DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - More evidence that a woman's word is sacred in court

**unlomarma** · 07-27-2012, 08:20 PM

My question is where was the evidence of conviction?

Last time I posted a thread on the Brian Banks case, I was told that the conviction rate for rape is low because a lot of cases wind up as 'he said, she said' without any evidence.

Here, there was no evidence but 'she said'. And yet, conviction.

Explain please.

Alby

1. In any given case anything an freaking happen and it's impossible to design a justice system where some errors will not be made. It's not just rape cases as DNA reversed murder cases and witnesses and evidence can be mistaken or misunderstood in any type of case. We set the bar as beyond all reasonable doubt and judges hammer that home .... Lots of guilty go free because of that standard

2. In a rape case the evidence is often he said she said but a rape trial is a gruelling thing for an accuser/victim where you know a trained defense attorney will try to portray her as drunk, stoned, mistaken , lying ***** ice queen, slut, or whatever else will damage her credibility. Before that the police and prosecutors will generally have been over her story with a fine tooth comb looking for the problems with her credibility too. Those folks are generally busy folks with no desire to push forward anything that isn't real.

3. Here I understand that a jury heard at least two unrelated women tell a similar story about the same night. To most juries, and to most reasonable people generally, if you hear the exact same account from two different eyewitness sources with no connection or collaboration, you become reasonably certain that it's factual and accurate,

Of course there are some liars out there. But sometimes there is no lie and a jury believes a victim because she is telling the simple truth. And a jury's empowered to find a witness credible. In that case if they believe testimony, they may convict. In this case, even If the accused did the act, he would have been far more likely to get away with it if there was only one accusing witness. With two accusers, his chances were slim unless he had SOMETHING big in his favor

07-27-2012, 08:20 PM	#20
unlomarma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 360 Senior Member	My question is where was the evidence of conviction? Last time I posted a thread on the Brian Banks case, I was told that the conviction rate for rape is low because a lot of cases wind up as 'he said, she said' without any evidence. Here, there was no evidence but 'she said'. And yet, conviction. Explain please. Alby 1. In any given case anything an freaking happen and it's impossible to design a justice system where some errors will not be made. It's not just rape cases as DNA reversed murder cases and witnesses and evidence can be mistaken or misunderstood in any type of case. We set the bar as beyond all reasonable doubt and judges hammer that home .... Lots of guilty go free because of that standard 2. In a rape case the evidence is often he said she said but a rape trial is a gruelling thing for an accuser/victim where you know a trained defense attorney will try to portray her as drunk, stoned, mistaken , lying ***** ice queen, slut, or whatever else will damage her credibility. Before that the police and prosecutors will generally have been over her story with a fine tooth comb looking for the problems with her credibility too. Those folks are generally busy folks with no desire to push forward anything that isn't real. 3. Here I understand that a jury heard at least two unrelated women tell a similar story about the same night. To most juries, and to most reasonable people generally, if you hear the exact same account from two different eyewitness sources with no connection or collaboration, you become reasonably certain that it's factual and accurate, Of course there are some liars out there. But sometimes there is no lie and a jury believes a victim because she is telling the simple truth. And a jury's empowered to find a witness credible. In that case if they believe testimony, they may convict. In this case, even If the accused did the act, he would have been far more likely to get away with it if there was only one accusing witness. With two accusers, his chances were slim unless he had SOMETHING big in his favor
	Quote