Reply to Danny Masterson

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Danny Masterson"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Don’t know if this has been said yet, but it’s crazy to put someone away for 30 years without [b]hard evidence[/b].  [/quote]

There is no legal category of "hard evidence" which shows your lack of knowledge of the legal system and this case. In this particular case, the victims gave direct testimony under oath and subject to cross examination by the defendant's counsel. That is evidence. It is up to the jury to decide whether or not that testimonial evidence is reliable and truthful (which this jury found it to be) and up to cross examination to discredit (which this jury did not find).  Masterson also waived his right to testify and exercised his right to remain silent. Hence he deliberately gave up his right to give his own testimony and allowed the only first hand account to be those of the accusers. This is not insignificant, it is a huge gamble and typically is not looked favorably on by juries as they want to hear both sides. Masterson did not provide his testimony, that was his decision.

Two of the victims also individually told third parties (friends) of these events after they happened. One even filed a police report in 2004. These facts were all permitted to be admissible as evidence.

If you are suggesting that "hard evidence" is only DNA to satisfy your personal comfort level, then you have zero knowledge of criminal court. And you should know that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault cases do not have any DNA. [/quote]

DP but what does knowledge of criminal court or our legal system have to do with forming an [b]opinion [/b] that it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without hard evidence?  [/quote]

The point is that there actually is a ton of evidence in this case, including evidence from the police report filed back when one of the rapes happened. The evidence presented in this case was very strong, better than like 99% of rape cases, because there were multiple victims whose stories corroborated each other, the victims told others about what had happened within days of the rapes occurring (including one filing a police report), and the victim's stories remained consistent for the nearly 20 years since this all happened. That's "hard evidence" in the colloquial sense of the word. Very few cases of any kind of have DNA evidence because it is hard to collect, sometimes hard to test, and often inconclusive. Corroborated eye-witness testimony is actually some of the best possible evidence you can have as a prosecutor.

Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of how criminal justice works.[/quote]

No, my opinion is based on the fact that *I think* it’s crazy to lock someone up for 30 years without evidence beyond a bunch of people saying “he did it!”

I accept your explanation that this is how the system works… so I think the system is crazy![/quote]

We are not the ones who heard all of the testimony.  The jury did, and they decided.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics