hibs.net Messageboard

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 190

Thread: Kavanaugh

  1. #121
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    3,102
    This was a nice wee read after finishing work.

    So, we have no "physical" evidence, it's all down to testimonies.

    One side is happy to use the lie detector (as used by US law enforcement) and the other side refuses too... It's not a court of law it's just a glorified job interview etc etc...
    The side that don't want to be questioned under the watch of the lie detector are also blocking the making it an "official"enquiry where they'd be legally bound to the aforesaid questioning.


    I just wonder which side is the more believable?





    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #122
    @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
    You didn't address my point though. What is to stop any of that from happening?
    What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

    The requirement to swear an oath.

    The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

    The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

    The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

    The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

    The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

    Apart from all that, very little.

  4. #123
    @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
    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.
    It would be the job of a proper investigation to cross examine that. She wasn't in the room, so I would guess she would say that she knew both parties and believes her friend to be honest. It may also be that she would say that it would be typical behaviour on his part. We don't know, because they won't call witnesses. She made the statement via a lawyer in response to people involved in the situation misquoting her original statement, and saying she said it didn't happen.

    She is indeed a friend - it doesn't make her testimony irrelevant but her statement would be heard with the knowledge of that relationship
    The other two witnesses who 'don't recall' were good friends of Kavanaugh. Should we assume they're lying on his behalf?
    Last edited by s.a.m; 01-10-2018 at 05:50 PM.

  5. #124
    @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
    What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

    The requirement to swear an oath.

    The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

    The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

    The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

    The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

    The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

    Apart from all that, very little.
    Well to be honest, that doesn't really seem like much for somebody that could be doing hard time for a long time. The requirement to swear an oath? Well that's not going to mean anything to anyone who is already set on lying. Everybody in court swears an oath, but they can't all be telling the truth.

    Perjury is certainly a risk if they are found to be be lying. But if they're all saying the same thing, then how can it really be proven?

    Story contradictions occur in sitatuons where the group don't get an opportunity to fabricate a story between themselves, due to being kept seperate directly after a crime scene. But if it's something that is planned well in advance, then the likelyhood of contradictions occuring are far less likely. As they've already had all the time they've needed to string a story together, before accusing that person of a crime.

    How would the defence lawyers investigate the credibility of the witnesses? They're all claiming the same thing. The only evidence they have are their own testimonies, but that doesn't matter, because apparently that is all that is required in a court of law now.

    None of these things would necessarily get to the truth of the matter. If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.

  6. #125
    @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
    It would be the job of a proper investigation to cross examine that. She wasn't in the room, so I would guess she would say that she knew both parties and believes her friend to be honest. It may also be that she would say that it would be typical behaviour on his part. We don't know, because they won't call witnesses. She made the statement via a lawyer in response to people involved in the situation misquoting her original statement, and saying she said it didn't happen.

    She is indeed a friend - it doesn't make her testimony irrelevant but her statement would be heard with the knowledge of that relationship
    The other two witnesses who 'don't recall' were good friends of Kavanaugh. Should we assume they're lying on his behalf?
    Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.
    You've made several disapproving references to the 'current' or 'modern' legal system, or the system as it is 'now'. What makes you think it was ever different or better? It's always been about people believing or disbelieving other people. That's why it's called judgement. I don't believe there's any way to completely prevent your malicious conspiracy example succeeding, but you appear to be arguing for a standard of proof which would lead to very few guilty verdicts in cases of any sort. There's always people judging other people, with varying levels of evidence to support those judgements.

  8. #127
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.
    I understand where you are coming from to a degree, but as this is basically a job interview and no one has to be "guilty" they've just to be seen as the epitome of trustfullness, going back to my post above, which group of people are looking the most trustworthy/truthful... Those that are willing to take that lie detector examination or those that refuse too?

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Just Alf; 01-10-2018 at 06:10 PM.
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  9. #128
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What would deter people from making up evidence in court?

    The requirement to swear an oath.

    The law of perjury and the possibility of jail time.

    The likelihood of the witnesses' stories contradicting each other.

    The defence lawyers' investigation into the credibility of witnesses.

    The CPS/ PF investigation into the witnesses and their evidence.

    The cross examination by the defence team in a live court.

    Apart from all that, very little.
    I think our paths crossed in my previous life. I got PINS and needles reading that 😄

    Basic principles of criminal laws: eye witness testimony, everything else is circumstantial or heresay evidence.

    Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain heresay evidence 😄

  10. #129
    @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
    Well to be honest, that doesn't really seem like much for somebody that could be doing hard time for a long time. The requirement to swear an oath? Well that's not going to mean anything to anyone who is already set on lying. Everybody in court swears an oath, but they can't all be telling the truth.

    Perjury is certainly a risk if they are found to be be lying. But if they're all saying the same thing, then how can it really be proven?

    Story contradictions occur in sitatuons where the group don't get an opportunity to fabricate a story between themselves, due to being kept seperate directly after a crime scene. But if it's something that is planned well in advance, then the likelyhood of contradictions occuring are far less likely. As they've already had all the time they've needed to string a story together, before accusing that person of a crime.

    How would the defence lawyers investigate the credibility of the witnesses? They're all claiming the same thing. The only evidence they have are their own testimonies, but that doesn't matter, because apparently that is all that is required in a court of law now.

    None of these things would necessarily get to the truth of the matter. If would simply be the words of several people against your own and unless you could somehow prove your innocence, you'd be pretty much goosed. Because we now have a system of guilty until proven innocent.
    There's really no point discussing this any further with you. You're not going to accept anybody else's points and you just ignore the stuff you find too difficult.

    I used to train people to give evidence in court. If you think that lying in front of a magistrate, Sheriff or Judge is easy, you're very much mistaken, and that's just in a training room with barristers, QCs and PFs.

    Lying on your own behalf in a real court under cross examination by expert defence lawyers is incredibly difficult, and lying to stitch someone else up is much, much harder than that.

    Discrediting genuine witnesses is the defence team's stocking trade. Catching out liars in that pressurised environment is like shelling peas. You can believe whatever you want, of course, but you should be absolutely clear, the accused is sill innocent until proven guilty.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 01-10-2018 at 06:18 PM.

  11. #130
    @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 Saturday Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think our paths crossed in my previous life. I got PINS and needles reading that 😄

    Basic principles of criminal laws: eye witness testimony, everything else is circumstantial or heresay evidence.

    Your next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain heresay evidence 😄
    Aha! PINS! Now you have to reveal yourself to me.

    PM please. 👍
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  12. #131
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aha! PINS! Now you have to reveal yourself to me.

    PM please. 👍
    Will do. If I can work out how 😄

  13. #132
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,882
    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.
    This

  14. #133
    @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
    Nothing should ever be assumed from testimonies. That's why I make the argument that guilty verdicts should never be made on testimonies alone.
    Testimony is vital, FFS.

    A credible witness is worth much more than a fingerprint etc.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  15. #134
    @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 Saturday Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Will do. If I can work out how 😄
    Click on my name, then send message.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  16. #135
    @hibs.net private member HFC_NYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New York City
    Age
    44
    Posts
    264
    The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.

  17. #136
    @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
    Testimony is vital, FFS.

    A credible witness is worth much more than a fingerprint etc.
    How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

    Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.

  18. #137
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.
    I noticed that too.... Mind you, they're seperate issues and I've not seen any input from anyone re my posts on here.


    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  19. #138
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    3,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

    Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.
    Good points... Have you seen my earlier posts?

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  20. #139
    johnbc70
    Left by mutual consent!
    Quote Originally Posted by HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.
    Chuck Alex Salmond into the mix as well.

    But it reflects the political leanings of the board, so is kind of expected.

  21. #140
    @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
    Chuck Alex Salmond into the mix as well.

    But it reflects the political leanings of the board, so is kind of expected.
    QED

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  22. #141
    @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 HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.
    Is that even true?

    If it is, I think it's because most people haven't read the full Ronaldo allegation story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

    Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

    Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 01-10-2018 at 07:28 PM.

