Rapier108 said:

---

BWD06 said:

---

Explain why not. Evidence information supporting a proposition or fact. The list above is information that supports the fact that the event occurred. The Judge's and the other man's denial is evidence that it didn't.

Evidence doesn't mean something the proves something to be true. Witness statements are used everyday in court as evidence. If she is willing to come in front of the committee and make her statements under oath, would that be any different?

---

None of what you posted is evidence.

Bring that before any judge and you'll be laughed out of court.

---

You are incorrect. Witness statements are being used as evidence in thousands of jury/courtrooms around the country right this second.

"I testify that on or about December 31st, 2014, I saw the Defendant strike the victim in the stomach with a closed fist several times, causing her to cry out in pain." is considered sufficient evidence for an indictment.

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

It used to be in sexual assault allegations that it was one man's word versus one woman's word. In this case it is one teenage woman's word against the word of two allegedly drunk teenage boys who are denying it as adults. The narrative is going to evolve from "a woman can't trust a man" to "no woman can trust any men."

Quote:

---

You are incorrect. Witness statements are being used as evidence in thousands of jury/courtrooms around the country right this second.

"I testify that on or about December 31st, 2014, I saw the Defendant strike the victim in the stomach with a closed fist several times, causing her to cry out in pain." is considered sufficient evidence for an indictment.

---

Technically true. But witness testimony is considered "soft" evidence. Soft evidence by itself doesn't hold much water unless there is "hard" evidence to corroborate it.

Might be sufficient evidence for an indictment, but you know what they say about ham sandwiches and indictments.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

The only "lock in" I've ever seen was invented by me, which I used to lock my older sister in her room. I'd take a jump rope and tie it tight from her outside doorknob to a doorknob across the hall. Bam. Locked in. Something tells me this didnt happen here.

---

You didn't build that.

Common trick used in Corps dorms. Someone did something wrong, they got a trashcan full of water in the face at 3am, the door was slammed and the rope to the opposite door applied. Gave the fish time to escape.

---

"Frontier Justice" on the Quad!
"Drown outs", "Babo bombs", "Quaddings", and other forms of Frontier Justice, executed summarily, were extremely effective in modifying the behavior of their targets, lest it be repeated as often as necessary to obtain the desired effect!

Wildcat said:

---

Just heard from her attorney on NPR on the ride into the office. It's the perfect accusation.

Kavanaugh and his buddy were "stumbling drunk". Even if he denies it, he could still be guilty because he was too drunk to recall. Buddy can't recall either.

Kavanaugh locked the door from the inside, his buddy turned-up the music and "egged him on". If no one at the party recalls this, that is because they were locked outside and could not hear over the music. Oh, and by the way, he covered her mouth.

He was so drunk he couldn't successfully get her clothing off. She had a swimsuit on underneath (why is this detail important?).

Buddy piles on the bed, they all tumble off, and she escapes to a bathroom.

Built in to her accusation are all of the reasons no one can corroborate her story. To be clear, the notion that a drunk 17 yr old male would have pushed himself onto a girl is easily believed. But are we really going to spend weeks to months "investigating" an accusation that cannot be verified 35 years after the fact (if there was fact at all)?

---

All set in front of the back drop of the out-of-control but highly popular #MeToo movement. Perfect accusation and perfect timing.

And they would get you arrested today. Thank God we didn't have cameras everywhere and social media "back in the day". I think it's highly likely that the current Commandant got taken to the quad on Texas Independence Day.

Did you order the Code red?

Who were the other girls at the party? I would like to hear some corroboration that they were drunk.

Rapier108 said:

---

An accusation is not evidence without something to corroborate it.

If something like this went to trail, and the only thing the prosecution had was the accuser, it would be laughed out of court so fast and with prejudice.

---

You're simply incorrect about this point. Testimony is evidence in every court in America.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Assault-Family Violence incidents occur behind closed doors with no witnesses, and may not be reported for several days until the victim is persuaded by friends/family to report. There may not be any significant bruising/marks or any other physical evidence. Those cases regularly get indicted with nothing more than the victim's statement to police.

Theft of Property is another example. An employee at Dollar General calls the police to report that someone grabbed a bunch of merchandise and ran out the door. Police take the statement, fill out the paperwork. Next week they pick up someone on a drug possession charge, and one of the arresting cops notices the arrestee matches the general description of the Theft case. They do a photo lineup with the Dollar General clerk, the clerk points and says, "Yeah, this one, this is the woman who stole from our store last week". The person's face wasn't visible on cameras, and none of the stolen merchandise is ever found. But the store clerk's testimony IS evidence and that kind of case WILL be referred to the DA to seek an indictment,

Also, less than 5% of indictments ever get to a trial. Prosecutors use the indictment as leverage to get a plea deal so they can move on to the other 400 cases on their docket.

Quote:

---

I think it's highly likely that the current Commandant got taken to the quad on Texas Independence Day.

---

It should continue to occur. (Btw, you know cHarpie reads this board. Careful what you post.

Sincerely hope she wears her pink p***y hat to the judiciary cmt. hearing. Go full moonbat, lady, don't hold back.

wannaggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

An accusation is not evidence without something to corroborate it.

If something like this went to trail, and the only thing the prosecution had was the accuser, it would be laughed out of court so fast and with prejudice.

---

You're simply incorrect about this point. Testimony is evidence in every court in America.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Assault-Family Violence incidents occur behind closed doors with no witnesses, and may not be reported for several days until the victim is persuaded by friends/family to report. There may not be any significant bruising/marks or any other physical evidence.

Theft of Property is another example. An employee at Dollar General calls the police to report that someone grabbed a bunch of merchandise and ran out the door. Police take the statement, fill out the paperwork. Next week they pick up someone on a drug possession charge, and one of the arresting cops notices the arrestee matches the general description of the Theft case. They do a photo lineup with the Dollar General clerk, the clerk points and says, "Yeah, this one, this is the woman who stole from our store last week". The person's face wasn't visible on cameras, and none of the stolen merchandise is ever found. But the store clerk's testimony IS evidence and that kind of case WILL be referred to the DA to seek an indictment,

Also, less than 5% of indictments ever get to a trial. Prosecutors use the indictment as leverage to get a plea deal so they can move on to the other 400 cases on their docket.

---

Does it happen 35 years later though?

So you are of the position that any accusation from a woman is enough to ruin a man's life, even though there is absolutely zero evidence to back it up.

Should you be indicted because I go tell the DA you murdered someone?

Burdizzo said:

---

Who were the other girls at the party? I would like to hear some corroboration that they were drunk.

---

I can't remember where I was last year, who remembers a party four decades ago?

Which is what they were counting on.

Don't be surprised if we suddenly have a few more democrat donors who suddenly recall that they were at that party.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

II think it's highly likely that the current Commandant got taken to the quad on Texas Independence Day.

---

It should continue to occur. (Btw, you know cHarpie reads this board. Careful what you post.

---

I will say that a cadet run Corps was more Darwinian and probably better at turning out leaders. And friends.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

An accusation is not evidence without something to corroborate it.

If something like this went to trail, and the only thing the prosecution had was the accuser, it would be laughed out of court so fast and with prejudice.

---

You're simply incorrect about this point. Testimony is evidence in every court in America.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Assault-Family Violence incidents occur behind closed doors with no witnesses, and may not be reported for several days until the victim is persuaded by friends/family to report. There may not be any significant bruising/marks or any other physical evidence.

Theft of Property is another example. An employee at Dollar General calls the police to report that someone grabbed a bunch of merchandise and ran out the door. Police take the statement, fill out the paperwork. Next week they pick up someone on a drug possession charge, and one of the arresting cops notices the arrestee matches the general description of the Theft case. They do a photo lineup with the Dollar General clerk, the clerk points and says, "Yeah, this one, this is the woman who stole from our store last week". The person's face wasn't visible on cameras, and none of the stolen merchandise is ever found. But the store clerk's testimony IS evidence and that kind of case WILL be referred to the DA to seek an indictment,

Also, less than 5% of indictments ever get to a trial. Prosecutors use the indictment as leverage to get a plea deal so they can move on to the other 400 cases on their docket.

---

Does it happen 35 years later though?

---

Oh I absolutely agree that this particular accusation and its timing sound like an example of politically-driven character assassination. But the testimony of one witness does still count as evidence before the Grand Jury or at trial. And if that one witness is perceived as credible by the jurors (who may be subject to internal biases for various reasons), then it's pretty common for them vote to indict/convict based on testimony.

All the fictional cop/forensics TV shows have given people a strongly overinflated expectation of how crimes are investigated and prosecuted. Nobody waits around for their army of autistic genius technogeeks in the crime lab basement to hand-code a tailored image search algorithm to hunt through hundreds of hours of video footage pieced together from 20 businesses in the area and enhance a reflection of the suspect's face off the hood of a freshly waxed car and then cross-reference it with their pattern of past visits to fast food places at that time of day.

Rapier108 said:

---

So you are of the position that any accusation from a woman is enough to ruin a man's life, even though there is absolutely zero evidence to back it up.

Should you be indicted because I go tell the DA you murdered someone?

---

My previous comments never said anything about what should happen. I'm just letting you know what actually does happen every day in standard practice down at your courthouse. It was claimed here that testimony isn't evidence. That is simply not true.

Tater Salad said:

---

I would be willing to bet a sizeable amount that by no later than Friday, there will be 1 or more additional women who "magically" decide that they can no longer bear to hold back their secret that Kavanaugh did something inappropriate to them sometime in the past.

---

This is the concern, and if this happens, no matter how fabricated and bogus it may be (check that, will be), it's all over.

