Moore or Strange?

[homersapien 11,373]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I believe that to be the case. But then I ask why are so many coming out with their accusations now.....at the same time. Just coincidence? I don't think so.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/journalists-new-york-times-reporting-on-sexual-harassment/

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I believe that to be the case. But then I ask why are so many coming out with their accusations now.....at the same time. Just coincidence? I don't think so.

I think we should all be rightly skeptical of any accusations. I'm not trying to convince anyone to decide one thing or another. I'm just saying that the court is historically unreliable in sexual assault cases and shouldn't be the sole arbiter of truth. There's almost never enough evidence to meet the burden of proof - by the nature of the crimes themselves.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, Barnacle said:

I'm just saying that the court is historically unreliable in sexual assault cases and shouldn't be the sole arbiter of truth.

“Because I said so” shouldn’t replace the court system though. Women and men both have the cards stacked them if all it takes is one news story to convince others that he/she is a predator with no real proof. 

[AUDub 11,148]

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

What reactions?  Pointing out this looks like a smear causes women to hold on to things for forty years until thirty days before an election? 

You are immediately dismissing their claims, immediately implying they are lying. 

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I️ I️ Eye would expect to go to the police. Try again with these pointless red herrings. 

"You're just trying to make trouble," one of my supposed red herrings, is the the position you're hedging your bets on.

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

If they didn’t feel the need to burden the court system with the case, I️ Eye don’t feel the need to believe one side of the story. And that applies for  both men and women. 

The courts are not the be all end all arbiter of truth. Sexual assault generally leaves very little, if any, evidence. They generally boil down to a he said she said. Not much the courts can do. Why bother reporting if that's the case? And the odds are good you'll only get yourself in more hot water, compounding the shame of the assault itself. 

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

This sounded silly the first time. Stop doubling down on stupid.

Put down the shovel. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

“Because I said so” shouldn’t replace the court system though. Women and men both have the cards stacked them if all it takes is one news story to convince others that he/she is a predator with no real proof. 

That is really the bottomline of it all.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Flavor, I mean accusation, for today. They are coning out of the woodwork. Why have they ALL suddenly decide to come out now? Do they smell the money?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

 

This is literally nothing new.  This story has been out for over a month.  Ally Raisman came out today making the same accusation, as have over 100 other former gymnasts.

Also, strength in numbers.  Maybe seeing others having the strength to come out encouraged them to do the same.  Silence on this issue only perpetuates the problem.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

This is literally nothing new.  This story has been out for over a month.  Ally Raisman came out today making the same accusation, as have over 100 other former gymnasts.

Also, strength in numbers.  Maybe seeing others having the strength to come out encouraged them to do the same.  Silence on this issue only perpetuates the problem.

The article says she said " Wednesday" so I took it as she reported it Wednesday.

[AUDub 11,148]

7 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

“Because I said so” shouldn’t replace the court system though. Women and men both have the cards stacked them if all it takes is one news story to convince others that he/she is a predator with no real proof. 

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman assaulted with little to no legal recourse. Think hard about how that must feel. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

The article says she said " Wednesday" so I took it as she reported it Wednesday.

Honest tip: when looking at the URL, look for the date.  I put it in red here as an example.  That's the day it was published online.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

[AUDub 11,148]

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Honest tip: when looking at the URL, look for the date.  I put it in red here as an example.  That's the day it was published online.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

Yeah I see now at the very top of the article in small print it is dated in October. Thanks for the tip and correction.

[DKW 86 7,424]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

How about citing just one liberal who defended that.

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> 

[Barnacle 9,064]

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

“Because I said so” shouldn’t replace the court system though. Women and men both have the cards stacked them if all it takes is one news story to convince others that he/she is a predator with no real proof. 

First, he's not being criminally prosecuted, and he's not facing criminal charges, so nothing is replacing the justice system. 

The point I'm making is that in cases where evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof in a criminal action, what remedies do victims have other than through the court of public opinion? 

