It has been framed that the notes were taken wrong. Just because the story and notes don't match perfectly, it does not follow that any story ever changed. It is just as likely that that part of the notes were recorded incorrectly, or that it was not a focal point so the number of boys was never corrected or brought up again... or it was written down incorrectly. I like how you automatically jump to the conclusion that the victim must be lying.
No. Because it's self-evidently an incredible claim. As it is, testimonial evidence under oath is evidence. Now, we aren't at that point yet, and maybe we won't get there as these are allegations made in public, so to speak, thus it is not *evidence* legally speaking...but it can be.
So my satirical claim that Kamala Harris eats babies is backed by evidence? I look forward to you guys all pelting that agree button... lmao
Knowing lawyers as well as I do, I feel quite confident that Katz already has sworn affidavits from both Dr. Blasey and her husband (if not others). If 715 wants to swear under oath, that's his choice. If he does it, it's evidence. But he's also facing legal consequences for lying under oath.
You keep asking the same question, and you keep getting the same response. I'll ask you for a final time: ARE YOU WILLING TO SWEAR TO IT UNDER OATH? If so, it is evidence.
If the presumption is that I’m telling the truth, then, satirically speaking of course, I would... Obviously this claim is not true... but that’s the point!
No, your claim that Kamala Harris eats babies is an absurdity. But if you expressed that claim under oath it would then become be testimonial evidence whose validity was determined by the trier of fact (either a judge or a jury). Perhaps, just perhaps, everyone is pelting the agree button because you are simply incorrect and conflating evidence with truthfulness. Just my humble opinion.
Not all evidence is true or points to the correct conclusion. Aaron Hernandez testified (I think) that he didn't shoot noone in his car, but the evidence the state provided outweighed his testimony. Evidence is just something put forward to support your case.
I think you mean 2012. There is no presumption of truthfulness. It's the trier of fact's job to evaluate credibility.
If that’s the case, then the usage of the term, “evidence” in this context is meaningless... Literally every sexual assault claim would be backed by evidence.
It doesn't have to be true to be evidence, it just has to be. People testify as to falsehoods every day, they're no less evidentiary from a legal perspective than the truth. They're also perjury, but still evidentiary. That's why we have a trier of fact. It's not really a hard concept, you've just backed yourself into a corner.
Statistically speaking, it is not just as likely that the therapists's notes were written down incorrectly. As someone who reads a whole lot of transcripts and notes, I would say that in at least 98% of the transcript or sets of notes, the reason they reflect that someone said something is because the person did in fact say it. So it is not "just as likely" that the reason the therapist's notes say 4 is because she wrote it down wrong. Statistically speaking, the only reasonable belief would be that, more likely than not, the reason the therapists' notes say there were 4 boys in the room is because Dr. Ford told her there were 4 boys in the room.
I thought we were supposed to assume Ford was telling the truth... and the burden was on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence as opposed to Ford proving his guilt...
How am I saying that Dr. Ford is lying? I'm pointing out that there is a discrepancy between what was written down at the time and what Dr. Ford is saying now. The discrepancy is pretty significant one as it states the attack was by four boys and not two. This discrepancy was been attempted to be explained away as saying "Oh, the therapist notes are just wrong." Why do we have to assume that the therapist's notes were wrong?
