Jump to content

AB accused for 3 instances of sexual assualt & rape against 1 woman. Lawsuit filed against him


Reed83HOF

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

 

No armchair here. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Long Island Medium is in the house!!

 

ps - just busting your balls or otherwise depending on your gender assigned at birth 

Edited by dubs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

In the instances you gave I believe the standard you're referring to is a 'reasonable suspicion', which is a lower standard of proof than probable cause. 

 

Man, you’re confusing my brain. ?

 

this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

 

to me indicates that PC has more to do with the arresting side, not indicting and trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Man, you’re confusing my brain. ?

 

this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

 

to me indicates that PC has more to do with the arresting side, not indicting and trial. 

Yeah. I'm pretty sure probable cause is almost entirely limited to arrests, limited detainment and search warrants 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dubs said:

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Long Island Medium is in the house!!

 

ps - just busting your balls or otherwise depending on your gender assigned at birth 

 

 

You can tell I’m a lawyer based on this response:

 

Your reference to “armchair lawyers and psychics” is ambiguous.  It’s unclear whether you meant “psychics” and “armchair lawyers,” or “armchair psychics” and “armchair lawyers.”  Applying the rule that an ambiguity (in this instance, in a message board post) must be construed against the drafter, my response in no way can be deemed to have suggested that I am a psychic inasmuch as your “armchair” reference could have pertained only to the question whether I have earned/lucked into a law degree and licensure to a state bar.   :)

 

(And, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe in psychics.) 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I think you’re looking for “corroborating” instead of “circumstantial.”  E.g., evidence of physical trauma to the victim would be direct evidence of the rape and corroborate a victim’s testimony as to a rape.  

 

The corroborating evidence rule applies to accomplice testimony and confessions.  Testimony of a victim, standing alone, is legally sufficient to convict in a sexual abuse/sexual assault case.  That said, prosecutors are disinclined to bring a case to a grand jury (other than perhaps a child sexual abuse case) in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

 

So, technically, this case could be brought on the testimony of the victim alone.  But I don’t think that will be an issue because we have the text message exchanges that corroborate at least the contention that sexual intercourse occurred.  How that effects the forcible penetration element of the crime lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 

 

Thank you. Whether you call it circumstantial or corroborative evidence, I confess to being surprised that a conviction can occur solely on the basis of the complainant's affirmations. The reason is that I have a hard time regarding such assertions as constituting evidence as such and, if that is correct, it would follow that a criminal conviction cannot proceed in the absence of evidence. Now maybe that's where I'm wrong. Maybe the complainant's allegations are in criminal law and in procedure regarded as evidence albeit rarely, if ever, of sufficient weight to displace the legal presumption of innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Man, you’re confusing my brain. ?

 

this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

 

to me indicates that PC has more to do with the arresting side, not indicting and trial. 

 

Basically correct.  Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed is the threshold for arrest and (I believe) charge by complaint.  The threshold for an indictment — which must supersede a complaint, at least in NYS, is legally sufficient evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this got zero responses on the previous page and a post after it did: This is the accuser (from what I can gather) in a video with AB

 

Does this look like the Brother-Sister relationship they had in her lawsuit?

Edited by Reed83HOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...