You are free to make up your own mind based upon what's available. No one is forcing you to believe these women. I don't know if what they are saying is true, but based upon the way the story is written, the similarities between the stories, the number of women and the circumstantial evidence, I think there's a better chance than not that there's some truth in it. And, I'm not discounting all that because it's not supported by a criminal conviction.

[DKW 86 7,424]

37 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Flavor, I mean accusation, for today. They are coming out of the woodwork. Why have they ALL suddenly decide to come out now? Do they smell the money?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

What they see is a predator closing in on becoming Senator for life in Alabama and they are motivated enough to take on the crap storm they (all 30 witnesses) they are about to receive. 

 

24 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Whether you doubt the story because of the timing or not, WaPo did their due diligence here. Multiple victims with no knowledge of one another, 30 corroborating sources. That's pretty solid. 

 

30 corroborating sources, Brother you know as well as I do what is going on. There are some folks that have been so brainwashed to hate the Democrat Party by talk radio etc that they just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth: There are some dirtbags in the Republican Party that should never have ever gotten on the ballot: Trump & Moore. These are the people that claimed to be "Values Voters" back in the 90s against Clinton. We see them today for being just what they are...Party Hacks hiding behind their very silly definition of Religion...NOTE I DID NOT USE THE TERM CHRISTIANITY HERE.

[aujeff11 6,243]

21 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You are immediately dismissing their claims, immediately implying they are lying. 

I️ Sure am. No evidence has been offered as proof.

14 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

 

Unfair gossip is about right.

 

17 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman assaulted with little to no legal recourse

Put yourself in Moore’s shoes if he didn’t actually touch the 14 year old above the clothes nearly forty years ago. What legal recourse does he have? 

25 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Put down the shovel. 

I will after you knock yourself out with yours.

 

26 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're just trying to make trouble," one of my supposed red herrings, is the the position you're hedging your bets on.

Quote

You’re so assumptive. It’s gross. He may have done it. There is still no evidence that it occurred yet. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

No it’s not. The whole fact pattern absolutely reeks, and the 40 year wait adds to the stench. Pull your head out of the sand.

Spoken like someone who has zero understanding of a victim's perspective.  

A years or decades long wait to say something give zero indication of whether it happened.  There are many very good reasons not to subject yourself or your family to the comments, scrutiny, smears and accusations of everyone who finds out.  Many victims literally NEVER say anything, at least publicly.

But let's also go back a sec.  This isn't actually the first time they've ever said something.  It's just the first time they felt they could come forward publicly.  Reading the article, they all told people back then about them seeing Moore.  The 14-year old in question told two of her childhood friends that she was "seeing an older man" and she told her mother about the sexual assault part about a decade later:

Quote

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

So it's not like this just came up out of nowhere 40 years later.  She gives some of her reasons for not going public too:

Quote

 

Corfman, 53, who works as a customer service representative at a payday loan business, says she has voted for Republicans in the past three presidential elections, including for Donald Trump in 2016. She says she thought of confronting Moore personally for years, and almost came forward publicly during his first campaign for state Supreme Court in 2000, but decided against it. Her two children were still in school then and she worried about how it would affect them. She also was concerned that her background — three divorces and a messy financial history — might undermine her credibility.

“There is no one here that doesn’t know that I’m not an angel,” Corfman says, referring to her home town of Gadsden.

 

That's a perfectly understandable reason for not saying something sooner.  

And again on the "fact pattern", there was this:

Quote

Corfman described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post. The Post confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records. Moore’s office was down the hall from the courtroom.

And her mother remembers the encounter that kicked it off where Moore offered to sit with her daughter while she went in to the courtroom for the custody hearing.  The "fact pattern" isn't problematic.

 

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

It is reasonable to say that’s a possibility, out of many. It’s also reasonable to say this wasn’t likely. 

It's reasonable to say it's possibility and it's reasonable to say that it may not be true.  It is not reasonable to say it's "not likely."  There is nothing evidentiary to make such a claim.

 

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

#metoo is an attention grab. That should be obvious.

Why?  Because some women are finding strength in numbers and trying to point out that their silence doesn't mean it hasn't been happening?  Hardly.

 

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Good. Hope somebody defames your character one day since that standard of proof isn’t “needed” to influence your opinion in this case. 

It's a hard thing I'll admit.  I'm not saying you shouldn't investigate further and look for any inconsistencies in the stories.  But the fact remains, the standard of proof for me to decide if someone is going to get my vote is not, nor does it need to be, the same as the standard of proof for convicting someone of a crime.  This is plain common sense.

[aujeff11 6,243]

14 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

First, he's not being criminally prosecuted, and he's not facing criminal charges, so nothing is replacing the justice system. 

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

 

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

The point I'm making is that in cases where evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of proof in a criminal action, what remedies do victims have other than through the court of public opinion? 

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. ?

 

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

No one is forcing you to believe these women. I don't know if what they are saying is true, but based upon the way the story is written, the similarities between the stories, the number of women and the circumstantial evidence, I think there's a better chance than not that there's some truth in it.

“Based upon the way the story is written”

“Circumstantial evidence”

hmm...

[AUDub 11,148]

Quote

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. ?

Hope none of my daughters get assaulted, leaving them with no legal recourse. 

Either way, someone suffers.

Quote

“Circumstantial evidence”

hmm...

All circumstantial evidence means is that an inference must be drawn. Direct evidence is that it’s raining outside is if you look out a window and see raindrops falling, while circumstantial evidence is that you see someone come in from outside, and their coat and umbrella are dripping with rain. In both situations, no reasonable person would have any doubt that it is raining outside. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Spoken like someone who has zero understanding of a victim's perspective.

Eye understand why women keep quiet when they do. Eye also understand that people are wrongly accused everyday, lies are said everyday, and if the court of law wasn’t bothered with their testimony, I’m not going to be bothered with believing their stories. Unlike you, I’m not interested in putting a crazy man down over unfounded facts.

 

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And her mother remembers the encounter that kicked it off where Moore offered to sit with her daughter while she went in to the courtroom for the custody hearing.  The "fact pattern" isn't problematic

It’s problematic if you consider that real evidence. Just saying. 

 

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

t is not reasonable to say it's "not likely."  There is nothing evidentiary to make such a claim.

Similarly, there is nothing evidentiary to say the assault was likely done. 

 

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's a perfectly understandable reason for not saying something sooner.

Even in 2000 that’s almost twenty years down the road of the incident, and the statute of limitations has already expired. My God. 

Look Titan, you can convict him in your court of opinion, but don’t expect me to. Go ask Ellitor and WDE why Eye always give them grief over bull**** recruiting statements and prognosticatons. Both will say it’s because eye expect real facts so that eye can verify it. This isn’t new for me at all.

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not saying you shouldn't investigate further and look for any inconsistencies in the stories.  But the fact remains, the standard of proof for me to decide if someone is going to get my vote is not, nor does it need to be, the same as the standard of proof for convicting someone of a crime

Just to be clear, you  wasnt about to vote for him to begin wirh. And that’s fine because I’m not either. If you can say this, you should have no problem with people that are still willing to vote for him despite these new allegations. You cannot say “You’re fine with supporting a pedophile,” and feel justified just because the standard of proof is lower in the court of opinion.

[AUDub 11,148]

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I️ Sure am. No evidence has been offered as proof.

You haven't even read the article, have you. Either that or you're shooting off at the mouth without bothering to comprehend it. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Unfair gossip is about right.

What WaPo did is called journalism. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Put yourself in Moore’s shoes if he didn’t actually touch the 14 year old above the clothes nearly forty years ago. What legal recourse does he have? 

He can sue WaPo and his accusers for libel, if he wishes, but something tells me he does not want this going to discovery.

I spoke to an attorney friend in Hunstville this morning. He lived in Gadsden. He described Moore's tastes as an open secret. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I will after you knock yourself out with yours.

Hardy hardy har. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

You’re so assumptive. It’s gross. He may have done it. There is still no evidence that it occurred yet. 

Read the article. If you already have, read it again, slower this time. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Hope none of my daughters get assaulted, leaving them with no legal recourse. 

 

I️ Eye would hope you teach your daughters to go to to you and then you take them to the cops immediately no matter what they may have been doing. 

 

7 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

All circumstantial evidence means is that an inference must be drawn.

This kind of evidence doesn’t fly in the real world. If you are subpoenaed for being near a crime, “ eye saw the driver run over the student walking through rbe crosswalk” is much different than “eye was in class and heard something and then looked out the window and saw a black car with Tim in it nearest to the dead body.”

[TitanTiger 20,482]

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You haven't even read the article, have you.

Does the evidence word confuse you? 

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

What WaPo did is called journalism.

I’m sure that is you said about the Duke Lacrosse case as well. Amirite?

 

4 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

He can sue WaPo and his accusers for libel, if he wishes, but something tells me he does not want this going to discovery.

Please. So tell me how the cards are stacked against the women and not the men too? Getting sued is a mere formality, if he was truly innocent, his character is already screwed. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

There were whispers, forced silence upon on his employees, and multiple complaints in the past. Much different cases between the two, I’d say.

[AUDub 11,148]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

I️ Eye would hope you teach your daughters to go to to you and then you take them to the cops immediately no matter what they may have been doing. 

I have with my oldest, whom boys are noticing. The point is that there's a good bet it probably won't help. If it boils down to a he said she said, there is no hard proof and charges would be hard to come by. 

Just now, aujeff11 said:

This kind of evidence doesn’t fly in the real world. If you are subpoenaed for being near a crime, “ eye saw the driver run over the student walking through rbe crosswalk” is much different than “eye was in class and heard something and then looked out the window and saw a black car with Tim in it nearest to the dead body.”

That's not how it works. For example:

Witness TitanTiger: "I saw Homersapien furiously grab a knife from the kitchen, muttering how he was gonna 'kill that a**hole.' Homer then stormed into the pool house, and I immediately heard a commotion of stabbing and screaming noises. Homer emerged a minute later, covered in what appeared to be a lot of blood. He washed his hands, then threw what looked like a knife in the bushes. I went into the pool house and found AURaptor covered in two dozen stab wounds, moaning "Why, Homer, why? *dead*" There is only one entrance to the pool house. I had a clear view of the door from the moment Homer entered to when I went in, and I didn't see anyone else inside, or enter, or leave. I'm not surprised by this at all, as Homer often said he would stab that a**hole with that exact kitchen knife if he ever caught him in his pool house.”

Officer bigbens42: "Several security cameras corroborate TitanTiger's version of events, show that AURaptor was alive and unstabbed when he went in, and he and Homer were the only ones who entered the pool house."

Forensic Scientist Barnacle: "Testing shows that copious amounts of AURaptor's blood was found in the sink identified by TitanTiger. The knife we recovered was of the same type as the one missing from the kitchen set, was covered in AURaptor's blood and Homer's fingerprints, and had a blade consistent with the wound patterns on AURaptor's body. I am absolutely certain this is the knife used to kill AURaptor. The blood on Homer's clothing was AURaptor's. Apart from AURaptor, only Homer's footprints and fingerprints were found at the scene. Given the extent of his injuries, AURaptor could not have survived more than a few minutes before bleeding out."

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

There is one rule that is constant when it comes to criminal law and that is proving a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not about direct or circumstantial evidence at all. It is if you can prove that the person committed the wrong.

Anything that basically satisfies the judge and jury that the person accused is guilty ends the story.