Tater Salad said:

---

I would be willing to bet a sizeable amount that by no later than Friday, there will be 1 or more additional women who "magically" decide that they can no longer bear to hold back their secret that Kavanaugh did something inappropriate to them sometime in the past.

---

This is how the hit job works. It's actually a sort of honeypot attack. They only need to publish one allegation, and that original allegation doesn't even need to pan out later. It's just the lure. The opposition doesn't have to spend resources going through thousands of people over decades. They put out the bait and let the viral nature of information in the Internet Age go out and do the recruiting for them.

Her story is that she was respecting the anonymity of the accuser and would not release it until the person was willing to put her name to it. At some level, I respect that.

What it effectively did was allow the accuser to hire an attorney, scrub her social media, and get her story straight before being named publicly.

wannaggie said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

wannaggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

An accusation is not evidence without something to corroborate it.

If something like this went to trail, and the only thing the prosecution had was the accuser, it would be laughed out of court so fast and with prejudice.

---

You're simply incorrect about this point. Testimony is evidence in every court in America.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Assault-Family Violence incidents occur behind closed doors with no witnesses, and may not be reported for several days until the victim is persuaded by friends/family to report. There may not be any significant bruising/marks or any other physical evidence.

Theft of Property is another example. An employee at Dollar General calls the police to report that someone grabbed a bunch of merchandise and ran out the door. Police take the statement, fill out the paperwork. Next week they pick up someone on a drug possession charge, and one of the arresting cops notices the arrestee matches the general description of the Theft case. They do a photo lineup with the Dollar General clerk, the clerk points and says, "Yeah, this one, this is the woman who stole from our store last week". The person's face wasn't visible on cameras, and none of the stolen merchandise is ever found. But the store clerk's testimony IS evidence and that kind of case WILL be referred to the DA to seek an indictment,

Also, less than 5% of indictments ever get to a trial. Prosecutors use the indictment as leverage to get a plea deal so they can move on to the other 400 cases on their docket.

---

Does it happen 35 years later though?

---

Oh I absolutely agree that this particular accusation and its timing sound like an example of politically-driven character assassination. But the testimony of one witness does still count as evidence before the Grand Jury or at trial. And if that one witness is perceived as credible by the jurors (who may be subject to internal biases for various reasons), then it's pretty common for them vote to indict/convict based on testimony.

All the fictional cop/forensics TV shows have given people a strongly overinflated expectation of how crimes are investigated and prosecuted. Nobody waits around for their army of autistic genius technogeeks in the crime lab basement to hand-code a tailored image search algorithm to hunt through hundreds of hours of video footage pieced together from 20 businesses in the area and enhance a reflection of the suspect's face off the hood of a freshly waxed car and then cross-reference it with their pattern of past visits to fast food places at that time of day.

---

But she is not a witness. She is the complainant. So it comes back to he said/she said with the only witness being on the side of the defense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

Tater Salad said:

---

I would be willing to bet a sizeable amount that by no later than Friday, there will be 1 or more additional women who "magically" decide that they can no longer bear to hold back their secret that Kavanaugh did something inappropriate to them sometime in the past.

---

This is the concern, and if this happens, no matter how fabricated and bogus it may be (check that, will be), it's all over.

---

Anybody else old enough to remember the McMartin Preschool case in California in the 80s? False memories? Repressed memories? That turned out to be a complete bunch of hooey with the chief adult accuser being diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who died of alcoholism.

The moment I hear "repressed memory," my skepticism antennae go up.

---

I remember it along with all of the other satanic sex abuse "scandals" which turned out to be nothing more than mass hysteria. Sure they did catch a few pedophiles, but that is nothing new.

My mom and all her friends were totally believing every bit of it, with each news report sounding worse and worse, the hysteria grew. People actually came to believe that satanists were roaming the country, looking for abduct children. Even going outside to play meant having an adult watching over us.

What was amazing is the level of hysteria it reached in the days before the Internet.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Who were the other girls at the party? I would like to hear some corroboration that they were drunk.

---

I can't remember where I was last year, who remembers a party four decades ago?

Which is what they were counting on.

Don't be surprised if we suddenly have a few more democrat donors who suddenly recall that they were at that party.

---

I had assumed there were more people there, including other girls. But the letter posted on CNN says this

Quote:

---

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

---

I thought she said there were 4 boys at the party, so zero other girls.

But politically "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!!" - which is what I imagine most parents would say - will be out of bounds.

Bo Darville said:

---

The only witness in this case is saying Kavanaugh didn't do it.

---

You're incorrect. There are at least three witnesses in this case. Two witnesses are saying it didn't happen, one witness is saying it did.

1) Ford, the complaining witness, says it happened.
2) Kavanaugh, the target of the allegations, says it didn't happen.
3) Judge, a party to the incident, says he doesn't recall it happening that way and Kavanaugh isn't someone who would do that.

The woman making the allegations is a witness. In fact some police departments specifically refer to the victims of assault/theft/rape as "the Complaining Witness".