Remember that picture of Trumps fist in the air and blood on his face?

a reply to: Freeborn

Civil trials rarely rely on evidence.

He said/She said is usually all they are and, in cases such as Trumps, you get a biased jury that lie their way in just to throw the book at the defendant.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Moon68

Surely a purely he said/she said should never be allowed anywhere near a court of law regardless of it being a civil case or not?
To give any sort of informed judgement there has to be some sort of supportive evidence on both sides.....hasn't there?

That certainly would be reasonable.....

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: network dude

But her word is EVIDENCE.....as indeed is Trump's.
And we all know there was at least some other evidence presented to the court....by both sides.

So are you saying that because the jury believed Carroll's version of events over Trump's that they were somehow governed by TDS or a dislike of Trump?

If they had believed Trump's version over her's would the inevitable claims of the jury allowing their pro-Trump feelings cloud their judgement be justified?

Seems to me that some people allow their political affiliations determine their take on things like this.

a reply to: PorkChop96

"Civil trials rarely rely on evidence."

They certainly do over here, I can tell you.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Stop being a dick.

There was SOME evidence, even if it was just other people's statements etc.

Look, I'm not some weak-hearted, lame, limp wristed, wokerati arsehole.

DC.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Moon68

Surely a purely he said/she said should never be allowed anywhere near a court of law regardless of it being a civil case or not?
To give any sort of informed judgement there has to be some sort of supportive evidence on both sides.....hasn't there?

Not if it's against Donald J Trump my friend.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

They ask for it, but it is not used as it would be in a criminal case.

And in the case of Trump, almost no evidence other than word of mouth was brought forth to show anything.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Liberals #believeallwomen


Except women who accuse liberals, of course.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well, the required standard of proof is lower in civil cases but you still need to discharge that burden to get home.

What do you mean by word of mouth? Hearsay?

Did she not give direct evidence?

Did Trump?

I don't know, hence why I ask.

a reply to: Moon68

there once was a old lady who was called for jury duty in a murder case. during the process the defense lawyer asked her if she thought she could decided if she could with a reasonable doubt if his client was guilty, she said of course i can, they arrested him for it didn't they.

a reply to: Freeborn

You've been asked several times now to show what that evidence is. Repeating "there was SOME evidence" is not evidence. Uncorroborated testimony is not evidence. Making a claim is not evidence. If there's some evidence, present it. Civil cases in the US can often be entirely he said she said with zero evidence. They do make it to court, and civil liability is often judged in cases with no evidence. It does happen. Happens a lot more than you might think actually.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That may be true, but in know in NYC, one person giving a verbal testimony against someone that is as hated as Trump can sway a jury to vote against him even if proper physical evidence is shown to prove innocence.

Work of mouth as in verbal testimony.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Stop being a dick.

There was SOME evidence, even if it was just other people's statements etc.

Look, I'm not some weak-hearted, lame, limp wristed, wokerati arsehole.

DC.

Then show me.

As I've been asking you for a few pages now.

I don't think you're a "weak-hearted, lame, limp wristed, wokerati arsehole."

I'm asking you to actually look for yourself.....

a reply to: PorkChop96

Verbal testimony as in direct evidence from someone who was there is usually fairly compelling?

a reply to: Moon68

As carpy said, I know the standard for evidence is set lower in a civil case but I find it extraordinary that no supportive evidence is often required.

Jury selection in these high profile cases must be incredibly hard - especially involving such a polarising person as Trump.

And for others benefit, I'm sure witness statements qualify as testimonial evidence, just not physical evidence and as such is EVIDENCE.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Someone correct me if I am wrong

As best I can remember, it was someone who was at the building but did not witness anything first hand.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Moon68

As carpy said, I know the standard for evidence is set lower in a civil case but I find it extraordinary that no supportive evidence is often required.

Jury selection in these high profile cases must be incredibly hard - especially involving such a polarising person as Trump.

And for others benefit, I'm sure witness statements qualify as testimonial evidence, just not physical evidence and as such is EVIDENCE.

And, if memory serves, her testimonial evidence was from someone she told it to, not someone that witnessed anything.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Someone correct me if I am wrong

As best I can remember, it was someone who was at the building but did not witness anything first hand.

From what I recall, yes a co-worker who clocked Trump being there during that time period or even perhaps day. Two other witnesses where Carroll told them immediately what Trump had done to her.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Someone correct me if I am wrong

As best I can remember, it was someone who was at the building but did not witness anything first hand.

The people who were closest, managers of the Bergdorff, staff etc did not/would not testify.

The only people who testified were 3rd party friends of Carrroll.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Someone correct me if I am wrong

As best I can remember, it was someone who was at the building but did not witness anything first hand.

From what I recall, yes a co-worker who clocked Trump being there during that time period or even perhaps day. Two other witnesses where Carroll told them immediately what Trump had done to her.

By all means, cite it please.