Judge to Trump: It’s Still “Substantially True” That You Raped E. Jean Carroll

submitted by ActuallyNot from (newrepublic.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No DNA evidence, just her word against his. Is this how rape cases work?

[–]KyleIsThisTall 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also paternity suits

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No DNA evidence, just her word against his.

I see you haven't been following the case.

11 witnesses testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial. Not just her word against his.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All hearsay, they didn't see the alleged rape they heard from her about it.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, hearsay is when you try to given evidence about what someone else told you. It's not generally admissible, because the other side can't cross-examine the person who made the original statement.

In this case people gave evidence about what Carroll said at the time, and how it affected her. Two others gave evidence that Trump sexually assaulted them, which adds credence to Carroll's claims as there was a pattern of behaviour.

Trump's own testimony didn't help.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess you can't just grab them by the pussy afterall?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on the jury ruling of sexual assault, because that law required that in this jurisdiction, so by ruling as such, the jury "implied" that Trump raped her with his finger...yet the wording of jury's instructions could have included unwanted kissing, so this judge and other, are both making this statement, on the jury's behalf, possibly in error.{The proof is documented}

A second judge gets involved in the coordination of pretending the jury ruled that Trump raped her, when the jury did not rule that. Creepy times we live in.