Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    People are under the impression that circumstantial evidence is weak. Most evidence is circumstantial only and has put plenty of criminals in jail.

    "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of factósuch as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime."

    Should we throw out all convictions which hinged on fingerprint evidence?
    Circumstantial evidence can be compelling and can prove a case but it is also inherently problematic. A lot of innocent people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

    A case is rightly judged on its own merits. The direct evidence so far contradicts prosecution's theory of the case. That's a major problem.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      It would be admissible. Sondland would be testifying to something spoken directly to him by a principle. It's confirmation or refutation of what the principle stated and is therefore admissible.

      The big problem with Sondland is that he has a tenuous relationship with the truth. His whole testimony is questionable. But that's still a bigger problem for prosecution than for defense. Sondland is the only witness to have direct contact with Trump. Without his assumption about Trump's intentions an already weak case gets a lot weaker.

      With his own admission that Trump denied a qpq, it's even more undermined.

      A weak circumstantial case going to an antagonistic jury and being watched by a highly skeptical public... this is going to make the OJ trial look like brilliant casework.
      It could be admissible for other reasons but not as proof that there was no quid pro quo. Itís like trying to prove trump had the biggest inauguration crowd by having a witness testify that trump had told him he had the biggest inauguration crowd. Itís hearsay.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Circumstantial evidence can be compelling and can prove a case but it is also inherently problematic. A lot of innocent people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

        A case is rightly judged on its own merits. The direct evidence so far contradicts prosecution's theory of the case. That's a major problem.
        If thereís overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing one way but itís contradicted by the direct evidence of an eye witness then which one is more reliable?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Circumstantial evidence can be compelling and can prove a case but it is also inherently problematic. A lot of innocent people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
          The same can be said concerning mistaken eyewitness testimony. Can't remember which jurist said it and to paraphrase "I'd trust the evidence of one bloody fingerprint over a dozen eyewitnesses."

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            The same can be said concerning mistaken eyewitness testimony. Can't remember which jurist said it and to paraphrase "I'd trust the evidence of one bloody fingerprint over a dozen eyewitnesses."
            Also considering how many eyewitness convictions have been overturned by DNA.

            Comment


            • It would also depend on the reliability of the eye witness. If the eye witness kept changing his story and "remembering" things that contradict his earlier testimony, then I would toss out his testimony.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It would also depend on the reliability of the eye witness. If the eye witness kept changing his story and "remembering" things that contradict his earlier testimony, then I would toss out his testimony.
                You have yet to grapple with the fact that Sondland's incriminating testimony is backed by other witnesses, including Taylor and Morrison, and that contemporaneous documentary evidence exists.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" ó Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  You have yet to grapple with the fact that Sondland's incriminating testimony is backed by other witnesses, including Taylor and Morrison, and that contemporaneous documentary evidence exists.

                  --Sam
                  And his story changes from one favorable to himself to one which paints him in a negative light. Now he's shown to be both disloyal to the US and a liar on the world stage.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    It would also depend on the reliability of the eye witness. If the eye witness kept changing his story and "remembering" things that contradict his earlier testimony, then I would toss out his testimony.
                    Not when Sondlandís revised story corroborated the testimonies of the other witnesses. And given that initially he seemed to be attempting loyalty to Trumpís bogus denials of a quid quo pro - until it was no longer credible to continue doing so.
                    ďHe felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.Ē - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      It could be admissible for other reasons but not as proof that there was no quid pro quo. Itís like trying to prove trump had the biggest inauguration crowd by having a witness testify that trump had told him he had the biggest inauguration crowd. Itís hearsay.
                      Granted - confirms or refutes the statement having been made, not its veracity.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                        If thereís overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing one way but itís contradicted by the direct evidence of an eye witness then which one is more reliable?
                        Child dies on third admission to ER for ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) poisoning. Mother is subsequently convicted on the circumstantial evidence (non-diagnostic test being the only one done - and no, that wasn't medical error). The only testimony contradicting the circumstantial was the husband's.

                        Nearly three years later (if memory serves) conviction overturned at prosecution's request and prosecution made a public apology. The overwhelming circumstantial evidence had been overwhelmingly wrong - even the cause of death was wrong. The child had died of natural causes and only because a younger sibling was stricken with the same rare disorder and Unsolved Mysteries aired the case did the truth come out.

                        We have trials so each case is heard on its own merits.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The same can be said concerning mistaken eyewitness testimony. Can't remember which jurist said it and to paraphrase "I'd trust the evidence of one bloody fingerprint over a dozen eyewitnesses."
                          Granted - but that's why we have trials.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                            Also considering how many eyewitness convictions have been overturned by DNA.
                            And circumstantial cases as well...

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • Anyone else remember this test?


                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seer, Today, 02:30 PM
                              6 responses
                              32 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by whag, Today, 02:17 PM
                              2 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Today, 01:58 PM
                              7 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:03 AM
                              64 responses
                              223 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 07:38 PM
                              40 responses
                              186 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X