Carroll v. Trump ($88 million judgment for Carroll)

#351
#351
loggervol said:
If a person is being accused of murder, that person better have an account of where he was, who he was with, and what time he was there. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

As a blanket statement of general applicability? No, I do not agree, mostly for the same reasons that make this a terrible analogy.
 
#352
#352
clarksvol00 said:
Her testimony is proof.
Click to expand...


That is honestly scary as hell.

I mean anyone can say anything and some will out of spite or gain. There needs to be something to collaborate it.

That goes for anyone whether we like them or don’t.
 
#353
#353
RockyTop85 said:
As a blanket statement of general applicability? No, I do not agree, mostly for the same reasons that make this a terrible analogy.
Click to expand...

I think it’s called an alibi. They also will probably need a corroborating witness.

So yes, her remembering what year and season it happened would probably be important. She also said she didn’t say no, so there is another thing against her.

I know, but but but
 
#354
#354
loggervol said:
I think it’s called an alibi. They also will probably need a corroborating witness.

So yes, her remembering what year and season it happened would probably be important. She also said she didn’t say no, so there is another thing against her.

I know, but but but
Click to expand...
I accuse you of murder.

Where’s your alibi and corroborating witness?
 
#355
#355
NEO said:
That is honestly scary as hell.

I mean anyone can say anything and some will out of spite or gain. There needs to be something to collaborate it.

That goes for anyone whether we like them or don’t.
Click to expand...
It’s not really that scary unless you ignore all of the additional context.

The “she’s not my type” response was probably enough to get him reemed, like a random blonde encountering Donald Trump in a department store, by a jury of normal people.

Failing to behave like a normal, civilized human being still has collateral consequences and one of them is digging yourself a giant hole when normal people have to sit in judgment of whether you behaved like a civilized human being on specific occasions.
 
#356
#356
RockyTop85 said:
I accuse you of murder.

Where’s your alibi and corroborating witness?
Click to expand...
Ok, when did it happen? I have to know when because I need to remember what I was doing that day. I need to remember where I was and I need to remember who I was with. See how this works. How can someone defend himself when he doesn’t even have the date it happened? It’s impossible.

Where, when, why how. I said, where, when, why, how. If you’ve never watched master of disguise, you won’t get it.
 
#357
#357
loggervol said:
Ok, when did it happen? I have to know when because I need to remember what I was doing that day. I need to remember where I was and I need to remember who I was with. See how this works. How can someone defend himself when he doesn’t even have the date it happened? It’s impossible.

Where, when, why how. I said, where, when, why, how. If you’ve never watched master of disguise, you won’t get it.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to remember all that? How many people do you think are convinced by “I accuse you of murder?”

If it’s an allegation and nothing more, you don’t need an alibi.

A case as weak as you claim this one was doesn’t need mountains of evidence to refute. The fact that she’s the reason he can’t establish an alibi cuts both ways.

If it’s as weak as you say, he probably just needed a convincing denial. Instead, his statements and behavior made it worse for himself at every turn. Which in turn made it a stronger case than you’re claiming.
 
Last edited:
#358
#358
RockyTop85 said:
Why do you need to remember all that? How many people do you think are convinced by “I accuse you of murder?”

If it’s an allegation and nothing more, you don’t need an alibi.

A case as weak as you claim this one was doesn’t need mountains of evidence to refute. The fact that she’s the reason he can’t establish an alibi cuts both ways.

If it’s as weak as you say, he probably just needed a convincing denial. Instead, his statements and behavior made it worse for himself at every turn. Which in turn made it a stronger case than you’re claiming.
Click to expand...
Eh. I disagree. See the Bills Punter case where the guy wasn't even in the house at the time of the allegation. Knowing the time and place made a difference.
 
#359
#359
utvols88 said:
Eh. I disagree. See the Bills Punter case where the guy wasn't even in the house at the time of the allegation. Knowing the time and place made a difference.
Click to expand...

You’re not actually disagreeing with me, you’re not understanding me. I’m not saying that alibis are always worthless or unhelpful.

I’m saying that vagueness is baked in when a jury considers a certain accusation and the more vagueness is baked in, the less a defendant is disadvantaged by the inability to present an alibi.

