Kreepy Kavanaugh

[Rightguide]

Why are you so keen on that? Maybe I was a bad law school student, and that accounts for the faults you perceive in my posts.



Well, thanks for that, I guess.

But I’ve got a question for you, RightGuide...

When you talk about convicting based on allegations, what about crimes where the only witness is the victim? Are you saying that a victim’s testimony must be corroborated in all cases and in all crimes? If so, what would you accept as corroborating evidence? If not, for what crimes is a victim’s testimony sufficient?

Thanks!

Read the second paragraph of my reply.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

She wouldn't be asking those dumb questions if she had.

what are you good at vettey because you say dumb shit all of the time.

 

[Oblimo]

Read the second paragraph of my reply.

Okay, I’ll read it again.

There’s a question I have for you, RightGuide, that you haven’t answered.


When you talk about convicting based on allegations, what about crimes where the only witness is the victim? Are you saying that a victim’s testimony must be corroborated in all cases and in all crimes? If so, what would you accept as corroborating evidence? If not, for what crimes is a victim’s testimony sufficient?

Thanks!

 

[Rightguide]

Okay, I’ll read it again.

There’s a question I have for you, RightGuide, that you haven’t answered.


When you talk about convicting based on allegations, what about crimes where the only witness is the victim? Are you saying that a victim’s testimony must be corroborated in all cases and in all crimes? If so, what would you accept as corroborating evidence? If not, for what crimes is a victim’s testimony sufficient?

Thanks!

The answer is encapsulated in my post. I explained fully what has to happen in order to find somebody guilty of a crime. Hardly a smidgen of which has been extended to Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[Que]

Okay, I’ll read it again.

There’s a question I have for you, RightGuide, that you haven’t answered.


When you talk about convicting based on allegations, what about crimes where the only witness is the victim? Are you saying that a victim’s testimony must be corroborated in all cases and in all crimes? If so, what would you accept as corroborating evidence? If not, for what crimes is a victim’s testimony sufficient?

Thanks!

What crime do you think anyone could ever be convicted of with nothing but a bald-faced, completely uncorroborated allegation? There's always some form of corroborating evidence. Can you place the accused at least near the scene and plausibly at the scene? No? Good luck.

 

[Oblimo]

The answer is encapsulated in my post. I explained fully what has to happen in order to find somebody guilty of a crime. Hardly a smidgen of which has been extended to Brett Kavanaugh.

This is like pulling teeth.

No, it is not encapsulated in your post. You just rattled off the standards at a trial at their most generic level. I have been asking you about a specific case, because you gathered up all the dudgeon you could muster and wrote this:

I believe anyone who would convict a man on an accusation alone is an ignorant useless human being with zero redeeming social value.

So I have been asking you if you think a victim’s testimony alone could ever be sufficient to meet the standards of criminal jurisprudence. And if no, why not?

 

[Que]

This is like pulling teeth.

No, it is not encapsulated in your post. You just rattled off the standards at a trial at their most generic level. I have been asking you about a specific case, because you gathered up all the dudgeon you could muster and wrote this:



So I have been asking you if you think a victim’s testimony alone could ever be sufficient to meet the standards of criminal jurisprudence. And if no, why not?

Because, counselor, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable, even when witnesses have no axe to grind and are trying to recall details accurately.

A large number of conviction reversals are those where eyewitnesses placed the wrong person at the scene. Even in those cases, some sort of corroboration was done. You can't just haul a witness into court and say this guy saw that guy rob the bank you have to be able to show that the witness was even in the bank. It's called laying a foundation for testimony, counselor.

As an example: even though Eric Holder who was Obama's attorney general desperately wanted to show that the original narratives about hands up don't shoot were accurate they found that not only could they not corroborate the witness statements they were able to show that thewiitnesses were not on scene in time and could not possibly have witnessed what they actually believed they had witnessed. I would not be a bit surprised if several of those "witnesses" could have passed the polygraph because I'm sure that they believed what they thought they saw. A crowd of people worked into a frenzy can easily believe that they saw things that they actually did not.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Brett Kavanaugh's notorious fraternity at Yale has company

The American Fraternity: An Illustrated Ritual Manual


Photographer Andrew Moisey spent seven years chronicling an unnamed fraternity for his new book, 'The American Fraternity: An Illustrated Ritual Manual


The inside look into an unnamed fraternity at the University of California, Berkeley

Moisey did the main bulk of his photographing starting in 2000 until 2006


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ew-photographs-document-intimate-moments.html


September 24, 2018


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ulture-photography-book?bfsource=ovthpcontrol

 

[Oblimo]

What crime do you think anyone could ever be convicted of with nothing but a bald-faced, completely uncorroborated allegation? There's always some form of corroborating evidence. Can you place the accused at least near the scene and plausibly at the scene? No? Good luck.

You’re spoiling my discussion with RightGuide.

RightGuide, don’t read the next sentence!

Google the “One Witness Rule,” or, start here: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Identification-One_Witness.pdf (urls don’t change color, it seems).

It’s actually a fascinating topic of legal history, going back to the Halakha (ancient Jews were obsessed with it almost as much as lashon hara) and even mentioned in the freakin’ Torah.

 

[Que]

You’re spoiling my discussion with RightGuide.

RightGuide, don’t read the next sentence!

Google the “One Witness Rule,” or, start here: IDENTIFICATION – ONE WITNESS
Revised Jan. 2008, 201

It’s actually a fascinating topic of legal history, going back to the Halakha (ancient Jews were obsessed with it almost as much as lashon hara) and even mentioned in the freakin’ Torah.

You STILL have to show how you KNOW that the ONE WITNESS was in a position to witness ANYTHING.

There are lots of things that can be done but are impractical. For example ai "no body" case. You can convict somebody of homicide; you can even sends them to death without ever having found the body if you can demonstrate that it is impossible that the person is not dead and that it is a certainty that that person was the person that killed them but there's some really high burdens of proof involved.

...and one witness with no circumstantial evidence collaborating that witness saying I saw this guy kill somebody and dispose of the body is never ever going to get a conviction.

Your citation is about the identification portion of building a case only. The "who" dunnit. A witness alone accusing a defendant is not a case. Ever.

There are lots of bits of circumstantial evidence that gets argued over at trial. Most of that goes to laying a foundation for the introduction of various types of evidence including other bits of circumstantial evidence and witness statements. Some of it goes to show state of mind of a defendant or a witness or the motivations of either.

Kavenaugh's accuser would not even make it to a grand jury. If you knew anything at all about criminal law you would know that.

 

[Oblimo]

Because, counselor, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable, even when witnesses have no axe to grind and are trying to recall details accurately.

Yet, eyewitness accounts remain a key element of criminal trials, and a jury can determine a witness’ crediblity. Unless you are suggesting that eyewitness testimony should no longer be admissible at criminal trials, because there’s enough evidence nowadays to prove they are more prejudicial than probative?

And, by the way, that is not what “laying a foundation” for evidence means. Evidentiary foundation is the minimum amount of facts needed to demonstrate that a particular piece of evidence is authentic enough and relevant enough that it can be admitted at trial.

 

[Oblimo]

You STILL have to show how you KNOW that the ONE WITNESS was in a position to witness ANYTHING.

Yes, and you can do so by asking the fucking witness where s/he was, you ignorant idiot.

...and one witness with no circumstantial evidence collaborating that witness saying I saw this guy kill somebody and dispose of the body is never ever going to get a conviction.

Okay, here’s a question that actually gets asked in rules of evidence law school classes (David Kelley even turned it into an episode of one of his interminable legal dramas, I think it was Picket Fences.)

What if all the prosecutor had was eyewitness testimony of the Pope?

And the crime the defendant is accused of an inchoate offense. (Usually, the question involves the Pope being the only witness to a shooting occurring in the crowd gathered to watch the Popemobile drive by. Yes, this question is really asked. But to prove you have no idea what you’re talking about, our hypthetical is a crime that leaves no physical evidence.)

