof is neither needed, nor wanted.

Having said that, normal people will see this and shrug it off. Democrats entered the overkill stage years ago in their attempt to bring Trump down. It's old and lame now, it's gotten stale.

Does this sound fair from a judge?

The jury, made up of six men and three women, got the case earlier Tuesday and deliberated for less than three hours. The jury's decision had to be unanimous. In closing arguments, Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan reminded the jury that for the battery charge, "all you need is that it is more probable than not" that Trump attacked Carroll to find him liable, which is a much lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied in criminal trials.

More probable than not?

Trumps team called no witnesses. The Prosecution had only 2 friends of the accuser who made statements and testified.

Now that this is done, he can sue her for defamation accusing him of rape in her book but he was never convicted of that was he?

Any bets this ends up like the Stormy case?

That's it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I don’t know, why would you include crap outside the topic?
But Whatabout???

Why a ONE YEAR WINDOW?

If it’s important, it’s important ALL THE TIME.
Obviously it was just an east coast elite scam.
Rules for thee
Not for me

Interesting who is cheerleading this garbage, or not.

a reply to: shooterbrody

"Yeah
Were it for that why is it only A ONE YEAR WINDOW?

More east coast elite bull crap rules for me not for thee.

Also why no criminal charge?
Not so painful to do a civil suit, but no criminal charges?

Bull
Crap

And those are the submissions for the Defendant, Your Honour. The Defence rests it's case."

originally posted by: shooterbrody
I don’t know, why would you include crap outside the topic?

You're the one complaining about look back periods and how they are supposedly from only one part of the country when they aren't, ask yourself this.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
It’s cool
You like changing laws to make people criminals
Not a surprise given your location


You would probably deny an appeal as well