  23. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The attitude to Kavanagh on this thread versus the attitude to the thread on Cristiano Ronaldo is quite startling. The fact that Ronaldo is a popular/iconic figure means he gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas Kavanagh is Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, so he's automatically guilty.
    Ronaldo's not getting the benefit of the doubt from anyone who's read the Spiegel article.

  24. #143
    @hibs.net private member HFC_NYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New York City
    Age
    44
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it's because most people haven't read the full story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

    Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

    Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.
    I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

    Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.

  25. #144
    @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
    How can the credibility of a "witness" be worth more than hard physical evidence? More so, how is the credibility of a "witness" measured. Also, how can it be proven without doubt that the "witness" was even there in the first place?

    Telling me that they're crossed examined, doesn't really say much. Because it doesn't really explain how that is used to definitively determine the credibility of the person making the testimony.
    It can't. The prosecution and defence attempt to uncover any holes in the other side's evidence and / or testimonies. The jury decides which side is more credible, and if guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes they can't agree. It might be imperfect, but that's how it works. Lower standard of proof applies in civil cases, and in job interviews it's up to the candidate that they're the right person for the job.
    As has been said above, it would almost impossible to prosecute rape cases if the court couldn't rely on testimony. You'd be giving free reign to sex criminals if it wasn't allowed.

  26. #145
    johnbc70
    Left by mutual consent!
    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ronaldo's not getting the benefit of the doubt from anyone who's read the Spiegel article.
    Agreed, I am sure if she was interviewed and her story was the same as what has been written then people would change their mind.

    The 99% thing as well does not sound like something someone would make up.

  27. #146
    @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 HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

    Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.
    You're not saying that she's taken a bribe but go on to suggest that she might have. That's totally unfair.

    Kavanaugh certainly has something to gain from denying any wrongdoing. As do the Republicans.

    People seem to have conveniently forgotten that.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  28. #147
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is that even true?

    If it is, I think it's because most people haven't read the full Ronaldo allegation story yet and the woman in the case took money. She also hasn't been heard yet.

    Professor Ford has nothing to gain from her testimony and even Trump said she was a very credible witness.

    Kavanaugh has also clearly lied.
    I actually had the mid fortune to see some of her statement and to describe her as credible seems rather incredible to my amateur sleuthing.

    Her body language, croaky voice and ‘poor me’ look when recounting the alleged events struck me as staged as staged could be.

    I reckon if you had been forced to carry such a traumatic event around which you for so long and then to have to go through it again in public you would much more likely to be a bit angry and annoyed, esp. with people openly doubting you rather than be a ‘poor me’ type.

    Anyhoo as I said earlier it seems impossible to prove or disprove such a vague allegation (not sure of date, not sure who else was at party, not sure where it was, not sure who drove her home etc etc) be it true or not.

    Add in the political element and there is zero chance of an accurate answer to any of this.

  29. #148
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    196
    I watched his testimony and he did well until he started flicking his notes in a hissy fit.

    He did not show any dignity and wisdom becoming of a senior judge, rather the actions of a man caught.

    Yet another sham US Trump favoured tawdry Americana.

  30. #149
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    22,700
    Sounds like a bit too much red, red wine goes to his head.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...oncert-731781/

  31. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by HFC_NYC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not suggesting that she has taken a bribe, but I would be interested to see her bank accounts after this is all over. She actually does have something to gain, something that her and her fellow Democrats all aspire to.......preventing a conservative judge making it to the Supreme Court. From the very beginning, the Democrats said they would do everything they could to stop the confirmation, and with politicians being the sleazebags they are, it's not out with the realms of reality that the story could have been fabricated with the aim of derailing Cavanagh's confirmation.

    Had her story not leaked to the media, the matter could have been investigated privately, and she could have remained anonymous. If as it appears, it was the Democrats who leaked the story, then they are the ones who have abused Christine Ford.
    Her story could have been fabricated? So she made this up years ago when she told her therapist, her husband, some close friends about this, all just in case Kavanaugh was years later going to be nominated for the Supreme Court?

    Your earlier points have been answered or debunked and you continue to stick your head in the sand and blame the nasty Democrats. Think you'd be better sticking to Fox News than Hibs.net.

    Do you still think Kavanaugh is a fit candidate for this position?

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