A witness alone accusing a defendant is not a case. Ever.

Lol nope.

It is always a shitty case. Do your homework.

 

[Que]

Yet, eyewitness accounts remain a key element of criminal trials, and a jury can determine a witness’ crediblity. Unless you are suggesting that eyewitness testimony should no longer be admissible at criminal trials, because there’s enough evidence nowadays to prove they are more prejudicial than probative?

And, by the way, that is not what “laying a foundation” for evidence means. Evidentiary foundation is the minimum amount of facts needed to demonstrate that a particular piece of evidence is authentic enough and relevant enough that it can be admitted at trial.

You really love beating a dead horse.

Your words: Key ELEMENT of criminal trials.

You answer your own ignorant question.

No. No one is convicted by a witness statement alone. Ever. Juries love witnesses which is why the prosecution puts them on in jury trials. Not because they actually are any good at actually building a case. The case has to stand alone usually without any of the witness statements because more likely than not the witness statements are going to be refuted at trial at least on some sort of minor point. Because human beings are not video recorders.

Witnesses provide context for the actual, irrefutable evidence that is introduced. It's pretty shocking that you went through law school and that you think seem to think that an accusation is anything more than the impetus for doing the hard work involved with building the case containing ALL of the elements necessary to indict a person, much less convict them.

It gets even more complicated than that because for example there is no requirement whatsoever that you demonstrate what the person's motive for committing a crime was or how you know what that motive was absent a statement of motive by the actual defendant. However juries don't like to convict anyone if they don't have any idea why the person committed the crime.

If a case hinges primarily on witness testimony the defense tears the prosecution a new one by trotting out some expert witness showing how unreliable eitnesses are and inevitably you can find inconsistencies as well as things that are just not accurate in just about any witness statement.

We have that in the various inconsistencies proffered by various versions Ford told to the counselor, that the husband (with no contemporaneous notes to back him up..( do I have to explain contemporaneous notes to you, counselor?) In the letter, in the statements by her current lawyers as to something as basic as how many people were at the party and what their genders were. She would be destroyed on the witness stand by the most kind, sympathetic but competent examiner, which is why she doesn't want to testify. Her testimony is beyond worthless, because it is internally inconsistent and self-defeating.

 

[Oblimo]

Witnesses provide context for the actual, irrefutable evidence that is introduced. It's pretty shocking that you went through law school and that you think seem to think that an accusation is anything more than the impetus for doing the hard work involved with building the case containing ALL of the elements necessary to indict a person, much less convict them.

Okay, numbnuts.

Do you know what the crime of solicitation is?

Would you kindly tell me what the elements of the crime of solicitation are? Under common law or statue, your choice.

Do you think no one was ever convicted of solicitation before the invention of covert listening devices and audio recordings?

 

[Que]

Yes, and you can do so by asking the fucking witness where s/he was, you ignorant idiot.



Okay, here’s a question that actually gets asked in rules of evidence law school classes (David Kelley even turned it into an episode of one of his interminable legal dramas, I think it was Picket Fences.)

What if all the prosecutor had was eyewitness testimony of the Pope?

And the crime the defendant is accused of an inchoate offense. (Usually, the question involves the Pope being the only witness to a shooting occurring in the crowd gathered to watch the Popemobile drive by. Yes, this question is really asked. But to prove you have no idea what you’re talking about, our hypthetical is a crime that leaves no physical evidence.)



Lol nope.

It is always a shitty case. Do your homework.

*I'm* an idiot and you think a witness corroborates their own statement?

Really?

I think that the idea that you got your ideas about criminal law from watching Law & Order was overly generous. Your ideas about criminal law come from Perry Mason.

In this day and age, you better be able to show through cell phone records that that witness was exactly where they say they were and that the accused was as well.

Talk about moving the goal post. Just because you can construct a "shitty case "doesn't mean it's an actual case. By case I mean one that you could actually get a grand jury to indict and get a jury to consider convicting.

And no not even if the pope is the witness. Not even if you could resurrect Jesus Christ and put him on the stand if you can't show that Jesus Christ was in the room to witness the crime.

You've gone from asking whether a witness statement alone would ever be sufficient in our system of jurisprudence (which the answer is an unequivocal not only no, but he'll. No!) to, "Well yeah, but you can create a shity case that no one would ever bring the trial." That's why it's not acceptable in our system of jurisprudence, counselor.

 

[Que]

Okay, numbnuts.

Do you know what the crime of solicitation is?

Would you kindly tell me what the elements of the crime of solicitation are? Under common law or statue, your choice.

Do you think no one was ever convicted of solicitation before the invention of covert listening devices and audio recordings?

You keep moving the goalposts. You're saying that the witness statement stands alone that witness statement does not stand alone the person that was solicited can show by notes and her back-up partner(s) that she was on that corner at such-and such time and the accused was as well when she signalled her back up to arrest him.

No way in hell you try that case without a recording device based on only her testimony, no one observing her standing there, no one observing the John approaching and just for fun let's let 36 years elapsed and let's say that she could says on such-and-such date I remember standing on a corner and judge Kavanaugh solicited me. No case. At all.

I can see why law school held appeal for you you like to argue. I can also see why you never practiced as a trial lawyer, you're not very good at it.

In your world, a corrupt Vice Cop could file charges against any man and allege that he solicited her ...give false testimony that the person said such and such on such and such a date and somehow magically obtain a conviction without showing that the guy was ever even on the corner.

 

[von_Bismarck]

What a dumb desert transvestite.

 

[Oblimo]

*I'm* an idiot and you think a witness corroborates their own statement?

Really?

A witness can provide his or her own testimony’s foundation. They do it all the time.

In this day and age, you better be able to show through cell phone records that that witness was exactly where they say they were and that the accused was as well.

Why? Are people less reliable than they were before the invention of cell phones?

Talk about moving the goal post. Just because you can construct a "shitty case "doesn't mean it's an actual case. By case I mean one that you could actually get a grand jury to indict and get a jury to consider convicting.

Oh, you finally decided to define something. Thank God.

And no not even if the pope is the witness. Not even if you could resurrect Jesus Christ and put him on the stand if you can't show that Jesus Christ was in the room to witness the crime.

You've gone from asking whether a witness statement alone would ever be sufficient in our system of jurisprudence (which the answer is an unequivocal not only no, but he'll. No!) to, "Well yeah, but you can create a shity case that no one would ever bring the trial." That's why it's not acceptable in our system of jurisprudence, counselor.

So, let me see if I understsnd what you just said.

Your reasoning why you claim it is not acceptable in our system of jurisprudence —by which, you can only mean that if a prosecutor brings any criminal case and only provides a single eyewitness, the judge will dismiss the case (that is what you mean, right?) — is, and I quote,

Hell, no!

Gosh, you sure made me look stupid.

 

[Que]

A witness can provide his or her own testimony’s foundation. They do it all the time.



Why? Are people less reliable than they were before the invention of cell phones?



Oh, you finally decided to define something. Thank God.



So, let me see if I understsnd what you just said.

Your reasoning why you claim it is not acceptable in our system of jurisprudence —by which, you can only mean that if a prosecutor brings any criminal case and only provides a single eyewitness, the judge will dismiss the case (that is what you mean, right?) — is, and I quote,



Gosh, you sure made me look stupid.

You seem to be having a different conversation with yourself.

You keep going back to the statement about single witness and you keep leaving out -with absolutely zero corroboration as to how that witness relates to anything else in the case-

Nobody has said anything about there needing to be multiple witnesses. As far as I'm concerned you can have zero witnesses.

I have no idea why you're so hung up on the idea that one person's testimony could be probative. Certainly it can be. But standing by itself with nothing to support it and no frame of reference for that testimony it is meaningless. Your wanting it to be meaningful doesn't make it meaningful.

You are basically a long winded version of Sgt Spidey.

 

[Oblimo]

In your world, a corrupt Vice Cop could file charges against any man and allege that he solicited her ...give false testimony that the person said such and such on such and such a date and somehow magically obtain a conviction without showing that the guy was ever even on the corner.

First, it’s interesting you immediately connect solicitation with prostitution. I guess you are a victim of pop culture.

Anyway, so let me see if I understand your fact pattern:

At trial, the prosecution puts on the cop, who testifies he observed John offer Jane $20 for a blow job. And that’s the only evidence presented. Right?

Why didn’t the prosecution put Jane on the stand? It would be stupid not to.

Let’s say she’s dead.

Is that enough evidence to convict? Well, to do this right we’d have to actually walk through the elements of solicitation but it’s late and your not worth it.

The answer is yes. Does that mean that, gasp, bad guys can lie under oath and obtain false convictions? Why yes, it does.

But.

The defense puts John on the stand, who says he was home all day. Maybe John can offer some of this mysterious “corroborating evidence” that you think is somehow required for every piece of evidence introduced at a trial. Let’s say he has a receipt from Comcast showing he rented Teenaged Tit Freaks at time time the cop says he say John on the street corner. Defense lawyer says the cop must have mistaken John for someone else.

Tah-dah! Crisis everted. The system prevails despite the existence of crooked cops.

 

[Que]

First, it’s interesting you immediately connect solicitation with prostitution. I guess you are a victim of pop culture.

Anyway, so let me see if I understand your fact pattern:

At trial, the prosecution puts on the cop, who testifies he observed John offer Jane $20 for a blow job. And that’s the only evidence presented. Right?

Why didn’t the prosecution put Jane on the stand? It would be stupid not to.

Let’s say she’s dead.

Is that enough evidence to convict? Well, to do this right we’d have to actually walk through the elements of solicitation but it’s late and your not worth it.

The answer is yes. Does that mean that, gasp, bad guys can lie under oath and obtain false convictions? Why yes, it does.

But.

The defense puts John on the stand, who says he was home all day. Maybe John can offer some of this mysterious “corroborating evidence” that you think is somehow required for every piece of evidence introduced at a trial. Let’s say he has a receipt from Comcast showing he rented Teenaged Tit Freaks at time time the cop says he say John on the street corner. Defense lawyer says the cop must have mistaken John for someone else.

Tah-dah! Crisis everted. The system prevails despite the existence of crooked cops.

You really are unbelievably dense.

John cannot offer an alibi if the state can't pin down when Jane supposedly solicited him and where. And show evidence that Jane and or John probably both were even in that location at that time.

John doesn't have to alibi himself if the State cannot show throw evidence that the offense happened at a particular place and time. It's not up to John to prove he wasn't somewhere doing something until the state can prove that he was somewhere doing something. And a mere statement by witness saying they saw him do something at a particular time and place with a zero corroborating evidence will never win a case. Ever. No matter what your fantasies are about that.

 

[Oblimo]

You keep going back to the statement about single witness and you keep leaving out -with absolutely zero corroboration as to how that witness relates to anything else in the case-

Yes, because that’s what we’re talking about. The One Witness Rule — a situation in which the only evidence of a crime is the testimony of a single witness.

I’m leaving out “corroboration” because then we wouldn’t be talking about the One Witness Rule. “Corroborative” evidence, you nitwit, is itself evidence. It needs it’s own foundation and probative value. So the situation where there is one corroborated witness is not the same as a situation where the only evidence of crime is the testimony of s single witness.

That’s not moving goalposts. That’s sticking to the subject.

Holy fuck, I can’t believe I had to explain that to you.

Nobody has said anything about their needing to be multiple witnesses. As far as I'm concerned you can have zero witnesses.

Don’t move goalposts. We’re talking about whether a case where the only evidence is the testimony of a single witness can survive dismissal.

You are the one who keeps talking about “corroborating evidence” — more evidence than just the one witnesses testimony. And, honest to fuck, I don’t know why. Where are you getting the idea that evidence must be accompanied by “corroborating evidence?” Is there a statute of criminal procedure you can site? Some case law, maybe?

Anything? Anyone? Bueller?

But standing by itself with nothing to support it and no frame of reference for that testimony it is meaningless.

Bullshit. What makes you think that? The value of witness testimony, the value of any evidence submitted by the prosecution, is determined by the factfinder at trial, unless the defense can have it excluded.

Your wanting it to be meaningful doesn't make it meaningful.

Are you seriously telling me that you think eyewitness testimony isn’t meaningful?

 

[Oblimo]

John cannot offer an alibi if the state can't pin down when Jane supposedly solicited him and where. And show evidence that Jane and or John probably both were even in that location at that time.

You have the memory of a gnat. This is your hypothetical of a crooked cop making up evidence of John soliciting Jane.

What evidence is their than John and Jane were on the corner of Que Street and RightGuide Avenue on October 31st, 2017?

The crooked cop says he saw them.

John doesn't have to alibi himself if the State cannot show throw evidence that the offense happened at a particular place and time.

Remember your own damn hypothetical. Crooked cop testifies he saw them.

And a mere statement by witness saying they saw him do something at a particular time and place with a zero corroborating evidence will never win a case. Ever. No matter what your fantasies are about that.

You
Are
Wrong

At the very start of our conversation, I even gave you proof that you are wrong.

I gave you the link to the criminal court instructions of the State of New York that a judge is to read to the jury in the event that there is only one witness.


For fuck’s sake, the very first sentence of the instruction instructions says...

This charge is be used when identification is in issue and is premised solely on the testimony of one witness identifying the defendant as the person who committed the crime.

Why would the State of New York require a judge to give such instructions if the situation never arises?

Did you not follow the link? Did you not google “one witness rule”?

Have you been just making stuff up without anything to back you up?

Did you think I would be as stupid as you and do the same thing?

Bueller?

 

[Que]

Yes, because that’s what we’re talking about. The One Witness Rule — a situation in which the only evidence of a crime is the testimony of a single witness.

I’m leaving out “corroboration” because then we wouldn’t be talking about the One Witness Rule. “Corroborative” evidence, you nitwit, is itself evidence. It needs it’s own foundation and probative value. So the situation where there is one corroborated witness is not the same as a situation where the only evidence of crime is the testimony of s single witness.

That’s not moving goalposts. That’s sticking to the subject.

Holy fuck, I can’t believe I had to explain that to you.



Don’t move goalposts. We’re talking about whether a case where the only evidence is the testimony of a single witness can survive dismissal.

You are the one who keeps talking about “corroborating evidence” — more evidence than just the one witnesses testimony. And, honest to fuck, I don’t know why. Where are you getting the idea that evidence must be accompanied by “corroborating evidence?” Is there a statute of criminal procedure you can site? Some case law, maybe?

Anything? Anyone? Bueller?



Bullshit. What makes you think that? The value of witness testimony, the value of any evidence submitted by the prosecution, is determined by the factfinder at trial, unless the defense can have it excluded.



Are you seriously telling me that you think eyewitness testimony isn’t meaningful?

Ok, that's a wrap. You have gone full Sgt Spidey. Never go full Sgt. Spidey.

Yes. UNCORROBORATED testimony which by definition lacks any context or substantiation is in fact, meaningless.

You keep leaving off uncorroborated.

 

[Oblimo]

Ok, that's a wrap. You have gone full Sgt Spidey. Never go full Sgt. Spidey.

Yes. UNCORROBORATED testimony which by definition lacks any context or substantiation is in fact, meaningless.

You keep leaving off uncorroborated.

Oh my God.

I am saying you don’t need to corroborate testimony.

I gave you proof you don’t need to corrobarate testimony.

And you think putting the word “corrobarated” in a bigger font makes you right, somehow?