Doubt a real man would ever want to talk to you, Thunder Thighs.
Again, Einstein, maybe take a wild guess of what Karen Rodgers is referring to, or do you not know how rhyming works?
The manner in which you prove your stupidity, over and over again, like a child feebly attempting to do a Rubix cube, is truly hilarious. I'd probably kill myself.
Would love to know about all this evidence against Masterson that you keep referring to.
Again, Einstein, maybe take a wild guess of what Karen Rodgers is referring to, or do you not know how rhyming works?
The manner in which you prove your stupidity, over and over again, like a child feebly attempting to do a Rubix cube, is truly hilarious. I'd probably kill myself.
Would love to know about all this evidence against Masterson that you keep referring to.
Just because you're too stupid to know what circumstantial evidence is, that's not exactly our problem to solve.
The evidence wasn’t good enough to convict OJ Simpson. But it is good enough to send Danny away forever for a lesser crime. Hmmm, I think I know what’s different
Just because you're too stupid to know what circumstantial evidence is, that's not exactly our problem to solve.
Try me.
What is this evidence you speak of.
I am aware of the accusations.
Is that it?
Anything else?
Try to answer without name calling. If you can.
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
Get ready for the World Series of Goalpost Moving, my friend.
"No, no, that doesn't count because in my untrained, subjective opinion, I don't think it does!"
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
This is the entire point, the fact that someone could be found guilty of a crime based solely on the eye witness of one person with no corroborating evidence that a crime ever even took place, is absolutely insane. It's beyond insanity, there isn't even a word for it.
Why does the alleged victims testimony carry more weight in court than the alleged suspects testimony? Because the jury believes it? That is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is the entire point, the fact that someone could be found guilty of a crime based solely on the eye witness of one person with no corroborating evidence that a crime ever even took place, is absolutely insane. It's beyond insanity, there isn't even a word for it.
Why does the alleged victims testimony carry more weight in court than the alleged suspects testimony? Because the jury believes it? That is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Obviously the suspect's testimony can only carry weight if the suspect testifies. Sure, if a suspect does testify and holds up to cross examination, their testimony carries weight.
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
This is the entire point, the fact that someone could be found guilty of a crime based solely on the eye witness of one person with no corroborating evidence that a crime ever even took place, is absolutely insane. It's beyond insanity, there isn't even a word for it.
Why does the alleged victims testimony carry more weight in court than the alleged suspects testimony? Because the jury believes it? That is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then maybe Danny "Rapist" Masterson should have testified, genius.
Then maybe Danny "Rapist" Masterson should have testified, genius.
He wouldn't have to. The burden on him is not to prove his innocence. The burden is on the prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped the girl. The evidence must be so great, that if he girl walked into police station today and said " he didn't rape me, I lied" it wouldn't change the outcome of the trial at all, because there is evidence proving that he did rape her.
Me saying that a space alien landed in my front yard has holds as much weight as a girls testimony that that she was raped, with no corroborating evidence. Hopefully she had corroborating evidence, and that's why he was found guilty, and it wasn't just based on her story.
This is 100% identical to the Brett Kavanaugh accusations. As sad as it is, rape cases are hard to prove, and I'm sure many of them never make it to trial. I hope there is more evidence than he-said she-said, and that it wasn't allowed to proceed to trial just because the accused was a celebrity.
Would love to know about all this evidence against Masterson that you keep referring to.
Just because you're too stupid to know what circumstantial evidence is, that's not exactly our problem to solve.
Once again, you said that that circumstantial was presented in the form of ". . . an incredibly cohesive and similar story told by multiple people, backed by police statements pored over in meticulous detail and reports to Scientology all of which tell a complete story of a consistent pattern of behavior . . ."
So you must have seen this evidence, if you can attest to its persuasiveness with such confidence. How about showing it to the benighted masses?
It doesn't make any sense why he would do this. A celebrity should have no problem finding willing participants. I think it didn't go down exactly like they say.
You’re implying that a celebrity is MORE likely to be convicted despite evidence being thin?
That’s absurd. In reality celebrities, rich folks, and people in power are the ones who get the free passes.
Correct, since around 2017, this is true, but there might also be some component of self selection making the women who overtly think they were raped may feel it’s just not worth rehashing all that from long back in public if the alleged rapist is a nobody.
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
Notice how those defending this guilty finding feel compelled to name call those of us concerned about a guilty verdict and a sentence of 30 years to life with the accusation being the sole evidence?
Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”
You describe the exact scenario many people in this thread seem to be fearful of. She says, he says... he goes to prison for life.
I sincerely hope that is in fact not how it works, and not what happened in this case.
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.