Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Sports
Rodney Anderson not charged!!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3062626" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>I stand by what I said. In court, it's not about what you <em>know</em>, it's about what you can <em>prove</em>. Even without the DA's political considerations, it's <em>highly</em> unlikely he could prove <em>beyond a reasonable doubt</em> that she consciously lied in filing charges; at this point, it's entirely possible that she really believes what she's saying. False memories are a real thing; you can trick yourself into believing something that isn't true, or even quite innocently invent something where there was just a blank--the brain will fill in details you <em>couldn't</em> know all by itself. It's a documented phenomenon, and she would no doubt bring expert witnesses to testify to that. Frankly, between false memories and just plain bad observation, eyewitness testimony is the <em>least</em> reliable form of evidence; how ironic that it's often the most powerful to a jury that generally doesn't know the psychology involved.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying it's right, but it does make sense. Logically (formal logic, with truisms akin to those of mathematics), "not proving <em>x</em>" is not equivalent to "proving not <em>x</em>," especially when standards of proof are high--"not proving <em>x</em>" is equivalent to "inconclusive." As a matter of legality, I think it's a better system than any alternative; if we were to equate "not proving the allegation" with "false allegation," we'd be putting the accuser in the position of "guilty until proven innocent," and opening up a huge chilling effect to every victim (namely, that if the prosecutor didn't win the case, the accuser would go to jail for falsely reporting). The DA very specifically didn't say "it didn't happen," just that "criminal charges were not warranted" and that "[t]here are certainly cases where we just simply can't prove something and so we will decline [to pursue charges] due to insufficient evidence." Yes, I read ADA Caswell's statements on the ESPN story, but again, I don't know that the statements from the friend(s) rise to the level of proof necessary to overcome a reasonable doubt.</p><p></p><p>As far as her getting off scot free, I'm sure Courtney Jean Thornton's name will get around, and she'll at least suffer some social consequences...not the least of which will be a sudden surfeit of men willing to get anywhere near her.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3062626, member: 13624"] I stand by what I said. In court, it's not about what you [I]know[/I], it's about what you can [I]prove[/I]. Even without the DA's political considerations, it's [I]highly[/I] unlikely he could prove [I]beyond a reasonable doubt[/I] that she consciously lied in filing charges; at this point, it's entirely possible that she really believes what she's saying. False memories are a real thing; you can trick yourself into believing something that isn't true, or even quite innocently invent something where there was just a blank--the brain will fill in details you [I]couldn't[/I] know all by itself. It's a documented phenomenon, and she would no doubt bring expert witnesses to testify to that. Frankly, between false memories and just plain bad observation, eyewitness testimony is the [I]least[/I] reliable form of evidence; how ironic that it's often the most powerful to a jury that generally doesn't know the psychology involved. I'm not saying it's right, but it does make sense. Logically (formal logic, with truisms akin to those of mathematics), "not proving [I]x[/I]" is not equivalent to "proving not [I]x[/I]," especially when standards of proof are high--"not proving [I]x[/I]" is equivalent to "inconclusive." As a matter of legality, I think it's a better system than any alternative; if we were to equate "not proving the allegation" with "false allegation," we'd be putting the accuser in the position of "guilty until proven innocent," and opening up a huge chilling effect to every victim (namely, that if the prosecutor didn't win the case, the accuser would go to jail for falsely reporting). The DA very specifically didn't say "it didn't happen," just that "criminal charges were not warranted" and that "[t]here are certainly cases where we just simply can't prove something and so we will decline [to pursue charges] due to insufficient evidence." Yes, I read ADA Caswell's statements on the ESPN story, but again, I don't know that the statements from the friend(s) rise to the level of proof necessary to overcome a reasonable doubt. As far as her getting off scot free, I'm sure Courtney Jean Thornton's name will get around, and she'll at least suffer some social consequences...not the least of which will be a sudden surfeit of men willing to get anywhere near her. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Sports
Rodney Anderson not charged!!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom