hibs.net Messageboard

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 190

Thread: Kavanaugh

  1. #91
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

    There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #92
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    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.
    How do they go about investigating any historical crime? 4 years ago, Angus Sinclair was convicted of the World's End murders which took place in 1977.

    He was initially tried in 2007 and was acquitted. The police carried on their investigation and finally brought him to justice in 2014.

    He'd still be at large if the police had your attitude.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  4. #93
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

    There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.
    So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

    You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  5. #94
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    He said he was never blackout drunk. Friends and witnesses say he regularly got blackout drunk.

    Hell, I get blackout drunk! Should he be barred for getting drunk?
    But by saying to a Senate Comittee that he has never been blackout drunk is committing perjury.

    J

  6. #95
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?
    If there's ulterior motives or personal gain to be had, then why not? Remember, this women's case is being backed by a party who is a direct rival to the party in which the accused is affiliated with. They do not want him getting that position, regardless of whether he's actually guilty of any crime or not. So they're throwing money at this case to ensure that it's on going until they get the outcome they want. It doesn't have to be the right outcome, it just has to be the right outcome for them.

    Now i'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm just throwing the very realistic possibility out there that this is not all that it seems.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We're not talking about over 2 million people here though, are we? We are talking about a handful of people. Surely a guilty verdict needs to go beyond what the judge merely believes and it should leave zero questionable doubt in his/her mind?

    There is always doubt when you're basing an entire case on words alone. Words are not hard evidence and nobody should ever be found guilty based on other peoples words alone, espeically if there is considerable reason for their to be ulterior motives by the people making the testimonies, such as political party affiliation.
    Words are evidence. Words written in an e-mail, words on a piece of paper, words out of a witness's gob.

    Take a wander along to your local small claims court sometime, and you'll see that many, if not most, of the cases there are settled by the sheriff on the basis of whose testimony he or she prefers.

  8. #97
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    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.
    Witness testimony is absolutely crucial evidence.

    If 2 people say they saw you commit the crime, if you can't prove them wrong, you'll be found guilty.

    There doesn't have to be an actual smoking gun.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  9. #98
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

    You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    You're throwing emotions into this by saying "if someone close to you". Whether it's somebody close to me or not is irrelevant. Justice has to take it's course and just because you want somebody to be found guilty, doesn't mean they should be found guilty if the crime can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Somebody claiming they saw what happened doesn't do that.

  10. #99
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Witness testimony is absolutely crucial evidence.

    If 2 people say they saw you commit the crime, if you can't prove them wrong, you'll be found guilty.

    There doesn't have to be an actual smoking gun.
    How do you prove that you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

    If 2 people come out and say you did do it, when they can't prove that you did. Is it fair for you to be found guilty on that alone? Just because you can't prove you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

    Being found guilty in a case where absolutely nothing can be proven by anyone?

    That's ludicrous.

  11. #100
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're throwing emotions into this by saying "if someone close to you". Whether it's somebody close to me or not is irrelevant. Justice has to take it's course and just because you want somebody to be found guilty, doesn't mean they should be found guilty if the crime can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Somebody claiming they saw what happened doesn't do that.
    So leave out that bit.

    Apply that scenario to any assault case. Would you expect an acquittal ?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  12. #101
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    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.
    He's not in a criminal court. It doesn't matter if he committed a crime if not.

    This is about his character and his suitability for the job.

    If he's been lying, he should be discarded.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  13. #102
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So leave out that bit.

    Apply that scenario to any assault case. Would you expect an acquittal ?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    No, the way the justice system works now, I would expect them to face a guilty verdict. But it's not a system that I personally agree with. Accusations alone are ultimately meaningless if there is no substantial evidence to back up what is being said. Regardless of whether it's 2, 3, 4, 5....etc people claiming that it happened.

    What is to stop a band of acquaintances getting together, sending you to court and getting you put away for a crime you had bugger all to do with? They don't need to provide any actual evidence that you had anything to do with the crime, they all just need to agree to tell the judge the same thing and that's apparently good enough in the modern justice system.

  14. #103
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He's not in a criminal court. It doesn't matter if he committed a crime if not.

    This is about his character and his suitability for the job.

    If he's been lying, he should be discarded.
    I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.

  15. #104
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, the way the justice system works now, I would expect them to face a guilty verdict. But it's not a system that I personally agree with. Accusations alone are ultimately meaningless if there is no substantial evidence to back up what is being said. Regardless of whether it's 2, 3, 4, 5....etc people claiming that it happened.

    What is to stop a band of acquaintances getting together, sending you to court and getting you put away for a crime you had bugger all to do with? They don't need to provide any actual evidence that you had anything to do with the crime, they all just need to agree to tell the judge the same thing and that's apparently good enough in the modern justice system.
    I think your childhood experience has soured your view of justice. Ever considered hypnotherapy to help with that?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  16. #105
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.
    Lying about his drinking in college. There have been more accusations today about that. Of course, they need to be tested appropriately.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  17. #106
    johnbc70
    Left by mutual consent!
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So if someone close to you was assaulted, and a witness stood up in Court to say that they saw what happened and who did it.... And that witness was properly cross-examined.... And that was the only evidence....

    You'd expect a not-guilty verdict?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

    Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it? Or you making a more general point?

  18. #107
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If there's ulterior motives or personal gain to be had, then why not? Remember, this women's case is being backed by a party who is a direct rival to the party in which the accused is affiliated with. They do not want him getting that position, regardless of whether he's actually guilty of any crime or not. So they're throwing money at this case to ensure that it's on going until they get the outcome they want. It doesn't have to be the right outcome, it just has to be the right outcome for them.

