hibs.net Messageboard

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 190

Thread: Kavanaugh

  1. #61
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Really? Because i'd have came forward at a time when evidence could have actually been provided. Not at a time when I have zero evidence to provide that such an event ever took place, just before the person I accuse is about to obtain a high position of power.
    Iíve never been raped, I have no idea how Iíd think. Particularly if it were a frat boy and this is the 80s.

    The man is going for the most important Judical role in the land. He should be beyond question. Whiter than white.

    If they want to hang their hat on his hook, then there has to be a proper investigation into this. Heís not going for a job paving your drive!

    Iím sure the Republicans can find a squeaky clean Judge who holds similar views to anoint, to the Supreme Court for life.

    J


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #62
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    36,238
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We don't know that this man is guilty of any crime, because it can't be proven that he is. Would it be justice to deny him this job opportunity on accusation alone?

    What's to stop anybody accusing the next judge in line of similar crimes, or the judge in line after him? This whole situation could repeat itself over and over again until the powers putting money into these cases get exactly who they want in place.
    That's why he should be investigated and the nomination held up until such a time that a decision can be made one way or the other.

    The situation could repeat itself, however if someone has no skeletons in their closet then it's going to be much harder for someone accusing them to make that accusation stick.

  4. #63
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Really? Because i'd have came forward at a time when evidence could have actually been provided. Not at a time when I have zero evidence to provide that such an event ever took place, just before the person I accuse is about to obtain a high position of power.
    You have no idea what you would have done after the event. None.

    You may hope that you'd come forward, but you don't know that.

    Why didn't all Saville's victims come forward at the time. Why do many, many victims of sexual assault not come forward?

    That's what #metoo us about. Empowering victims.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  5. #64
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristolhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Iíve never been raped, I have no idea how Iíd think. Particularly if it were a frat boy and this is the 80s.

    The man is going for the most important Judical role in the land. He should be beyond question. Whiter than white.

    If they want to hang their hat on his hook, then there has to be a proper investigation into this. Heís not going for a job paving your drive!

    Iím sure the Republicans can find a squeaky clean Judge who holds similar views to anoint, to the Supreme Court for life.

    J
    Nobody is beyond question. Because a woman can accuse any man of any sexual crime at any time over the past several decades. This gives women the power to effectively dictate who gets into powerful positions or not, completely taking men out of the equation. The #metoo movement is farcical to say the least. As it gives women unparalleled power to manipulate the legal and political system.

    What's to stop any women simply accusing someone that they just don't happen to like very much of commiting a sexual crime that can't be proven, thus resulting in them not getting that position based on accusation alone?

    Or more so, what is to stop a political party from twisting the arm of a woman to make false statements about sexual assault to stop someone getting into a powerful position for purely political reasons?

    The whole situtation is insane and I don't understand why more people can't see it that way.

  6. #65
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have no idea what you would have done after the event. None.

    You may hope that you'd come forward, but you don't know that.

    Why didn't all Saville's victims come forward at the time. Why do many, many victims of sexual assault not come forward?

    That's what #metoo us about. Empowering victims.
    It may well be about empowering victims, but it has also opened the floodgate for false accusations to manipulate political outcomes. If something can't be proven to have happened, then it can't be legally recognized to have happened.
    Last edited by Fife-Hibee; 01-10-2018 at 02:42 PM.

  7. #66
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It may well be about empowering victims, but it has also opened the floodgate for false accusations to manipulate political outcomes. If something can't be proven to have happened, then it can't be legally recognized to have happened.
    Floodgates? Really?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  8. #67
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Floodgates? Really?
    Yes. Also your response doesn't add anything. If you think i'm wrong, then by all means explain why you think i'm wrong and why this wouldn't be the case.

  9. #68
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nobody is beyond question. Because a woman can accuse any man of any sexual crime at any time over the past several decades. This gives women the power to effectively dictate who gets into powerful positions or not, completely taking men out of the equation. The #metoo movement is farcical to say the least. As it gives women unparalleled power to manipulate the legal and political system.

    What's to stop any women simply accusing someone that they just don't happen to like very much of commiting a sexual crime that can't be proven, thus resulting in them not getting that position based on accusation alone?

    Or more so, what is to stop a political party from twisting the arm of a woman to make false statements about sexual assault to stop someone getting into a powerful position for purely political reasons?

    The whole situtation is insane and I don't understand why more people can't see it that way.
    I get your general point...the passage of time makes the accusation difficult to prove and just as difficult to defend against.

    Itís well known that peopleís recollections of events from 20+ years ago can be very inaccurate and their impressions from what happened can be self fulfilling to the stage where they firmly believe what they are saying is true but in reality bear no reflection on what happened.

    That doesnít of course mean that aged accusations should not be aired (see Saville etc.) just that people should be very wary of such things.

    But I think you are being rather one sided in your view and your description of the metoo movement and describing the situation as insane maybe betray the fact that you are not entirely open to viewing the situation in a dispassionate manner.

  10. #69
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yet, if I switch to the BBC News channel, there is nothing about it. Instead the focus is on natural disasters far far away from here and although these news storys are major international news stories, they still hold no real relevance to what is going on here.
    Sorry but thatís nonsense there is daily coverage of Brexit, ad nauseam across all major U.K. news outlets...trying to say otherwise is just daft.

    Are you expecting Brexit to the the ONLY news covered by all U.K. outlets?

  11. #70
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, I just don't assume guilt until proven otherwise. That used to be a thing in justice which seems to be lost these days. It's no longer about whether somebody is actually guilty of a crime or not, but how it benefits or impacts certain political affiliations.

    There's serious questions that need to be answered in this case, which are simply being overlooked. Why wait for this singular moment decades later to call somebody out on a crime that can no longer be definitively proved or disapproved? Do the so called "democrats" even care about the truth here? Or are they simply twisting the arm of the alleged victim to get a favourable political outcome?

    I don't like Kavanaugh and his ultra conservative views. But to assume guilt in a case where there is zero definitive evidence to suggest this event ever took any shape or form is yet another blow to the justice system.

    The three women who have made allegations have all said they would like a proper, full investigation, with which they are prepared to cooperate. They have been denied that. By politicians. Politicians who are extremely keen to rush this nomination through as soon as possible. A number of people who were close to Kavanaugh or drank with him when they were students have said that they are prepared to testify under oath that he has grossly misrepresented(lied about under oath, which disqualifies him) his drinking habits and behaviour when he was young. They have all said that he was a frequent, extremely heavy drinker, and a belligerent and aggressive one.

    In response to your later point (why didn't she come forward straight away), a high percentage of people don't. Many are crippled by shame, embarrassment and the knowledge that it's generally one person's word against another, with limited chance of success. Actual rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove for that same reason. Even now, in more enlightened times, I think she would have difficulty proving her case. What evidence, other than her word against hers would there be? In the 80s, as a 15 year old, possibly in a situation she shouldn't have been in, in an entirely different culture as far as sexual politics and attitude to sexual aggression are concerned, against a guy from a prestigious family, whose mother was a judge, who was a high performing pupil in sport and academically...

    I'm about the same age as her. Would I have reported it? I doubt it. I'd have been mortified, my parents would have gone mad that I was there in the first place, and I would have known it's unlikely I'd be taken seriously.
    Last edited by s.a.m; 01-10-2018 at 02:55 PM.

  12. #71
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by RyeSloan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I get your general point...the passage of time makes the accusation difficult to prove and just as difficult to defend against.

    Itís well known that peopleís recollections of events from 20+ years ago can be very inaccurate and their impressions from what happened can be self fulfilling to the stage where they firmly believe what they are saying is true but in reality bear no reflection on what happened.

    That doesnít of course mean that aged accusations should not be aired (see Saville etc.) just that people should be very wary of such things.

    But I think you are being rather one sided in your view and your description of the metoo movement and describing the situation as insane maybe betray the fact that you are not entirely open to viewing the situation in a dispassionate manner.
    Perhaps. But i've always stood by the belief that no person should ever been assumed guilty of a crime. It has to be proven. You have to ask yourself why somebody would come forward at this very specific point in the accused persons life, when they know they have no evidence to back up the claims that they are making. Not only that, but the person making the accusations is also being backed by a group of people who have a clear political agenda against the person who is being accused.

  13. #72
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Perhaps. But i've always stood by the belief that no person should ever been assumed guilty of a crime. It has to be proven. You have to ask yourself why somebody would come forward at this very specific point in the accused persons life, when they know they have no evidence to back up the claims that they are making. Not only that, but the person making the accusations is also being backed by a group of people who have a clear political agenda against the person who is being accused.

    She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.

  14. #73
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The three women who have made allegations have all said they would like a proper, full investigation, with which they are prepared to cooperate. They have been denied that. By politicians. Politicians who are extremely keen to rush this nomination through as soon as possible. A number of people who were close to Kavanaugh or drank with him when they were students have said that they are prepared to testify under oath that he has grossly misrepresented(lied about under oath, which disqualifies him) his drinking habits and behaviour when he was young. They have all said that he was a frequent, extremely heavy drinker, and a belligerent and aggressive one.

    In response to your later point (why didn't she come forward straight away), a high percentage of people don't. Many are crippled by shame, embarrassment and the knowledge that it's generally one person's word against another, with limited chance of success. Actual rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove for that same reason. Even now, in more enlightened times, I think she would have difficulty proving her case. What evidence, other than her word against hers would there be? In the 80s, as a 15 year old, possibly in a situation she shouldn't have been in, in an entirely different culture as far as sexual politics and attitude to sexual aggression are concerned, against a guy from a prestigious family, whose mother was a judge, who was a high performing pupil in sport and academically...I'm about the same age as her. Would I have reported it? I doubt it. I'd have been mortified, my parents would have gone mad that I was there in the first place, and I would have known I'd have been unlikely to be taken seriously.
    Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

    The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

    The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.

  15. #74
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,872
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.
    This. The man will be reviewing the law in regards to the legality of terminations after incest and rape. He needs to be a shining light of justice.

    J

  16. #75
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    She has said she did it in response to his nomination to the lifelong position of Supreme Court Judge, and she did it at the time. Presumably she thought it would be investigated at the time. If the alleged offence took place, I would say that it's entirely understandable that someone would be triggered into action by him being eased into a job for which you need to be squeaky clean.
    How would they go about investigating something that is claimed to have occured so long ago? I don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy, I believe it was turned down because there wouldn't have been anything for them to try and cover up anyway.

  17. #76
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

    The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

    The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.
    Did he pejure himself regarding his drinking? That should now make him unelectable.

    J

  18. #77
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristolhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This. The man will be reviewing the law in regards to the legality of terminations after incest and rape. He needs to be a shining light of justice.

    J
    Justice is in the truth of the matter, not the emotions. With no evidence, there is no proven truth to the case.

  19. #78
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristolhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Did he pejure himself regarding his drinking? That should now make him unelectable.

    J
    What exactly did he say in regards to his drinking? Did he openly state that he partook in any unlawful behaviour? If not, then what he said on the matter shouldn't be regarded as an issue. It's not a crime to drink alcohol. It's unlaw behavioural actions that may occur under the influence of alcohol. But just like the sexual assault accusations, there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any unlawful behaviour.

  20. #79
    @hibs.net private member CapitalGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How would they go about investigating something that is claimed to have occured so long ago? I don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy, I believe it was turned down because there wouldn't have been anything for them to try and cover up anyway.
    Interesting that you don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy but you are more than happy to believe and accuse the alleged victim of political opportunism.

  21. #80
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalGreen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Interesting that you don't believe the investigation was turned down because of some cover up conspiracy but you are more than happy to believe and accuse the alleged victim of political opportunism.
    I haven't accused the victim of anything. I gave an opinion based of what ive seen of this so far and the sheer lack of evidence means there is no longer a case to make.

    I've already said that the crime may well have happened. But without evidence, a lawful case can not take action. But is this a lawful case? I'm not so sure.

    How I feel about the matter is irrelevant anyway. The fact is, there is no evidence and people are allowing their emotions to get the better of them, by assuming guilt without evidence. Justice doesn't work that way. It has to be proven. That isn't even debatable.

  22. #81
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well to be honest, i'm not surprised that a full investigation was turned down. Because what exactly would there be to investigate? There is no evidence to suggest that this man commited the crimes that he is being accused of. If there was actual evidence and not just testimonies, then it would be a different matter.

    The problem with going by testimonies alone is that things can often be skewed by personal perspective, rather than plain fact. Was this man ever in trouble with the law? Did his alledged alcoholic aggression ever lead to any criminal prosecutions? If not, then that brings the testimonies against him into question.

    The crime may well have happened. But we shouldn't assume that it did, just because of the emotions driving the case. I agree that it's a difficult thing to prove, but it's damn impossible to prove if it's being suggested that it took place decades ago. Emotions should not win over a lack of evidence in a court of law. It doesn't matter how shocking the accusations are. Evidence needs to be provided, otherwise it's a closed case.
    There are regularly prosecutions into alleged crimes that happened in the past, including sexual ones. And sometimes the defendant is found guilty. Testimonies can play an important role in that. The point of an investigation is to look for evidence, whether testimony or anything else, and if you don't look, you don't know if it exists or not.

    There are plenty of belligerent drunks without convictions - most of us probably know at least one.

    Clearly neither he nor anyone else should be assumed guilty without fair, impartial and thorough investigation. He and his supporters have resisted that all along. Added to their reluctance to reveal his records to the committee as is normal, their evasiveness is suspect.

    He's applying for an extremely privileged and powerful position, and it's incumbent on him to prove he's of the right character for the job. Different standards apply. At the very least, the question of whether he has lied under oath deserves looking at. There are a decent number of people willing to testify that he has.
    Last edited by s.a.m; 01-10-2018 at 03:26 PM.

  23. #82
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There are regularly prosecutions into alleged crimes that happened in the past, including sexual ones. And sometimes the defendant is found guilty. Testimonies can play an important role in that. The point of an investigation is to look for evidence, whether testimony or anything else, and if you don't look, you don't know if it exists or not.

    There are plenty of belligerent drunks without convictions - most of probably know at least one.

    Clearly neither he nor anyone else should be assumed guilty without fair, impartial and thorough investigation. He and his supporters have resisted that all along. Added to their reluctance to reveal his records to the committee as is normal, their evasiveness is suspect.

    He's applying for an extremely privileged and powerful position, and it's incumbent on him to prove he's of the right character for the job. Different standards apply. At the very least, the question of whether he has lied under oath deserves looking at. There are a decent number of people willing to testify that he has.
    If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

    A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

    Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

    The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.

  24. #83
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

    A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

    Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

    The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.
    There is a potential witness, whose evidence has yet to be tested.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  25. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

    A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

    Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

    The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.
    You haven't answered s.a.m.'s point about lying under oath.

  26. #85
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is a potential witness, whose evidence has yet to be tested.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You haven't answered s.a.m.'s point about lying under oath.
    What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.

  27. #86
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



    What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.
    Witness testimonies aren't evidence?

    I'll just leave that there.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  28. #87
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Witness testimonies aren't evidence?

    I'll just leave that there.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Let me tell you a silly wee story from my primary school days.

    I was working in a small group of people in the classroom. About 7 or 8 people. Well anyway, somebody (not me) in the group belted out a swear word and when the teacher asked who was responsible, everybody else sitting around the table said it was me. I knew it wasn't me. I knew exactly who it was. But despite this, I got lumped with detention, while the person who was actually responsible got away with it scot free. Little bugger

    My point is. Testimonies can't be used to prove that something actually happened. Just because a group of people band together and claim that somebody is guilty of a crime, doesn't prove that they are guilty of that crime.

    Justice has to be unquestionable. If a person can be declared guilty without any definitive proof to suggest that they actually are, then it isn't justice. People making claims is not definitive proof of anything.

