LogFAQs > #892186274

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	16 of Trump's Accusers Demand Congressional Investigation
darkknight109 12/14/17 2:00:53 AM #60:	Smarkil posted... An alleged victim's testimony usually is not enough without something to corroborate the commission of a crime. Yes, fair enough, I don't disagree. However, that's not all there were in the case of either Trump or Moore. The victims were able to prove connections to the accused, and offer corroborating details on their stories. Yes, if someone random popped up out of the woodwork and said "Donald Trump molested me", with no evidence that they'd ever met, I wouldn't consider that enough for a more serious response, but the more the accuser can corroborate their stories (and the more holes the accused put in theirs - and both Trump's and Moore's have plenty), the more likely the allegations are credible. Smarkil posted... Corpus delecti is a legal term referring to the need to prove that a crime occurred before someone can be charged with the commission of the crime. It does NOT prove that someone committed a crime, simply that the crime occurred at all. I've skimmed through the individual cases and there's little to make me believe they can prove the crimes even occurred. Personally, I believe they did, but that's not proof. But we're not talking about charges yet - that's later down the road. We're talking about an investigation. We're basically saying "OK, the charges are credible enough to warrant further investigation. That investigation will determine if there's enough evidence for charges and a trial. The trial will determine if the evidence is solid enough for a guilty verdict and punishment." This is a process and we're on Step 1, trying to determine if we need to proceed to Step 2. The issue is that a lot of Trump's defenders are thinking that we're going immediately to the last step, which is not the case at all. Smarkil posted... There really isn't a lot more to crime and criminal law than that. If you can't prove that a crime happened, in the eyes of the law, it didn't. If that were the case, any sexual assault short of outright rape would be virtually impossible to prove unless it was caught on tape. After all, it's a crime that leaves no physical evidence and seldom has other witnesses. It is possible to build a case and secure convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone if that evidence is strong enough to remove reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. Though, again, we're not at that stage yet. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the last threshold to pass for a conviction; "Is it reasonably possible a crime was committed?" is a high enough standard for an investigation to be carried out. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:892186274] in 16 of Trum... [t:76087027]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>An alleged victim's testimony usually is not enough without something to corroborate the commission of a crime. </quote> Yes, fair enough, I don't disagree. However, that's not all there were in the case of either Trump or Moore. The victims were able to prove connections to the accused, and offer corroborating details on their stories. Yes, if someone random popped up out of the woodwork and said "Donald Trump molested me", with no evidence that they'd ever met, I wouldn't consider that enough for a more serious response, but the more the accuser can corroborate their stories (and the more holes the accused put in theirs - and both Trump's and Moore's have plenty), the more likely the allegations are credible. <cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>Corpus delecti is a legal term referring to the need to prove that a crime occurred before someone can be charged with the commission of the crime. It does NOT prove that someone committed a crime, simply that the crime occurred at all. I've skimmed through the individual cases and there's little to make me believe they can prove the crimes even occurred. Personally, I believe they did, but that's not proof. </quote> But we're not talking about charges yet - that's later down the road. We're talking about an investigation. We're basically saying "OK, the charges are credible enough to warrant further investigation. That investigation will determine if there's enough evidence for charges and a trial. The trial will determine if the evidence is solid enough for a guilty verdict and punishment." This is a process and we're on Step 1, trying to determine if we need to proceed to Step 2. The issue is that a lot of Trump's defenders are thinking that we're going immediately to the last step, which is not the case at all. <cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>There really isn't a lot more to crime and criminal law than that. If you can't prove that a crime happened, in the eyes of the law, it didn't.</quote> If that were the case, any sexual assault short of outright rape would be virtually impossible to prove unless it was caught on tape. After all, it's a crime that leaves no physical evidence and seldom has other witnesses. It is possible to build a case and secure convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone if that evidence is strong enough to remove reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. Though, again, we're not at that stage yet. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the last threshold to pass for a conviction; "Is it reasonably possible a crime was committed?" is a high enough standard for an investigation to be carried out. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1