Moore or Strange?

[AUDub 11,148]

 

[AUDub 11,148]

Speaking of Louis CK

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

I’ve literally acknowledged this three times at least. Just because this isn’t the court system, that doesn’t mean we can assume guilt

Maybe you have acknowledged it, but you keep framing the conversation in the context of a criminal conviction. It's not up to us to decide guilt - that's for twelve jurors to decide. Therefore, I'm not assuming his guilt. I've never said he's guilty or that I think he's guilty. I've said that based upon what I know, I think it's more likely than not that there is some truth to the women's stories. And, based upon that, I believe these women should be listened to. As an extension, I would choose not to vote for him (if I were already planning on it). People choose to vote for and not vote for politicians based upon much, much less. 

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

If evidence is scarce to meet burden of proof in conviction, it’s also scare in acquittal. But whatever, hope you never get wrongly accused of anything. ?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. There is only one burden - that burden is on the prosecution and its the highest burden in our justice system.

 Theoretically, the defense doesn't have to put on a case at all. That's our right - we don't have to put up a single piece of evidence in our defense. It's just not required. Rightly so, as we are all innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. So, it doesn't matter whether evidence in an individual's defense is scarce. So long as the prosecution can't meet their burden, you're still innocent. As I've said, in he said she said cases the prosecution is much, much less likely to meet their burden and so defendants are much less likely to ever need to offer mitigating evidence. 

In the rare instance that someone wrongly accused me and somehow had enough evidence to meet that burden - yes, I hope that never happens to me. It's terrifying, but again - because this is not a criminal case, that's not happening here. 

Again, I'm not asking that we string Moore up from his toes. I don't know what happened. But, I'm not a juror. I'm not bound to "beyond a reasonable doubt." And, frankly, a jury would be unlikely to convict Moore based upon what we know. That's beside the point. 

 

[AUDub 11,148]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453622/roy-moore-should-drop-out

Quote

The Washington Post published allegations on Thursday that, when he was in his 30s, Alabama Republican Roy Moore dated teenage girls, including a 14-year-old he touched sexually.

 

The accusations are very old, going back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. There is almost certainly no way to independently confirm them, and Moore denies them strenuously. But the allegations are credible. There are four women who spoke on the record to the Washington Post about their encounters with Moore.

 

What three of them describe is gross, but not criminal. Moore took an interest in them at a young age, tending to find them at a local mall (one was working as a Santa’s helper when Moore first sought her out). Then, Moore either asked them out, or went on dates with them when they were aged 16 to 18, with the permission of their mothers. One of them says Moore kissed her, but didn’t force himself on her.

 

More disturbing is the story of the girl who was 14 years old, Leigh Corfman, now 53. She says that Moore partly undressed her at his house, touched her sexually, and tried to get her to do the same to him. He stopped and took her home when she asked, but if Moore did what is described, he committed a crime. The Post confirmed that Corfman told two friends at the time that she was seeing an older man, and confirmed through court documents that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse at the time that Corfman said Moore first approached her there.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, Barnacle said:

Maybe you have acknowledged it, but you keep framing the conversation in the context of a criminal conviction.

No, I’m saying that because there is usually scarce evidence for burden of proof, there is also scarce evidence for acquittal. Why should we expect Roy to provide proof from forty years ago that he didn’t do it or step aside? 

8 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I've said that based upon what I know, I think it's more likely than not that there is some truth to the women's stories.

Maybe “some” truth. Maybe there is no truth in it. Maybe he did kiss the 18 year old; That would have been legal after all. Maybe he didn’t make the  14 year old touch him. A corraborated story from a liberal bastion is all you really know at this point.

 

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. There is only one burden - and that burden is on the prosecution

Not according to the “burden of proof” in elections.” Apparently, it’s up to the defense to provide proof from forty years ago or else step aside and no longer run in the election. 

 

17 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

So long as the prosecution can't meet their burden, you're still innocent

Tell that to the Duke Lacrosse men that were falsely accused of raping the woman. They were slandered by “journalism” until the Court’s corrected the action. 

19 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

It's terrifying, but again - because this is not a criminal case, that's not happening here. 

Criminal case or not, if your character was defamed, it would still be terrible all around. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

No, I’m saying that because there is usually scarce evidence for burden of proof, there is also scarce evidence for acquittal. Why should we expect Roy to provide proof from forty years ago that he didn’t do it or step aside? 

And I'm telling you that no matter the evidence - the burden never shifts to the Defendant. The burden is ALWAYS on the accuser. The Defendant has no burden. They aren't required to prove that they aren't guilty. Therefore in a purely he-said she-said case, the Defendant will almost never be convicted, save for questions of credibility. 

Duke Lacrosse happened because of what a lying sack of s*** prosecutor did. That was a failure in the Durham County D.A. office first and foremost. 

I'm not telling you what to believe, Jeff.

[Barnacle 9,064]

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Maybe “some” truth. Maybe there is no truth in it. Maybe he did kiss the 18 year old; That would have been legal after all. Maybe he didn’t make the  14 year old touch him. A corraborated story from a liberal bastion is all you really know at this point.

Maybe there isn't truth in it. I've never claimed to know what happened. How could I? What am I doing that is upsetting you so much? I'm taking what I know, weighing it against what I don't know and making a voting decision. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

And I'm telling you that no matter the evidence - the burden never shifts to the Defendant. The burden is ALWAYS on the accuser. The Defendant has no burden. They aren't required to prove that they aren't guilty. Therefore in a purely he-said she-said case, the Defendant will almost never be convicted, save for questions of credibility. 

Not in a criminal case mind you, but he can’t defend himself with evidence because it happened 40 years ago but his own peers are saying provide proof or stop running. So, again,  is this going to be the go-to tactic, 1) make s*** up 2) finger wave 3) say “not so fast, this isn’t court, eye don’t have to provide any such burden of proof?

[Barnacle 9,064]

7 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Not in a criminal case mind you, but he can’t defend himself with evidence because it happened 40 years ago but his own peers are saying provide proof or stop running. So, again,  is this going to be the go-to tactic, 1) make s*** up 2) finger wave 3) say “not so fast, this isn’t court, eye don’t have to provide any such burden of proof?

I'm not asking him to provide proof or stop running. If its true, he should absolutely stop running and that's up for him to reconcile within his own heart. 

Is this going to be? This "has been" for the history of politics. Voters, take the information you have and make a choice. I don't think any of us will be surprised when voters decide in his favor next month.

But, what alternative do we have? Do we stifle free speech in the absence of clear and convincing evidence? Do we silence victims in public under the assumption that they are lying until proven otherwise? It's not perfect. If these accusations are false, then shame on these women. This is the cost of living in a free society. The beauty is that we each get to decide for ourselves what to do. 

I don't fault anyone for skepticism. I don't fault anyone for deciding for themselves, there isn't enough for me to consider these claims credible. But I'm not going to criticize our society for giving victims a platform to speak out - even if it gives liars the same opportunity. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I'm taking what I know, weighing it against what I don't know and making a voting decision. 

Okay, time-out, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as defending Moore. I’m also not getting upset about anything. Eye haven’t crossed any lines with you and haven’t attacked your intelligence here. However, what you think you know is a narrative by wapo, and the facts that are given to you within that narrative are still relatively unverified today. If that sways your vote, I’d say you should sell your house and let’s go surfing Nebraska.

[Barnacle 9,064]

8 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Okay, time-out, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as defending Moore. I’m also not getting upset about anything. Eye haven’t crossed any lines with you and haven’t attacked your intelligence here. However, what you think you know is a narrative by wapo, and the facts that are given to you within that narrative are still relatively unverified today. If that sways your vote, I’d say you should sell your house and let’s go surfing Nebraska.

Surf's up, dude.

[aujeff11 6,243]

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I'm not asking him to provide proof or stop running.

His own party is.

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Is this going to be? This "has been" for the history of politics.

Link?

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Do we stifle free speech in the absence of clear and convincing evidence?

Nope.

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Do we silence victims in public under the assumption that they are lying until proven otherwise?

Nope, but maybe not bury Roy Moore’s character in the meantime? Tell Ben to put his shovel down...

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

If these accusations are false, then shame on these women

Yep, because they’ll be forgotten while Moore’s character would never recover.

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

But I'm not going to criticize our society for giving victims a platform to speak out - even if it gives liars the same opportunity.

I️Eye don’t think anybody is criticizing society. The victims need to speak out and give justice a fair shot before attacking the character forty years later.  But whatever. I’ve spent too much time on this already.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Surf's up, dude.

Hey, they do have a surfing simulator pool at Pawnee Plunge in Nebraska, so I'm in. 

[AUDub 11,148]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453629/roy-moore-and-occams-razor

The Washington Post quotes seven women who either describe Senate candidate Roy Moore pursing a sexual relationship with them as teenagers, or hearing from the other girls about Moore’s actions sometime before he became a major celebrity.

