Can you source these claims you make? I find none of this in the media.
Did you read Jane Doe's testimony from the trial pasted earlier?
It's hilariously pathetic that your only clearing house for whether valid evidence was presented is "the media", a nebulous, impossible-to-suffice position in which you can forever move the goalposts.
"I'm not seeing it in the places I'm looking."
"I'm not seeing it in the places you showed me, after I asked you to do the work to find it."
"That [evidence/publication/etc] isn't credible -- why wasn't it in [alternative]? Why is there an inconsistency?"
And on and on and on. You're not being serious -- or you are and as such you're the biggest tack-ass incel loser to walk this Earth -- but I'm not going to let you off the hook for such an obvious low-effort fallacious position just because it's obvious.
Either way, this is you: you defend rape on a running message board. You should be real proud.
Why don't you show me all the evidence you presume exists?
It's hilariously pathetic that your only clearing house for whether valid evidence was presented is "the media", a nebulous, impossible-to-suffice position in which you can forever move the goalposts.
"I'm not seeing it in the places I'm looking."
"I'm not seeing it in the places you showed me, after I asked you to do the work to find it."
"That [evidence/publication/etc] isn't credible -- why wasn't it in [alternative]? Why is there an inconsistency?"
And on and on and on. You're not being serious -- or you are and as such you're the biggest tack-ass incel loser to walk this Earth -- but I'm not going to let you off the hook for such an obvious low-effort fallacious position just because it's obvious.
Either way, this is you: you defend rape on a running message board. You should be real proud.
Why don't you show me all the evidence you presume exists?
It was shown at trial. The prosecution was able to convince a jury of Masterson's peer beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
I hope you have such fevor for evidentiary standards in every trial!
People like Newname believe that evidence should be required to convict someone and sentence them to 30 years of prison. Eye witness evidence is fine if it can be corroborated. The fact that he could be found guilty and sentenced to rape is extremely concerning and a complete miscarriage of just.
Is he actually guilty? Nobody knows...because nobody other than the alleged victims were there. Why should anyone believe the victims words over his?
So the standard for a rape conviction has to include eyewitnesses? The courts have held that a victim sharing around the time of the incident to be admissible. The people in the courtroom heard the actual testimony none of us have. Transcripts have limited value here in determining credibility.
I listen to a law podcast and one the of the hosts gives reminders from time to time that we rarely hear the full testimony and hear it given by the person but the jury does. I will defer to the people in the room unless there is compelling reason not to do so.
Not quite, but the standard for life imprisonment has to include evidence that is impossible or highly implausible for a small number people to just make up out of spite or whatever other reason.
The above point is one of due process, so it is irrelevant if in this particular case, they were indeed being truthful.
People going nuts because I think there ought to be some evidence other than accusations by an accuser about an event that took place over 20 years ago before sending someone to prison for 30 years to life.
The assumption seems to be that the jury had to get it right.
People going nuts because I think there ought to be some evidence other than accusations by an accuser about an event that took place over 20 years ago before sending someone to prison for 30 years to life.
The assumption seems to be that the jury had to get it right.
Why would I or anyone assume otherwise? Do you spend all of this time on other cases, or just when powerful white rapists meet the justice system?
The implication you're making that there was no evidence because the evidence presented doesn't fit your intentionally limited and narrow definition of the word is ridiculous on its face. The further implication that the carefully scrutinized jury (and fully agreed to in composition by the defense!) was insufficient is equally ridiculous and certainly makes me wonder if you spend all of this energy on other cases, or if, gee whiz, there's maybe some other reason why this particular case has your hackles up.
Finally, the idea that anyone else would have to be the ones to provide evidence against YOUR counterfactual is lazy at best and downright idiotic at worst; the justice system worked exactly against the mutually agreed process, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that it wasn't so. Until you can definitively prove that there was no acceptable evidence presented -- and not to your definition but to the definition suitable for use in a legal courtroom -- then your entire point is just small-dick incel diaper pissing. The onus to prove the counterfactual is in you, not us, you chud.
The defense had every right to get testimony stricken and thrown out. They didn't. The judge had every right to do the same, he didn't, nor was he asked. So I greatly look forward to your new argument, which will almost certainly be a feeble, pathetic move-the-goalposts argument that either the judge, the defense, or the entire legal system is corrupt and incompetent. And by greatly look forward to, I mean I'd rather feed my dick into a wood chipper than waste any more time dunking your illogical, moronic arguments into the ground.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
People going nuts because I think there ought to be some evidence other than accusations by an accuser about an event that took place over 20 years ago before sending someone to prison for 30 years to life.
The assumption seems to be that the jury had to get it right.
Why would I or anyone assume otherwise? Do you spend all of this time on other cases, or just when powerful white rapists meet the justice system?
The implication you're making that there was no evidence because the evidence presented doesn't fit your intentionally limited and narrow definition of the word is ridiculous on its face. The further implication that the carefully scrutinized jury (and fully agreed to in composition by the defense!) was insufficient is equally ridiculous and certainly makes me wonder if you spend all of this energy on other cases, or if, gee whiz, there's maybe some other reason why this particular case has your hackles up.
Finally, the idea that anyone else would have to be the ones to provide evidence against YOUR counterfactual is lazy at best and downright idiotic at worst; the justice system worked exactly against the mutually agreed process, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that it wasn't so. Until you can definitively prove that there was no acceptable evidence presented -- and not to your definition but to the definition suitable for use in a legal courtroom -- then your entire point is just small-dick incel diaper pissing. The onus to prove the counterfactual is in you, not us, you chud.
Why would I or anyone assume otherwise? Do you spend all of this time on other cases, or just when powerful white rapists meet the justice system?
The implication you're making that there was no evidence because the evidence presented doesn't fit your intentionally limited and narrow definition of the word is ridiculous on its face. The further implication that the carefully scrutinized jury (and fully agreed to in composition by the defense!) was insufficient is equally ridiculous and certainly makes me wonder if you spend all of this energy on other cases, or if, gee whiz, there's maybe some other reason why this particular case has your hackles up.
Finally, the idea that anyone else would have to be the ones to provide evidence against YOUR counterfactual is lazy at best and downright idiotic at worst; the justice system worked exactly against the mutually agreed process, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that it wasn't so. Until you can definitively prove that there was no acceptable evidence presented -- and not to your definition but to the definition suitable for use in a legal courtroom -- then your entire point is just small-dick incel diaper pissing. The onus to prove the counterfactual is in you, not us, you chud.
You assume every jury trial gets it right?
That reasoning is unsound.
Why hasn't Steve Wynn been put on trial?
Whataboutism is the stupidest counterargument possible, even dumber than the ones you've already poorly made. Try harder, numbnuts.
Yes. I think you ought to have evidence in every trial before you find someone guilty.
Crazy huh?
What evidence was shown at trial? Nobody has provided any yet
The transcript from the entire trial will be made public.
Masterson has a constitutional right to an appeal.
Your belief is that 12 jurors just overlooked zero evidence. Why is everything a conspiracy for you? Doesn't it get tiring?
What evidence? That's the point. Nobody can point to any. What were the Judge's instructions? What was different this time vs the initial trial where, per that Jury's foreman, the vote was 10-2 not guilty.
Yes. I think you ought to have evidence in every trial before you find someone guilty.
Crazy huh?
What evidence was shown at trial? Nobody has provided any yet
The transcript from the entire trial will be made public.
Masterson has a constitutional right to an appeal.
Your belief is that 12 jurors just overlooked zero evidence. Why is everything a conspiracy for you? Doesn't it get tiring?
His case will be dismissed, I guarantee it. After the appeal is granted and a new trial happens, he walks. You cannot wait 20 years and just "say" this is what happened, even if it actually did. If that was the case then just accuse away and hope for a big payday. Is that really the way it should be?
People going nuts because I think there ought to be some evidence other than accusations by an accuser about an event that took place over 20 years ago before sending someone to prison for 30 years to life.
The assumption seems to be that the jury had to get it right.
Why would I or anyone assume otherwise? Do you spend all of this time on other cases, or just when powerful white rapists meet the justice system?
The implication you're making that there was no evidence because the evidence presented doesn't fit your intentionally limited and narrow definition of the word is ridiculous on its face. The further implication that the carefully scrutinized jury (and fully agreed to in composition by the defense!) was insufficient is equally ridiculous and certainly makes me wonder if you spend all of this energy on other cases, or if, gee whiz, there's maybe some other reason why this particular case has your hackles up.
Finally, the idea that anyone else would have to be the ones to provide evidence against YOUR counterfactual is lazy at best and downright idiotic at worst; the justice system worked exactly against the mutually agreed process, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove that it wasn't so. Until you can definitively prove that there was no acceptable evidence presented -- and not to your definition but to the definition suitable for use in a legal courtroom -- then your entire point is just small-dick incel diaper pissing. The onus to prove the counterfactual is in you, not us, you chud.
The defense had every right to get testimony stricken and thrown out. They didn't. The judge had every right to do the same, he didn't, nor was he asked. So I greatly look forward to your new argument, which will almost certainly be a feeble, pathetic move-the-goalposts argument that either the judge, the defense, or the entire legal system is corrupt and incompetent. And by greatly look forward to, I mean I'd rather feed my dick into a wood chipper than waste any more time dunking your illogical, moronic arguments into the ground.
LOL, Karen bringing the absolute ether to that dude. Geez. This is like watching Magnus Carlsen play chess against a 7 year old kid with Downs syndrome.
Whataboutism is the stupidest counterargument possible, even dumber than the ones you've already poorly made. Try harder, numbnuts.
So this guy goes in trial while Steve Wynn, accused by several women of rape and sexual abuse over a period of decades does not and you have no problem with this?
The transcript from the entire trial will be made public.
Masterson has a constitutional right to an appeal.
Your belief is that 12 jurors just overlooked zero evidence. Why is everything a conspiracy for you? Doesn't it get tiring?
His case will be dismissed, I guarantee it. After the appeal is granted and a new trial happens, he walks. You cannot wait 20 years and just "say" this is what happened, even if it actually did. If that was the case then just accuse away and hope for a big payday. Is that really the way it should be?
If there any legitimacy to our Justice System, that will happen.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.