Of course the trial would be the telling of a narrative of events to attempt to establish the elements of an offense, whether there was any corroboration from physical evidence or, in this case, not likely. This is so elementary that it pains me.
It should pain you. You have no legal education. Some of us here do.
You are a clown. You are beneath me. I school you every time we interact. So does Rekrunner, as we need the patience of Job to even stoop to try to educate you.
Al Sal is done...even Kevin Beck, whom is controversial himself, isn't even backing him. And Beck doesn't like the majority of running media either, but when *Beck* is even throwing shade at Al Sal and defending Kara, then you know that Al Sal is legitimately guilty...Al Sal has no allies in the running world to defend him.
Kevin Beck is irrelevant to any of this, and certainly he has no bearing on the issue of Alberto’s past behavior.
Not entirely; he's usually someone who defends the older Boomer guys and trolls the woke running media. But he's entirely right for supporting Kara...when even older male runners like him are supporting Kara and not the old males like Alberto, then you know Alberto is done for...
I will acknowledge that I am dealing with people here who generally have lower IQs, certainly including you and Armstrong. Trial lawyers are story tellers. That is what we/they do. A narrative is another word for a story. I apologize for being insolent but I am a truth teller.
Another of your "narratives". Still mere bs. You can't tell the difference between an allegation and evidence. No one is convicted of a crime on an allegation and nothing more.
Of course more than an allegation is needed. You are so stupid.
Right, but what the H is your point? Instead of telling us about the U.S. legal system, give as some insight about a potential Salazar vs Goucher case.
I have already done so in this thread in relation to defamation. In terms of a criminal case, remember that both alleged sexual assaults occurred in other countries, one in Portugal and the other in Italy I believe. So any criminal case would be tried in those countries under their laws and they may have statutes of limitations which would preclude criminal prosecution at this point. Kara very conveniently chose those countries to be sexually assaulted in or maybe she really was assaulted.
Your narrative continues. It's a lot like the "stolen election".
Kevin Beck is irrelevant to any of this, and certainly he has no bearing on the issue of Alberto’s past behavior.
Not entirely; he's usually someone who defends the older Boomer guys and trolls the woke running media. But he's entirely right for supporting Kara...when even older male runners like him are supporting Kara and not the old males like Alberto, then you know Alberto is done for...
Another of your "narratives". Still mere bs. You can't tell the difference between an allegation and evidence. No one is convicted of a crime on an allegation and nothing more.
Of course more than an allegation is needed. You are so stupid.
Unlike you I have a training in law. It's difficult to tell if you have a training in anything.
It should pain you. You have no legal education. Some of us here do.
You are a clown. You are beneath me. I school you every time we interact. So does Rekrunner, as we need the patience of Job to even stoop to try to educate you.
A narrative is Trump's claim of a stolen election. It got nowhere in any court where it was claimed. Your claim about how courts of law work is merely your "narrative" and similarly bullsh*t.
Armstrong you are as stupid as you are arrogant. You don’t understand how courts work, how trials work, how trial lawyers comport themselves. A narrative is not necessarily fiction. Please don’t post again until you learn something.
A court of law requires a "case" be presented. A "case" requires evidence pertaining to a question of law that must meet a burden of proof or it fails. In a civil case that test is the balance of probabilities while in a criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt. A case is not a narrative. A "narrative" is a version of events that has not met the evidentiary requirements of a court of law. A "narrative" is typically what unqualified and empty-headed people like yourself spout on the internet. You've done a good job of proving that.
A question to the folks posting. Have you Met the Predator and do you go to church with him??
Does Kara attend church? I would rather spend an afternoon with Alberto than Kara. To me Kara is more of a predator than Alberto, although it might be close.
Armstrong you are as stupid as you are arrogant. You don’t understand how courts work, how trials work, how trial lawyers comport themselves. A narrative is not necessarily fiction. Please don’t post again until you learn something.
A court of law requires a "case" be presented. A "case" requires evidence pertaining to a question of law that must meet a burden of proof or it fails. In a civil case that test is the balance of probabilities while in a criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt. A case is not a narrative. A "narrative" is a version of events that has not met the evidentiary requirements of a court of law. A "narrative" is typically what unqualified and empty-headed people like yourself spout on the internet. You've done a good job of proving that.
Cases are often nothing but narratives of events told to a jury. You are too stupid to grasp this.
What demonstrates that you are merely full of hot air - like your "narrative" - is that Salazar has not sued and is unlikely to. He knows Goucher's account is no mere narrative.
Armstrong you are as stupid as you are arrogant. You don’t understand how courts work, how trials work, how trial lawyers comport themselves. A narrative is not necessarily fiction. Please don’t post again until you learn something.
A court of law requires a "case" be presented. A "case" requires evidence pertaining to a question of law that must meet a burden of proof or it fails. In a civil case that test is the balance of probabilities while in a criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt. A case is not a narrative. A "narrative" is a version of events that has not met the evidentiary requirements of a court of law. A "narrative" is typically what unqualified and empty-headed people like yourself spout on the internet. You've done a good job of proving that.
What demonstrates that you are merely full of hot air - like your "narrative" - is that Salazar has not sued and is unlikely to. He knows Goucher's account is no mere narrative.
You do not understand what the word “narrative” means.
A court of law requires a "case" be presented. A "case" requires evidence pertaining to a question of law that must meet a burden of proof or it fails. In a civil case that test is the balance of probabilities while in a criminal case it is beyond reasonable doubt. A case is not a narrative. A "narrative" is a version of events that has not met the evidentiary requirements of a court of law. A "narrative" is typically what unqualified and empty-headed people like yourself spout on the internet. You've done a good job of proving that.
Cases are often nothing but narratives of events told to a jury. You are too stupid to grasp this.
You don't understand the word you are using. Nor do you understand how courts work.
You don't understand the word you are using. Nor do you understand how courts work.
But Alberto does, even if you dont. That's why he hasn't sued. You are a joke.
Alberto has NOTHING to do with this subject of how lawyers use a narrative to present their cases. You know nothing about the law. For those of us who do, you are exposed at every turn.
But Alberto does, even if you dont. That's why he hasn't sued. You are a joke.
Alberto has NOTHING to do with this subject of how lawyers use a narrative to present their cases. You know nothing about the law. For those of us who do, you are exposed at every turn.
I am qualified in law. You aren't. A "narrative", as you use it, is not a case. Your flannel here is a "narrative". Alberto takes expert legal advice. Being expert is something you know nothing about. But by all means, go ahead and tell him he should sue, because you understand "narratives". I think I know what blunt response you will get.
Alberto has NOTHING to do with this subject of how lawyers use a narrative to present their cases. You know nothing about the law. For those of us who do, you are exposed at every turn.
I am qualified in law. You aren't. A "narrative", as you use it, is not a case. Your flannel here is a "narrative". Alberto takes expert legal advice. Being expert is something you know nothing about. But by all means, go ahead and tell him he should sue, because you understand "narratives". I think I know what blunt response you will get.
I never said Alberto should sue. I am much more qualified as a legal expert than you are. You are too slow to even grasp that the telling of a narrative is a huge part of what trial lawyers do. Some of you are so slow that you appear to believe a narrative is a false story. Your legal education appears to consist of watching a few true crime shows. And even then you didn’t assimilate much of what you saw.
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.