My discussion was NOT about the facts of this case
Posted on: June 16, 2024 at 21:45:52 CT
Lovely Rita UW
Posts:
3648
Member For:
11.52 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
or whether the evidence was weak or strong.
Against all odds, as a long time practicing attorney I attempted to explain to the “message board lawyers” that there was in fact admissible evidence presented in the case in the form of the testimony of the victim. It is a popular opinion that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE - a stupid assertion to say the least. If there was NO EVIDENCE the judge would not have given the case to the jury - he would have dismissed it outright. The victim’s testimony is called DIRECT EVIDENCE as opposed to circumstantial evidence.
I took no position on whether her testimony was credible or whether the prosecution case was weak or strong or whether the verdict was right or wrong. I don’t care one way or the other. I will assume that justice was done.
I also refuted the ridiculous claim on here that there can be no criminal prosecution based solely on a lay victim’s testimony. Again, that is totally wrong - ask any lawyer.