Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.

[Estro Felino]

That is why one uses multiple witnesses. The accounts of three other woman that were attacked by Trump were used. There were even more, but those three were enough. Carroll's claims of telling friends was corroborated. Trump himself shot himself in the foot and showed that he was NOT honest. You keep trying to limit the claims to just Carroll and Trump and that is not the case. That is why your argument was a strawman argument. If it was just those two then you might be right. I almost said "would" but you cannot ignore the fact that Trump showed that he lied when he described Carroll.

Tell me, was there only testimony from Trump and Carroll in this trial?

Do you know what real evidence is?

Real pieces of evidence are Trump's DNA on her clothes.
Or a footage that show that Trump and Carroll enter the megastore on the day X.

She doesn't even remember the day of the events. That's very bad.

As for the testimonies, I can take them into account. They are interesting, but they are insufficient evidence (art. 530 Penal Procedure Code), and a person shan't be condemned unless their responsibility and accountability is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (art 533 Penal Procedure Code)-

Source: Italian Criminal Law

 

[Estro Felino]

You mean apart from the fact that I don’t think the US court system relies exclusively on testament in legal cases of not just rape trials but even cases involving murder, theft etc. But okay whatever. Let’s say that’s all that’s needed. He said she said, right.
You do realise that if that were the case we’d have to throw out other legal cases based on your rather shallow objections, right?
Say someone wants revenge against their former boss. All they have to do is go up to a judge and tell them that said boss committed defamation of character. Bam! The boss is now faced with a criminal record for no other reason. At least according to how the US courts work in your example.

Should we just make defamation of character legal too? I mean just think of all those innocent folks with criminal records, apparently

With all due respect...but I am speaking of rape cases and alleged rape cases.
Let's not shift to labor law.

 

[Estro Felino]

You want him for a neighbor?

Ja,

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a jurist.

In what capacity?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who can guarantee they are telling the truth?

There is no guarantee of anything.

But in courts here in North America we testify under oath - we swear to tell the truth by penalty of law.

You know...I can say that I slept with Leonardo Di Caprio on the day X of many years ago. My best friends will confirm, of course.
Does that make it true?

Please stop with this. Sue him and present your case to a court, like E. Jean Carroll did.
Otherwise, give it a rest as it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

 

[Estro Felino]

In what capacity?

I have a law degree.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is no guarantee of anything.

But in courts here in North America we testify under oath - we swear to tell the truth by penalty of law.

What happens when it is ascertained that someone lied under oath?

 

[SomeRandom]

With all due respect...but I am speaking of rape cases and alleged rape cases.
Let's not shift to labor law.

Yeah and rape cases don’t exclusively rely on testimony either. Pretty sure both function the same under US law anyway. Such legal matters do so under Australian law as far as I’m aware

There’s this thing called evidence and as our good buddies in the US say, beyond reasonable doubt. You are aware that the evidence has to be rather compelling for a jury to decide guilt in such cases. Right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

With all due respect...but I am speaking of rape cases and alleged rape cases.
Let's not shift to labor law.

Why would it not apply to all law?
I think you're just evading.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah and rape cases don’t exclusively rely on testimony either.
There’s this thing called evidence and as our good buddies in the US say, beyond reasonable doubt. You are aware that the evidence has to be rather compelling for a jury to decide guilt in such cases. Right?

Right.
But a woman can say that her boyfriend raped her, even if the sex was consensual.

And the court will believe the woman. Not the man.

 

[Nakosis]

With all due respect...but I am speaking of rape cases and alleged rape cases.
Let's not shift to labor law.

Just to point out this wasn't rape. It was sexual abuse. Rape requires penetration by legal definition. Sexual abuse only requires unwanted touching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what real evidence is?

Real pieces of evidence are Trump's DNA on her clothes.
Or a footage that show that Trump and Carroll enter the megastore on the day X.

She doesn't even remember the day of the events. That's very bad.

As for the testimonies, I can take them into account. They are interesting, but they are insufficient evidence (art. 530 Penal Procedure Code), and a person shan't be condemned unless their responsibility and accountability is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (art 533 Penal Procedure Code)-

Source: Italian Criminal Law

And once again you show that you are not a jurist. There are all sorts of evidence allowed in trials. Are you trying to say that eyewitness testimony is not allowed in Italian trials? Now granted, physical evidence is the most reliable evidence. And her being unsure of the date does not help her. But I can list all sorts of events that I have a rough memory of when they occurred. I could testify to them. I could find people that supported my testimony, etc. My inability to remember the dates is not strong evidence against my claim. It is rather weak evidence against my claim. That weak evidence against it is more than made up for it by the corroboration of her friends. We never rely totally on Carroll's testimony here, and that was your argument. Do you need me to quote your post for you?

Also you show that you are not a jurist because you keep forgetting that this was not a criminal trial. I am not a jurist but I bet that even in Italy you have different standards of burden of proof for civil versus criminal trials. In criminal trials the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Though it is arguable that they met even that standard here. I know that Italians convicted on American of murder on far less than what was brought up against Trump.

 

[SomeRandom]

Right.
But a woman can say that her boyfriend raped her, even if the sex was consensual.

And the court will believe the woman. Not the man.

On what grounds do you base this assumption on?
Give me compelling evidence that this is a widespread issue in the US court system

Because in my country you kind of need a bit more than mere testimony. Or at the very least one hell of a compelling lawyer lol (that was a joke)

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah and rape cases don’t exclusively rely on testimony either. Pretty sure both function the same under US law anyway. Such legal matters do so under Australian law as far as I’m aware

There’s this thing called evidence and as our good buddies in the US say, beyond reasonable doubt. You are aware that the evidence has to be rather compelling for a jury to decide guilt in such cases. Right?

As for labor law, I can give you an example.
If my employer mistreats me, I can record his mistreatment and abuse of power.
The recording is a piece of evidence.

That's a piece of evidence that can be used in court.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What happens when it is ascertained that someone lied under oath?

Depends to the extent and what it's about but generally speaking, fines and\or prison sentences.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a law degree.

But if you're a "jurist", that means to me that it's your profession.
Is it?

 

[Estro Felino]

I know that Italians convicted on American of murder on far less than what was brought up against Trump.

Who?
Amanda Knox?
Amanda Knox was acquitted and the prosecutor was sanctioned.
And they sentenced to jail a couple of cops too.

 

[SomeRandom]

As for labor law, I can give you an example.
If my employer mistreats me, I can record his mistreatment and abuse of power.
The recording is a piece of evidence.

That's a piece of evidence that can be used in court.

Yes. And testimony is also a piece of evidence used in such trials regarding sexual assault/abuse, as far as I’m aware. They’re not the only piece used though.

Still not seeing why this case is such that one would make a reasonable conclusion where a person can just be locked up for rape in the US based solely on a woman’s testimony though???

 

[Nakosis]

Right.
But a woman can say that her boyfriend raped her, even if the sex was consensual.

And the court will believe the woman. Not the man.

Depends on the jury. Whom they find more believable.
Tough if you get an actor on the stand. They are professionals at getting folks to believe a lie.

I think politicians get pretty good at this too. Lawyers...

It not fool proof especially when there is no corroborating evidence.
Usually in court it is not about the truth but about who is more believable.
And sometimes I suppose who you want to believe.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. And testimony is also a piece of evidence used in such trials regarding sexual assault/abuse, as far as I’m aware. They’re not the only piece used though.

Still not seeing why this case is such that one would make a reasonable conclusion where a person can just be locked up for rape in the US based solely on a woman’s testimony though???

It doesn't have the same value. I am sorry.

It's my word against theirs. Who can guarantee they are saying the truth and are not aiding and abetting their friend?
It's like someone said: I tell the truth because I am a god and the defendant is nothing.
That's childish behavior.