In todays news...

[ZRX61]

Was there any evidence/independent witnesses or was it just her word against his?

Her word, Theory is he stepped on his dick by not appearing in person & only gave a deposition... Plus some of his own comments didn't do him any favors.

[Horse]

Was there any evidence/independent witnesses or was it just her word against his?

Her word.

For the defamation?

[Mussels]

Was there any evidence/independent witnesses or was it just her word against his?

Her word.

For the defamation?

What I find confusing is the jury believed her for part of it but not the rest, so she is a partially reliable witness?

[Horse]

Her word.

For the defamation?

What I find confusing is the jury believed her for part of it but not the rest, so she is a partially reliable witness?

Or like the Scottish 'Not Proven'?

I suppose, for perjury, there would have to be proof that she lied in court?

[Greenman]

Was there any evidence/independent witnesses or was it just her word against his?

Her word, Theory is he stepped on his dick by not appearing in person & only gave a deposition... Plus some of his own comments didn't do him any favors.

She also had witnesses at the trial so not quite her word against his!

[Slenver]

I should imagine that if someone was abused etc, they'd want criminal action, rather than file a civil case only.

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with that a civil case uses balance of probability rather than actual evidence and always ends up in financial pay outs.....

There's no choice in the matter. You can't file a criminal suit after 5 years have passed, which was well over 20 years ago.

Obviously anyone could argue that she could've done this at the time, but I think it's well understood that women often don't report sexual attacks, especially back in the day, and especially when they're against famous people with powerful voices and legal teams.

A law was recently introduced that allowed people to file civil suits for sexual attacks that happened in the past. She did that on the day it came out.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Heard him on the radio this morning with his usual style of quote..."it's the most unfair trial in the history of trials" etc.

Probably would have been slightly fairer if he'd turned up

[Greenman]

Heard him on the radio this morning with his usual style of quote..."it's the most unfair trial in the history of trials" etc.

Probably would have been slightly fairer if he'd turned up

Did you also hear the recording that has been released about him discussing how as he is a 'star' he can do anything he wants without conviction, mainly relating this to assaulting women around the time of the alleged assault ? That probably didn't help him too much!

[Horse]

Did you also hear the recording that has been released about him discussing how as he is a 'star' he can do anything he wants without conviction, mainly relating this to assaulting women around the time of the alleged assault ? That probably didn't help him too much!

Nor did claiming that she wasn't 'his type' - then confusing her with his ex-wife.

[Ant]

I should imagine that if someone was abused etc, they'd want criminal action, rather than file a civil case only.

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with that a civil case uses balance of probability rather than actual evidence and always ends up in financial pay outs.....

There's no choice in the matter. You can't file a criminal suit after 5 years have passed, which was well over 20 years ago.

Obviously anyone could argue that she could've done this at the time, but I think it's well understood that women often don't report sexual attacks, especially back in the day, and especially when they're against famous people with powerful voices and legal teams.

A law was recently introduced that allowed people to file civil suits for sexual attacks that happened in the past. She did that on the day it came out.

Of course one could argue that, but there does appear to be a theme now of filing a no evidence needed civil case because of a large cash pay out at the end. The thing which beggars belief with these cases is that at the end we find out that a lot of people claim to have known about this, then claim the moral high ground by saying how bad it all was, when actually they were complicit in what was going on by keeping quiet, only because the 'offender' was a source of a lot of money for these people, as soon as the money dries up and the person is no longer of any use to them, thens the time to throw them under the bus - whilst doing nothing about it at the cash rich time.

[Greenman]

I should imagine that if someone was abused etc, they'd want criminal action, rather than file a civil case only.

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with that a civil case uses balance of probability rather than actual evidence and always ends up in financial pay outs.....

There's no choice in the matter. You can't file a criminal suit after 5 years have passed, which was well over 20 years ago.

Obviously anyone could argue that she could've done this at the time, but I think it's well understood that women often don't report sexual attacks, especially back in the day, and especially when they're against famous people with powerful voices and legal teams.

A law was recently introduced that allowed people to file civil suits for sexual attacks that happened in the past. She did that on the day it came out.

Of course one could argue that, but there does appear to be a theme now of filing a no evidence needed civil case because of a large cash pay out at the end. The thing which beggars belief with these cases is that at the end we find out that a lot of people claim to have known about this, then claim the moral high ground by saying how bad it all was, when actually they were complicit in what was going on by keeping quiet, only because the 'offender' was a source of a lot of money for these people, as soon as the money dries up and the person is no longer of any use to them, thens the time to throw them under the bus - whilst doing nothing about it at the cash rich time.

So you are basically saying that as long as your employer/abuser is paying you or giving you money then it's ok for them to abuse you as much as they want. That's how it reads to me.

Maybe life circumstances at the time of the assault were so bad for her that she was not in a position to come forward to what had happened, maybe Trump threatened her into not speaking up, there are so many variables that i don't think it's unfair that these cases are heard and acted upon at a later date, better late than never!

[Ant]

There's no choice in the matter. You can't file a criminal suit after 5 years have passed, which was well over 20 years ago.

Obviously anyone could argue that she could've done this at the time, but I think it's well understood that women often don't report sexual attacks, especially back in the day, and especially when they're against famous people with powerful voices and legal teams.

A law was recently introduced that allowed people to file civil suits for sexual attacks that happened in the past. She did that on the day it came out.

Of course one could argue that, but there does appear to be a theme now of filing a no evidence needed civil case because of a large cash pay out at the end. The thing which beggars belief with these cases is that at the end we find out that a lot of people claim to have known about this, then claim the moral high ground by saying how bad it all was, when actually they were complicit in what was going on by keeping quiet, only because the 'offender' was a source of a lot of money for these people, as soon as the money dries up and the person is no longer of any use to them, thens the time to throw them under the bus - whilst doing nothing about it at the cash rich time.

So you are basically saying that as long as your employer/abuser is paying you or giving you money then it's ok for them to abuse you as much as they want.

No

That's how it reads to me.

So I see

Maybe life circumstances at the time of the assault were so bad for her that she was not in a position to come forward to what had happened, maybe Trump threatened her into not speaking up, there are so many variables that i don't think it's unfair that these cases are heard and acted upon at a later date, better late than never!

But apparently everyone else knew about it.....

[Greenman]

Of course one could argue that, but there does appear to be a theme now of filing a no evidence needed civil case because of a large cash pay out at the end. The thing which beggars belief with these cases is that at the end we find out that a lot of people claim to have known about this, then claim the moral high ground by saying how bad it all was, when actually they were complicit in what was going on by keeping quiet, only because the 'offender' was a source of a lot of money for these people, as soon as the money dries up and the person is no longer of any use to them, thens the time to throw them under the bus - whilst doing nothing about it at the cash rich time.

So you are basically saying that as long as your employer/abuser is paying you or giving you money then it's ok for them to abuse you as much as they want.

No

That's how it reads to me.

So I see

Maybe life circumstances at the time of the assault were so bad for her that she was not in a position to come forward to what had happened, maybe Trump threatened her into not speaking up, there are so many variables that i don't think it's unfair that these cases are heard and acted upon at a later date, better late than never!

But apparently everyone else knew about it.....

If everyone else knew about it then it must of happened, otherwise how would they know about it, so all that has happened is that another horrible super rich corrupt dickhead has been shown up for what he is!

If it was me or you, we'd probably have got a jail sentence!

[Screwdriver]

No point turning up really. He was always going to be found guilty whether this actually happened or not.

[Ant]

So you are basically saying that as long as your employer/abuser is paying you or giving you money then it's ok for them to abuse you as much as they want.

No

That's how it reads to me.

So I see

Maybe life circumstances at the time of the assault were so bad for her that she was not in a position to come forward to what had happened, maybe Trump threatened her into not speaking up, there are so many variables that i don't think it's unfair that these cases are heard and acted upon at a later date, better late than never!

But apparently everyone else knew about it.....

If everyone else knew about it then it must of happened, otherwise how would they know about it, so all that has happened is that another horrible super rich corrupt dickhead has been shown up for what he is!

If it was me or you, we'd probably have got a jail sentence!

Exactly what I said above.......everyone knew, kept quiet whilst the cash was flowing....but, as soon as the money stops.....................

[ZRX61]

She also had witnesses at the trial so not quite her word against his!

They weren't *witness* to what she claims happened.

[ZRX61]

If everyone else knew about it then it must of happened, otherwise how would they know about it, so all that has happened is that another horrible super rich corrupt dickhead has been shown up for what he is!

If it was me or you, we'd probably have got a jail sentence!

You mean like how everyone *knew* about Trumps Russian collusion & then it turns out to be complete bullshit..?

[Greenman]

She also had witnesses at the trial so not quite her word against his!

They weren't *witness* to what she claims happened.

Why were they even there then? seems a bit pointless.

Maybe this is a witch hunt, if it is your countries politics are even more fucked than ours are here in the UK.

Revolution anyone. How many people have posted that we have nobody to vote for but don;t want to make any changes to make sure we do. Until we start saying NO! we will always be in this situation with our politics as the system is just so corrupt and the ones that make it corrupt want that corruption to continue even to the detriment of their own place or birth!

[Screwdriver]

It is a witch hunt of course. Trump is just one example where the deep state is used to hound people constantly using the entire apparatus of the nations judicial process. If they can't find something, just make it up and run a story in the press. Doesn't matter if it's true or even obviously untrue. Throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

This is so obvious to me I am completely baffled why and how this keeps happening. Then you realise, you don't need to "convince" let's say more informed/cynical people, you just need to turn the tide of public opinion and you don't need to tip it that far either.

[gremlin]

SEG probably up to their usual shenanigans...

Woman injured after royal police escort crash

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65554648