It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: JinMI
Oh? Do explain. Proof and testimony are two different things, but I'm ready to explore this novel notion of yours.
Uh, no. The evidence and testimony I'm referring to in this scintillating case are two different things. I never mentioned proof.
The physical evidence the brilliant Alina Hobba failed to properly provide is entered into the record in a specified manner, testimony is something a witness provides.
This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?
Agreed. You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.
We need to hear from jury members as to exactly what tipped them over to Carroll's side, there's a lot more going on than just testimony.
That's almost impossible I think you'd agree.
What else besides testimony? Even speculating, lets hear it.
Probably because you haven't come to grips with the fact that Trump and his legal team missed the chance to contest the evidence and testimony. Maybe one day it will sink in.
Not all, just Habba, and I don't need your permission to make fun of that dolt.
It may have never even gone to trial if Trump provided his DNA without stipulation, but he didn't, too bad, so sad.
Not at all, but it appears you take issue with people being find guilty by a jury.
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JinMI
If you watched the ABC Carroll and her lawyer interview, the lawyer said the judge was handling their disruptions in such a way as to actually keep the trial going so justice can be served. As well, other upcoming judges were studying this judge's strategy and they are now well equipped to handle or rather deal with the failed attempts at disrupting the trial.
Donald's behaviour specifically.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: quintessentone
Did those 2 women actually testify in the trial?
Lisa Birnbach, friend of E. Jean Carroll and key witness in Carroll’s first trial, joins MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss how Carroll’s “courage and fearlessness” led to the jury’s $83M+ verdict against Donald Trump.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone
Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone
Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?
That's for the people of the jury to decide.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: quintessentone
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone
Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?
That's for the people of the jury to decide.
I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone
Witnesses are subject to the judges whims.
It's a simple question really.
If testimony is the evidence, is the character of the person making the testimony relevant?
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone
It's not a legal question.
But that you keep choosing to call out to others to articulate and/or validate your opinion is delicious.
Do you find it just a little bit odd that you can agree that a person is guilty of something but cannot quite explain why? Do you think this is how justice works?
I just posted the 11 witnesses and what they had to say, I know it upset you, but hey reality and truth sometimes are hard to swallow but you can try.
I've gotta go now been on here way too long for maintaining good mental health, so ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side.