The Post article focuses on Leigh Corfman, who was 14 at the time and describes “sexual contact beyond kissing,” perhaps the most polite description possible given the details in the article. The article also quotes Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. The Post claims that it has interviewed two of Corfman’s friends from that time who corroborated parts of her accusation. The newspaper found three other women describing Moore pursuing relationships with them in their teen years:

Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on the first of several dates that did not progress beyond kissing. Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rosé wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19.

The Post was able to corroborate some details of Corfman’s story, including her attendance in the court building during her mother’s divorce. The reporters claim they came to the women, not vice versa. For what it’s worth, Corfman said she’s voted Republican in recent years.

If you believe Moore’s denials, you have to believe that four of these women, with no evidence that they know each other or ever met each other, all decided to lie when the Washington Post showed up at their door, that they all spontaneously made up a story that they were able to recount in detail in multiple retellings to reporters over a period of weeks, and they all chose to make up similar stories about Moore’s sexual pursuit.

The angry statement from Moore called the women’s claims “completely false” but so far, no one has been able to point to any contradictions, incongruence, or demonstrably false claims within their stories. For example, if events did not occur as they describe, did Moore know these women? Did he ever interact with them? Was he not in the time and place they described in their stories? Did he ever have an interaction with them that would provide a potential motive to make a false accusation against them? Did he ever rule against any of them, or a member if their families or a friend in his years as a judge? If a part of the accusers’ story does not check out, it changes the calculus of this story. But so far we just have a blanket denial with no further details.

A variation of Occam’s Razor declares that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. You can either believe that Moore behaved in the way the women describe – accounting for any faults of memory in the forty or so years since then – or you can believe that they all chose, spontaneously, to partake in an elaborate conspiracy to destroy his reputation, an effort that they no doubt understood would lead to making enemies. For example, yesterday a state representative called for the criminalprosecution of the women making the claims, not Moore.

Most, but not all, people across the political spectrum recognize that an adult pursuing a sexual relationship with a teenager is wrong today, and it was wrong in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We can argue what the age of consent ought to be, and we can have a separate discussion about whether our society has a glaring double standard, sometimes laughing off tales of adult women teachers having sexual relationships with male students, while prosecuting adult men having sexual relationships with teenage girls. But society has the good sense to realize that teenagers are often not the best decision-makers when it comes to sex. Hormones and desire can easily outpace their judgment. Fully-grown adults need to be barred from exploiting teenagers’ naiveté and inexperience in human relationships.

The lawmaker calling for the legal prosecution of the women making the claims, State Rep. Ed Henry, declared, “If they believe this man is predatory, they are guilty of allowing him to exist for 40 years. I think someone should prosecute and go after them. You can’t be a victim 40 years later, in my opinion.”

That claim is nonsense. At the time, Roy Moore was an assistant district attorney. How many teenage girls could bring themselves to make such a consequential accusation against a powerful man who can prosecute someone? Secondly, Henry is demonstrating the precise reason that victims of abuse are hesitant to come forward: the abuser will almost certainly deny it, call the victim a liar, and the allies of the abuser will join in to denounce the accuser. It is not the least bit surprising that a victim of inappropriate sexual behavior would hesitate to discuss it publicly for many, many years.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Homie...please do not try and speak for anyone. Just dont. There were literally 100s in the press corps at the time shouting "its just sex." Your remarks are so assinine sometimes they dont even deserve a response. <smgdh> 

Let's see some evidence that shows Democrats were indifferent or supportive for what Clinton did. They were mostly horrified.

But speaking out against impeachment is a completely different matter.  

This is the serious political thread, if you don't have anything just admit it.  Cheap efforts to reframe the argument is for the trash talk thread. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Lawyer Jeff: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, are we really willing to convict my client for murder based on such circumstantial evidence?”

Congratulations. You've gotten Homer off the hook, Jeff! /s

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!  

Jeff would make a good lawyer though, he's unprincipled.   

[Barnacle 9,064]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Jeff would make a good lawyer though, he's unprincipled.   

Ouch

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1) This topic is not a laughing matter.

2) I can't resist this, because right now it's how I picture Moore:

[homersapien 11,373]

22 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

If you believe Moore’s denials, you have to believe that four of these women, with no evidence that they know each other or ever met each other, all decided to lie when the Washington Post showed up at their door, that they all spontaneously made up a story that they were able to recount in detail in multiple retellings to reporters over a period of weeks, and they all chose to make up similar stories about Moore’s sexual pursuit....

The angry statement from Moore called the women’s claims “completely false” but so far, no one has been able to point to any contradictions, incongruence, or demonstrably false claims within their stories. For example, if events did not occur as they describe, did Moore know these women? Did he ever interact with them? Was he not in the time and place they described in their stories? Did he ever have an interaction with them that would provide a potential motive to make a false accusation against them? Did he ever rule against any of them, or a member if their families or a friend in his years as a judge? If a part of the accusers’ story does not check out, it changes the calculus of this story. But so far we just have a blanket denial with no further details.

A variation of Occam’s Razor declares that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. You can either believe that Moore behaved in the way the women describe – accounting for any faults of memory in the forty or so years since then – or you can believe that they all chose, spontaneously, to partake in an elaborate conspiracy to destroy his reputation, an effort that they no doubt understood would lead to making enemies. For example, yesterday a state representative called for the criminalprosecution of the women making the claims, not Moore.

That sums it up for me.

These women have no apparent motivation for coming forth now and plenty of reasons not to - then or now. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

23 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Ouch

He wouldn’t be saying that if he was the one that may have been falsely accused and the witchhunt tendencies of society and political correctness were painting a target on his back. The allegations may prove to be true, but for now I’m highly skeptical. 

[AUDub 11,148]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That sums it up for me.

These women have no apparent motivation for coming forth now and plenty of reasons not to - then or now. 

Probably catching hell from those close to them, many of whom are probably Moore supporters, not to mention the keyboard warriors online accusing them of lying. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That sums it up for me.

These women have no apparent motivation for coming forth now and plenty of reasons not to - then or now. 

There are always plenty of ways of finding motivation. Def for one with admittedly bad credit. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

 

Duke Lacrosse happened because of what a lying sack of s*** prosecutor did. That was a failure in the Durham County D.A. office first and foremost. 

 

I disagree. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson turned it into a racial thing.....white guys raping a black girl. They never acknowledged the truth or apologized to three guys whose careers and life were permanently scarred.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I disagree. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson turned it into a racial thing.....white guys raping a black girl. They never acknowledged the truth or apologized to three guys whoshe careers and life were poermanently scarred.

Then you have a bad memory.  The reason that case went as far as it did was because a prosecutor, who had plenty of evidence to exonerate the players, chose instead to hide it, keep it from the defense, and prosecute anyway.

JJ and Al might be racial bomb throwing windbags, but they are not the reason the Duke Lacrosse thing became what it was.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then you have a bad memory.  The reason that case went as far as it did was because a prosecutor, who had plenty of evidence to exonerate the players, chose instead to hide it, keep it from the defense, and prosecute anyway.

JJ and Al might be racial bomb throwing windbags, but they are not the reason the Duke Lacrosse thing became what it was.

Jemele Hill wrote an excellent article, apologizing, after their exoneration. Let me see if I can find it. 

Got it. 

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070412

I never wrote it, but I felt it -- which is just as bad. I said it in private discussions with friends, some of whom tried to get me to see the whole picture, not just the picture I wanted to see.

My being a black woman, my knowing too many athletes who treat women like items to be purchased in a vending machine, and my witnessing enough athlete rape trials where accusers are overwhelmed by their fame and fortune -- it all tainted my perception and made me doubt your innocence.

I feel stupid now.

 

AP Photo/Chuck Burton

Will the media spend as much time clearing the names of Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann as it did publicizing the crimes they were accused of committing?

 

 

 

 

I could blame Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong, but that would be too easy. Oh, he's a lout, no doubt. He played upon the emotions of a community and its long-held hostilities, and put his reelection bid above morality and common sense. He played all of us and should be punished with nothing less than disbarment.

I could blame Jesse Jackson, who I have hoped for years would disappear to a faraway land where CNN wouldn't follow. As usual, Jesse showed up and showed out. He incited the masses and then left everyone else to sort out the wreckage. And if Jesse wants to gain an ounce of the credibility he no longer has, he would find the nearest camera -- and we know he's good at that -- and express sorrow with all the sincerity he can muster. But the day Jesse apologizes for causing a scene is the day Rosie O'Donnell wears a muzzle.

But if there is anything to be learned from Don Imus' fall, it's that real apologies are never accompanied by rationalizations.

So to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, the three Duke lacrosse players whose lives were mangled by an unsupported rape accusation, I say two of the hardest words in the English language:

I'm sorry.