  29. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Witness testimonies aren't evidence. Anybody can claim that they were there, regardless of whether they actually were or not. Words aren't evidence. Evidence is material. It has to be proven that this crime was commited and somebody claiming they saw it, doesn't prove that it did.



    What do you think he lied about under oath? I asked sam what was said, as I didn't see what was actually said in the oath. But unless he admitted to any unlawful behaviour or actions, it's irrelevant. Unless of course he did actually lie, but this brings me back to my earlier point about the ridiculous situation where somebody is being forced to prove their innocence, as opposed to the accuser being able to prove guilt.
    Have you ever actually been in a courtroom? Testimony is absolutely key to whether a judge, sheriff or jury believes a defendant is guilty or not. If Kavanaugh says he was a moderate drinker and 2835385 credible witnesses explain how he was an immoderate drinker, the court will find that he was an immoderate drinker. The 2835385 won't have to bring in empty tinnies as evidence. Immoderate drinking is not a crime but he's not being tried for a crime, he's being judged for suitability for a post.

  30. #89
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes. Also your response doesn't add anything. If you think i'm wrong, then by all means explain why you think i'm wrong and why this wouldn't be the case.
    You think that there will be vast numbers of women who want to falsely accuse people of rape or sexual assault?

    Why do you think that?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  31. #90
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If there are no previous convictions, then how can a court of law gain a true assessment of his criminal history? Because as far as his criminal record is concerned, he has no criminal record.

    A group of people testifying against him, does not create a truth. They could all have their own reasons for doing so, either individually or collectively.

    Having problems with alcohol isn't a criminal offense. If legal action had been taken against him due to behaviour as a result of his alcohol problem, then there would be a respectable case to be made, but there isn't, as no legal action was ever taken against him as a result of drunken behaviour.

    The problem I have with this case is that it is nothing more than people's words against his own. There is no material evidence to back up any of it and if it had been a case involving some regular average joe, it would have been long thrown out by now due to the lack of credible evidence.
    A) It's not a court of law. I's a job interview. He's required to prove he's the right candidate for the job, and that he's of suitable character. He's not allowed to lie. It's against the law.

    B) Even if it was, you can try people who don't have existing convictions. The court examines the evidence, seeks out witnesses and their testimony, considers whether it is consistent or not, etc... They LOOK for the evidence. In the case of Savile, I think I'm right in saying that it was the testimonies of victims that convicted him. Clearly this is a different case, and nobody is suggesting that there is a body of people with similar experiences with Kavanaugh, but the idea that testimony is invalid as a prosecution tool is wrong. In the case of sexual assault, it usually takes place in private, and it is almost always one person's word (testimony) against another, with the jury having to decide which of the parties is more credible. In this case, there is an alleged witness who says he "doesn't recall". They refused to call him to testify to that under oath, because it would be unfair for him as a recovering alcoholic. Or something like that.

    C) The issue with his drinking isn't that he did it, but that he has lied about it under oath. That's perjury, which under normal circumstances would disqualify him. If he had said 'I had an issue with drinking when I was younger, but I saw the light, hauled my self up by the bootstraps and sorted myself out' that would have been one thing. That's not what he said. The issue of his behaviour when drunk is absolutely relevant. He has portrayed himself (under oath, again) as a light drinking, pious, hard-working, affable friend to all who couldn't possibly be capable of such aggression. People who lived and drank with him at the time have said, 'Actually, no. He was an extremely heavy drinker, and he was mean and aggressive when drunk.' At least on person has said he was sexually aggressive when drunk. These people are willing to go to court and say that. It's relevant because he has specifically said 'I am not capable of that behaviour, so it can't be true.' They are saying he is capable of aggressive behaviour, because they have seen it.

    D) Your last point: again, it's not a court case, to be thrown out or otherwise. The hearing happen under oath because of the nature of the job, not because it's a trial. He wants a job, and is trying to demonstrate that he's the right person for it. His character's been called into question by people who believe his behaviour isn't in keeping with someone seeking that position. There are plenty of other people who could do the job.
    Last edited by s.a.m; 01-10-2018 at 04:16 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved