WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote: This is an accusation that cannot be proven or disproven, unless a blue dress suddenly appears.

Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

In this case, it will be up to the Senators to decide whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the Supreme Court. And if you don't think that they will take into consideration their calculation of how their potential vote will play with the voters back home (you know, the "mob" that rules in our country), then you are incredibly naïve.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: This is an accusation that cannot be proven or disproven, unless a blue dress suddenly appears.

Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

In this case, it will be up to the Senators to decide whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the Supreme Court. And if you don't think that they will take into consideration their calculation of how their potential vote will play with the voters back home (you know, the "mob" that rules in our country), then you are incredibly naïve.

Justice at its finest.

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Convince me. Provide me two cases.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Certainly for minor offenses like driving through a stop sign, if a cop says he saw you do it, you’re guilty. Not saying it’s fair, but it happens all the time.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Certainly for minor offenses like driving through a stop sign, if a cop says he saw you do it, you’re guilty. Not saying it’s fair, but it happens al the time.

Thanks for preempting me.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Certainly for minor offenses like driving through a stop sign, if a cop says he saw you do it, you’re guilty. Not saying it’s fair, but it happens all the time.

Pretty good example. What if I said you did it. I am not a cop. Think you'll get a ticket? Not even close. but thanks for trying.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

That happens many times a day in courts across the country.

Certainly for minor offenses like driving through a stop sign, if a cop says he saw you do it, you’re guilty. Not saying it’s fair, but it happens all the time.

No, in that case there is additional evidence. The person accused of running the stop sign signs the ticket providing evidence they were actually at the location at the time of the accused violation. A cop can't just write a ticket and show up in court and say I ran a stop sign on August 18, 2018. If he did not stop me, take a photo or video, I will not be charged.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

Are you kidding? People end up on death row based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. --Bob

Just to be clear. I'm still waiting for two cases where there is no evidence, just an accusation, and the accused was convicted.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Accusations are proved or disproved all the time in every single trial. In some cases, the "accusation" is the only evidence of the guilt or liability of the defendant, and there are a lot of people in jail and a lot of defendants with less money in their pockets because the accusation was proven to the satisfaction of a judge or jury based solely on the evidence of the accuser, sometimes when compared to the similar evidence presented by the accused.

LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

Are you kidding? People end up on death row based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. --Bob

There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

BackInTex wrote:Just to be clear. I'm still waiting for two cases where there is no evidence, just an accusation, and the accused was convicted.

Here's what some lawyers had to say on the subject. And you are wrong about there being no "evidence." The accusation is evidence, and, if believed is sufficient to convict under most circumstances.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can- ... 24282.html

Further, there is other evidence such as the fact that both Kavanaugh and the woman were attending high school in the area at the time the incident occurred. That makes her accusation more credible than if, say, she were living in California at the time.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
LOL.

You are wrong.

You can not prove an accusation if the accusation is the ONLY evidence. Can't be done.

Are you kidding? People end up on death row based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. --Bob

There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Are you kidding? People end up on death row based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. --Bob

There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

Who is on death row based on a single person's accusations and no other evidence?

Just an example that I have first hand. I was on jury duty and in essence it was a car accident and we had to determine who was responsible. A car was backing out of a driveway and was hit by a car traveling down the road, the road had two lanes in one direction. The person in the driveway said the approaching car was in the left hand lane and they had just barely pulled out at the same time the driver had moved to the right hand lane and struct the rear of their car. The driver claimed they were in the right hand lane the whole time and the person in the driveway backed out without looking. Other than a variety of photos of what the street / driveway looked like and the damage to the two cars (right front of the traveling car, right rear of the car from the driveway) - there was no other evidence than the two stories of the two people involved - no other witnesses and the photos provided no clue as to which story was true. We had to make a decision based on whose story we found more credible.

Granted the stakes weren't that high and it was really which insurance company was going to pay - but it was a case were a legal decision had to be made strictly on the account of these two people with no other evidence.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't countless such cases that are decided every day - and I've seen/heard (but can't cite any off-hand) 'wrongly convected' stories where the conviction was based on a single eye-witness with no other evidence. I imagine that any lawyer - regardless of their political leanings, could confirm the existence of court cases that were decided based on testimony only.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

Who is on death row based on a single person's accusations and no other evidence?

A quick google search on death row convictions based on eye-witness testimony yielded quite a bit - including this https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/StudyCWC2001A.pdf

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Are you kidding? People end up on death row based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. --Bob

There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

LOL - don't call me a name, doodoohead.
No way is someone on death row based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. Not in the USA, anyway.

Anybody else read the NY Times Mag 2-parter a few months ago where a previously respected (& very white) high school principal in a small (& very white) town was convicted of killing his wife even though he was demonstrably pretty far away at the time.

There were *no* witnesses to the killing.

There's a lot of evidence linking the killing to an ex-cop, now dead, who probably also killed a local girl a few weeks earlier in a similar manner. No one was ever accused in the case of the girl.

Local law based their case on very dubious stuff found by the wife's brother.

If the jury wants to convict you, they convict you. This guy's been in jail 20+ years.

Mention of whiteness is to point out there was no racial component in this one.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
There is other evidence Bob. Quit lying.

Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

LOL - don't call me a name, doodoohead.
No way is someone on death row based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. Not in the USA, anyway.

Please click on the link on my response above - it sure looks like these were all in the USA, some had 1 witness and only 1 witness and no physical or supporting evidence and they were sentenced to death.

frogman042 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Not always. And don't call me a liar, you jackass. --Bob

LOL - don't call me a name, doodoohead.
No way is someone on death row based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. Not in the USA, anyway.

Please click on the link on my response above - it sure looks like these were all in the USA, some had 1 witness and only 1 witness and no physical or supporting evidence and they were sentenced to death.

In case you don't want to follow the link here is just a few of the 46 cases listed (some had more than 1 eyewitness - i just picked a few that seems to have had only 1 eyewitness):

Adams, Randall Dale (convicted 1977, exonerated 1989) — Mr. Adams was sentenced to death
for the murder of a police officer in Dallas County, Texas. A purported eyewitness, who in fact
was the actual killer, framed Mr. Adams and received immunity from prosecution in exchange
for his testimony. Mr. Adams was not involved in the crime. The facts came to light after filmmaker
Errol Morris took an interest in the case and produced a now-famous documentary — The
Thin Blue Line.

Beeman, Gary (convicted 1976, exonerated 1979) — Mr. Beeman was sentenced to death for
the murder of a man in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The conviction rested on the testimony of a
prison escapee who claimed he saw Mr. Beeman with the victim at about the time the coroner
estimated the murder occurred and saw him again shortly thereafter with blood on his clothes.
The witness also claimed Mr. Beeman had admitted the crime. The Ohio Supreme Court
reversed the conviction because the trial judge had prevented Mr. Beeman from calling an
exculpatory witness. At the retrial, Mr. Beeman was acquitted after five witnesses testified that
the man who had been the prosecution’s star witness at the first trial had confessed that he
committed the crime and that Mr. Beeman was not involved.

Smith, Charles (convicted 1983, exonerated 1991) — Mr. Smith was sentenced to death for the
murder and robbery of a young woman in Allen County, Indiana. The state’s case was based
entirely on the testimony of a purported accomplice/eyewitness who was granted immunity from
prosecution. Mr. Smith had a solid alibi, which he was prohibited from presenting by the trial
judge because his attorney had failed to file a pretrial alibi notice. After initially affirming the
conviction and death sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court four years later granted a retrial based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. At retrial, the defense presented not only the alibi but also
evidence that the original eyewitness had falsely accused Mr. Smith of the crime.

frogman042 wrote:Just an example that I have first hand. I was on jury duty and in essence it was a car accident and we had to determine who was responsible. A car was backing out of a driveway and was hit by a car traveling down the road, the road had two lanes in one direction. The person in the driveway said the approaching car was in the left hand lane and they had just barely pulled out at the same time the driver had moved to the right hand lane and struct the rear of their car. The driver claimed they were in the right hand lane the whole time and the person in the driveway backed out without looking. Other than a variety of photos of what the street / driveway looked like and the damage to the two cars (right front of the traveling car, right rear of the car from the driveway) - there was no other evidence than the two stories of the two people involved - no other witnesses and the photos provided no clue as to which story was true. We had to make a decision based on whose story we found more credible.

Granted the stakes weren't that high and it was really which insurance company was going to pay - but it was a case were a legal decision had to be made strictly on the account of these two people with no other evidence.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't countless such cases that are decided every day - and I've seen/heard (but can't cite any off-hand) 'wrongly convected' stories where the conviction was based on a single eye-witness with no other evidence. I imagine that any lawyer - regardless of their political leanings, could confirm the existence of court cases that were decided based on testimony only.

Somehow, you guys are missing the entire point. There's no evidence that there was even a crime committed, other than this woman's accusation. In your example, there was a wrecked car. I don't think there would have been a trial if there wasn't a car involved, would there? Where's the evidence that anything happened other than this woman's words?
If someone is on death row, I imagine there is a corpse or at least a missing person showing that there was a crime committed. If there is one believable person who witnessed it, there is evidence. A murderer can be convicted with no witnesses at all, based on DNA. But there has to have been a murder committed. Or at least some proof that one was committed.


Bob-tel, you are not lying. You are searching for excuses, just like the dem leadership, to scuttle Kavanaugh's appointment. And this whole situation is your last best chance. Even the dems don't believe it holds water, which I believe is why they saved it for last in case their circus show didn't work. Why don't you just admit it?

frogman042 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
LOL - don't call me a name, doodoohead.
No way is someone on death row based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. Not in the USA, anyway.

Please click on the link on my response above - it sure looks like these were all in the USA, some had 1 witness and only 1 witness and no physical or supporting evidence and they were sentenced to death.

In case you don't want to follow the link here is just a few of the 46 cases listed (some had more than 1 eyewitness - i just picked a few that seems to have had only 1 eyewitness):

Adams, Randall Dale (convicted 1977, exonerated 1989) — Mr. Adams was sentenced to death
for the murder of a police officer in Dallas County, Texas. A purported eyewitness, who in fact
was the actual killer, framed Mr. Adams and received immunity from prosecution in exchange
for his testimony. Mr. Adams was not involved in the crime. The facts came to light after filmmaker
Errol Morris took an interest in the case and produced a now-famous documentary — The
Thin Blue Line.

Beeman, Gary (convicted 1976, exonerated 1979) — Mr. Beeman was sentenced to death for
the murder of a man in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The conviction rested on the testimony of a
prison escapee who claimed he saw Mr. Beeman with the victim at about the time the coroner
estimated the murder occurred and saw him again shortly thereafter with blood on his clothes.
The witness also claimed Mr. Beeman had admitted the crime. The Ohio Supreme Court
reversed the conviction because the trial judge had prevented Mr. Beeman from calling an
exculpatory witness. At the retrial, Mr. Beeman was acquitted after five witnesses testified that
the man who had been the prosecution’s star witness at the first trial had confessed that he
committed the crime and that Mr. Beeman was not involved.

Smith, Charles (convicted 1983, exonerated 1991) — Mr. Smith was sentenced to death for the
murder and robbery of a young woman in Allen County, Indiana. The state’s case was based
entirely on the testimony of a purported accomplice/eyewitness who was granted immunity from
prosecution. Mr. Smith had a solid alibi, which he was prohibited from presenting by the trial
judge because his attorney had failed to file a pretrial alibi notice. After initially affirming the
conviction and death sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court four years later granted a retrial based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. At retrial, the defense presented not only the alibi but also
evidence that the original eyewitness had falsely accused Mr. Smith of the crime.

None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.

tlynn78 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

frogman042 wrote: Please click on the link on my response above - it sure looks like these were all in the USA, some had 1 witness and only 1 witness and no physical or supporting evidence and they were sentenced to death.

In case you don't want to follow the link here is just a few of the 46 cases listed (some had more than 1 eyewitness - i just picked a few that seems to have had only 1 eyewitness):

Adams, Randall Dale (convicted 1977, exonerated 1989) — Mr. Adams was sentenced to death
for the murder of a police officer in Dallas County, Texas. A purported eyewitness, who in fact
was the actual killer, framed Mr. Adams and received immunity from prosecution in exchange
for his testimony. Mr. Adams was not involved in the crime. The facts came to light after filmmaker
Errol Morris took an interest in the case and produced a now-famous documentary — The
Thin Blue Line.

Beeman, Gary (convicted 1976, exonerated 1979) — Mr. Beeman was sentenced to death for
the murder of a man in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The conviction rested on the testimony of a
prison escapee who claimed he saw Mr. Beeman with the victim at about the time the coroner
estimated the murder occurred and saw him again shortly thereafter with blood on his clothes.
The witness also claimed Mr. Beeman had admitted the crime. The Ohio Supreme Court
reversed the conviction because the trial judge had prevented Mr. Beeman from calling an
exculpatory witness. At the retrial, Mr. Beeman was acquitted after five witnesses testified that
the man who had been the prosecution’s star witness at the first trial had confessed that he
committed the crime and that Mr. Beeman was not involved.

Smith, Charles (convicted 1983, exonerated 1991) — Mr. Smith was sentenced to death for the
murder and robbery of a young woman in Allen County, Indiana. The state’s case was based
entirely on the testimony of a purported accomplice/eyewitness who was granted immunity from
prosecution. Mr. Smith had a solid alibi, which he was prohibited from presenting by the trial
judge because his attorney had failed to file a pretrial alibi notice. After initially affirming the
conviction and death sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court four years later granted a retrial based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. At retrial, the defense presented not only the alibi but also
evidence that the original eyewitness had falsely accused Mr. Smith of the crime.

None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.

Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob

tlynn78 wrote:{Big Snip}
None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.

If you listen carefully you will hear the sound of goal-post shifting....

You said "No way is someone on death row based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. Not in the USA, anyway."

Foolish me - I thought that you were asking about real murders with real people on death row who would 'No way' be there based solely on one individual's eye-witness testimony. I didn't realize you were asking for cases where someone was on death row when no one was murdered. I stand corrected.