Everybody trying to Monday morning quarterback this jury by saying “oh she can’t remember” is assuming the jury was too stupid to consider that and that Trump’s lawyers were too stupid to point it out.

It’s like a scale. The more weight the plaintiff has on their side, the more weight it takes to bring the balance back over to the defendant’s side. Actually, that’s a great metaphor. I can’t believe nobody has ever thought of that before. We should really use scales to represent justice. We can call them the scales of justice. They could look like this: ⚖️. You could even have some lady with a blindfold holding them to represent how justice is supposed to be blind.
 
#361
#361
utvols88 said:
I assume both tbh.
Click to expand...
I barely followed this case and even I know she was cross examined over that.

Which just goes back to the point I raised earlier about people with little to no information trying to second guess those that sat through the trial.
 
#362
#362
RockyTop85 said:
Would you call the opinion of someone who didn’t hear the proof reliable?

The people who watched her testify, including one person that Trump’s lawyer fought to keep from getting thrown off the jury for political bias, thought she was reliable.



The question isn’t “would they” that’s a lazy attempt to paper over a lack of anything substantive.

A few years ago, after Carroll’s allegations were public, NY extended the statute of limitations for these types of cases. Clearly the state has taken an interest in expanding access to courts for people who have been sexually assaulted. However, even if that change had been retroactive, it didn’t go back far enough to cover this case. Once people realized that the change didn’t apply retroactively, there was a call to allow victims whose SOL had run more time to sue.

Clearly, E. Jean Carroll benefitted from the law, but just as clearly passage of the statute was about more than Donald Trump. If that’s all it was, they could have just stretched the statute of limitations back farther and told courts to apply the change retroactively.


This is more than likely an accurate statement of law, I’m not certain of the relationship between sexual abuse and battery in New York tort claims but clearly there were some additional elements involved, and the size of the verdict suggests that they didn’t find merely an “unwanted peck on the cheek.”
Click to expand...
How many cases havebcome up since that law changed? I haven't heard of any others happening
 
#364
#364
NEO said:
That is honestly scary as hell.

I mean anyone can say anything and some will out of spite or gain. There needs to be something to collaborate it.

That goes for anyone whether we like them or don’t.
Click to expand...

There were also contemporaneous outcry witnesses.
 
#365
#365
loggervol said:
I think it’s called an alibi. They also will probably need a corroborating witness.

So yes, her remembering what year and season it happened would probably be important. She also said she didn’t say no, so there is another thing against her.

I know, but but but
Click to expand...
Wait she consented to sex, but not anything beforehand??? So consent essentially doesn't mean anything.
 
#366
#366
whodeycin85 said:
How many cases havebcome up since that law changed? I haven't heard of any others happening
Click to expand...
As New York Suspends Time Constraints On Sexual Abuse Claims, a Wave of Lawsuits Arrive In Courts

The lookback window in the ASA is similar to that in the state’s Child Victims Act, which was first signed into law on Feb. 14, 2019 and resulted in more than 10,000 lawsuits.
Click to expand...

So they were doing these look back laws back in 2019, for child victims and it was used by a lot of people.

“What’s unique about the ASA, and how it will be different from the CVA, is there will be a lot of cases against employers who will have liability as a result of managers and senior-level people who engage in these kinds of behaviors,” says Manhattan-based employment litigator Douglas Wigdor, who has multiple clients that have filed complaints under the law.
Click to expand...

It includes provisions that have nothing to do with Trump.
New York law gives adult sex abuse survivors more time to sue. But does it go far enough?

130 cases as of this week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#370
#370
loggervol said:
This woman couldn’t even remember what year or when this happened. I understand that you guys hate Trump but come on. This should’ve been thrown out on that alone.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump hurt his case badly with the way he handled his deposition. Trump came across as flippant, arrogant and very disrespectful of women. It was exactly the wrong chord to strike. When given a chance to disavow his infamous Access Hollywood video remarks, he instead, doubled down on them. That was stupid.
 
#371
#371
loggervol said:
She could’ve said this happened on top of the Empire State Building and they were still going to find him liable for something.
Click to expand...
With Trump's deposition being exactly the same ... you are probably right.

A preponderance of the evidence is a low bar to clear, and Trump makes it so easy to dislike him ... and that is true even for people who pay no attention to politics, or have an opinion one way or the other on his presidency.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top