    Now i'm not saying this is definitely the case. I'm just throwing the very realistic possibility out there that this is not all that it seems.
    You don't think much of women, do you?

    Floodgates of them falsely accusing innocent upstanding men for financial gain. Besoms, the lot of them.

    Research has shown that only 4% of allegations have been shown to be false. So 96 out of every hundred are genuine and only 4 are malicious.That's too many, but I absolutely guarantee that there are far far more men who get away with rape and sexual assault than women who make false accusations.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 01-10-2018 at 04:32 PM.

  19. #108
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How do you prove that you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

    If 2 people come out and say you did do it, when they can't prove that you did. Is it fair for you to be found guilty on that alone? Just because you can't prove you didn't do something over 30 years ago?

    Being found guilty in a case where absolutely nothing can be proven by anyone?

    That's ludicrous.
    What are you saying? Ignore witness testimony?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  20. #109
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbc70 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

    Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it?
    The guy who is alleged to have been present has made a written submission to the committee, saying that he has no memory of that. The argument is that that needs to be tested in person, or at least now investigated more fully by the FBI.

    If the FBI establish he was there, then his testimony is crucial, either for or against the accuser.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Last edited by CropleyWasGod; 01-10-2018 at 04:32 PM.

  21. #110
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'll ask again. Lying about what? I'm not quite sure what people are accusing him of lying about. If it's about the sexual assault allegations, then again, the onus shouldn't be on him to prove his innocence, it should be on the accuser to prove his guilt. At least, that's how the justice system used to work when it at least had some credibility.
    There's a lot about it on that BBC News channel you mentioned. Not to mention this thread.

    His classmate says he lied about his drinking. Under oath.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  22. #111
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lying about his drinking in college. There have been more accusations today about that. Of course, they need to be tested appropriately.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    When you say tested, what do you mean? How do they test what is being said to determine if what is being said is valid or not?

  23. #112
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When you say tested, what do you mean? How do they test what is being said to determine if what is being said is valid or not?
    By establishing circumstantial evidence to support or detract from it.

    And by proper cross examination in a court of law or similar.



    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  24. #113
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbc70 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is this not different in that nobody has said they witnessed the assault? In this case there were 3 people in the room, but 2 of these people deny ever being there.

    Using your example who is the witness who said they saw it? Or you making a more general point?

    I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.

  25. #114
    johnbc70
    Left by mutual consent!
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.
    That other women is her best friend is it not? Or was her best friend at the time.

    Although if she never told anyone at the time then to her friend it was just another night out and nothing remarkable.

  26. #115
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't think much of women, do you?

    Floodgates of them falsely accusing innocent upstanding men for financial gain. Besoms, the lot of them.

    Research has shown that only 4% of allegations have been shown to be false. So 96 out of every hundred are genuine and only 4 are malicious.That's too many, but I absolutely guarantee that there are far far more men who get away with rape and sexual assault than women who make false accusations.
    No, I don't think much of the human race. I think we live in a very opportunistic world these days where both men and women will do just about anything to get ahead.
    I know it's shocking. But believe it or not, even women are capable of lying for their own personal gain. Just take a look at the woman who dipped her hands into the Grenfell funds. There are women out there, just like men, who have absolutely no scruples about inflicting misery on other peoples lifes if it betters their own.

    When was this reseach conducted? I would also like a breakdown of how it was conducted and how the final figure was calculated. If it was merely calculeted by guilty/non-guilty verdicts, then all that tells me is that women have a 96% chance of getting a man convicted of rape, even in situations where it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  27. #116
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.m View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think two of them have said they don't recall. A woman whose name was given by Ford has said she doesn't recall the gathering, but would like to make clear, in response to incorrect reports, that she didn't say that it didn't happen. She says she believes the accuser.
    This is the problem though. Because she said she "believes the accuser". That will actually be taken into consideration, despite her saying that she doesn't actually recall anything happening.

    You'd think that if she was actually there at the time, that she would have remembered. You don't forget about somebody being sexually assaulted , no matter how much time has passed.

  28. #117
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, I don't think much of the human race. I think we live in a very opportunistic world these days where both men and women will do just about anything to get ahead.
    I know it's shocking. But believe it or not, even women are capable of lying for their own personal gain. Just take a look at the woman who dipped her hands into the Grenfell funds. There are women out there, just like men, who have absolutely no scruples about inflicting misery on other peoples lifes if it betters their own.

    When was this reseach conducted? I would also like a breakdown of how it was conducted and how the final figure was calculated. If it was merely calculeted by guilty/non-guilty verdicts, then all that tells me is that women have a 96% chance of getting a man convicted of rape, even in situations where it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    I think the majority of rape prosecutions fail.

    If you're interested in the research, click on the highlighted words "Home Office" then "Studies" in this article.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8077876.html

    This story is also worth reading.

    Yes, there’s a major problem with rape prosecutions. But it’s not that women are lying

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y_to_clipboard

  29. #118
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the majority of rape prosecutions fail.

    If you're interested in the research, click on the highlighted words "Home Office" then "Studies" in this article.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8077876.html

    This story is also worth reading.

    Yes, thereís a major problem with rape prosecutions. But itís not that women are lying

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y_to_clipboard
    Cheers for the links, will give them a look.

  30. #119
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think your childhood experience has soured your view of justice. Ever considered hypnotherapy to help with that?

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening?

  31. #120
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening?
    The laws surrounding perjury.

    Proper examination of witness testimonies before they get to court.

    Proper cross examination when they get there.




    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

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