[Puffer Fish]

It's also interesting that the jury is punishing Trump for calling the woman a liar, when the only evidence she is not a liar are her own words.

If this case is to be accepted as precedent, it means no one will be allowed to publicly call anyone else a liar, unless that person can prove it, otherwise they could get sued for lots of money.
This is absurd. Traditionally for a person to sue another person for defamation, the burden is on the one initiating the lawsuit to have to prove that the defamation was not true.

Remember, a court threw out Trump's lawsuit against the woman. So there are clear double standards at play. It means her word about what happened is automatically believed and Trump's is not.

The court wouldn't let Trump sue the woman for accusing him of things, but the court would let the woman sue him for calling her a liar.

[Puffer Fish]

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 26 women.

All of which conveniently started after he began running for president.

If the plaintiff's lawyers can show there is a pattern of behavior, the defendant is stuffed.

That is not have a civil case should work. The question in this specific case is not (or should not have been) whether the defendant had a past pattern of behavior, but rather whether that behavior actually happened to this specific plaintiff.
Because a civil case is all about awarding money to the plaintiff.
Proving that Trump is guilty, in a general sense, should not have been enough. The plaintiff should have to prove that SHE specifically was the victim.

Otherwise what you are going to see (and I think we are already seeing it) is lots of women trying to pile on accusing a rich man of sexual misconduct after they hear in the news he's already been accused by other women.

A witness statement is reasonable probable cause in any jurisdiction.

I think it gets a little more complicated when we are talking about an independent private citizen, and because of the situation there is no practical way to determine if that citizen is lying.
I would think that the burden of proof to collect evidence would be higher in a civil case than a criminal case.

Are you proposing that in any case where a woman is accusing a man of a sexual assault that supposedly happened more than a year ago, and the woman claims she has a sample of the man's DNA, that authorities should automatically force that man to submit to a DNA test?
I think that would be a controversial policy. And I don't think it's currently standard practice, at least not in American court practice.
Especially so when we are not even talking about a criminal case but a civil case initiated by the plaintiff.

And especially since such evidence would not even prove anything for certain but would only strongly suggest that the man may have had sex with her (whether consensual or not).

[Fasces]

All of which conveniently started after he began running for president.

Trump made this claim in his trial. Jean was able to prove she had made the allegations in the 1990s, and had communicated about the incident with friends at that time. She didn't magically start after he began running for President.

That is not have a civil case should work.

The civil case was about defamation. She claimed Trump sexually assaulted her. Trump called her a liar and defamed her character. Because the jury has found evidence that Jean was telling the truth, Trump has to pay damages for defaming her character and calling her a liar.

I think it gets a little more complicated when we are talking about an independent private citizen, and because of the situation there is no practical way to determine if that citizen is lying.

There was.

It was the trial.

The trial featured evidence.

And Trump lost.

Because he is a sexual abuser.

should automatically force that man to submit to a DNA test?

Nobody was forcing him. He chose not to submit his own DNA or give much of a defense.

[Steve_American]

It's also interesting that the jury is punishing Trump for calling the woman a liar, when the only evidence she is not a liar are her own words.

If this case is to be accepted as precedent, it means no one will be allowed to publicly call anyone else a liar, unless that person can prove it, otherwise they could get sued for lots of money.
This is absurd. Traditionally for a person to sue another person for defamation, the burden is on the one initiating the lawsuit to have to prove that the defamation was not true.

Remember, a court threw out Trump's lawsuit against the woman. So there are clear double standards at play. It means her word about what happened is automatically believed and Trump's is not.

The court wouldn't let Trump sue the woman for accusing him of things, but the court would let the woman sue him for calling her a liar.

You still don't get it.
Trump presented zero evidence to the court and jury. He didn't put on any defense, other than opening and closing statements. Such statements do NOT count as evidence, AFAIK. So, as a matter of law, Trump never said that he didn't rape her. Public statements do not count.

Why didn't he get on the stand and say he didn't do it? Very likely because that would be a *provable* lie, under oath, and just addd to the case a criminal charge of lying under oath, which could put him in jail.

If you believe what Trump says to the public outside the courtroom, then he did put on a defense and the court refuded to allow it. Courts very often don't allow certain evidence because past precedent say such evidence should not be allowed. An example is the past sex life of a rape victim.
. . . But, the court record shows that Trump did not mount a defense. So, Trump is lying in public.

So, there is no precedent, it seems to me, but I'm no legal expert.
.

[Skynet]

Who would rape/molest a grandma???

Trump is known as Casanova who loves MILFs not GILFs

[Steve_American]

Who would rape/molest a grandma???

Trump is known as Casanova who loves MILFs not GILFs

A jury that reportedly included at least one MAGA type, found Trump guilty of this. IIRC, it was 9 to 0. It's a civil case.

Of course, this was mainly because the defense did not put on a defense.

Trump called zero witnesses.

.

[ingliz]

Who would rape/molest a grandma???

She wasn't a grandma at the time the assault took place in 1995.

[Skynet]

She wasn't a grandma at the time the assault took place in 1995.

Why she did not report it to police in 1995, now after 28 years...

It is fabricated story to prevent a 2nd Trump presidency.

[Godstud]

I hope Trump doesn't win in 2024. I bet a beer that he wouldn't win!

Trump and Biden should not be permitted in the next election as they are too fricken old! They are both suffering from senile dementia. They are both old perverts.

[ingliz]

after 26 years

28 years

2023 - 1995 = 28

Why she did not report it to police

Why would she humiliate herself when less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions?

I expect Trump calling her a liar pissed her off. If you care to look, you will see the majority of the damages are awarded for defamation.

[Godstud]

Why would she humiliate herself when less than 1% of sexual assaults lead to felony convictions in the US?

That's objectively false.

60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years. Those rapists, of course, never spend a day in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail.
If a rape is reported, there is a 50.8% chance of an arrest.
If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of conviction.
If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.
So even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.
https://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/ ... conviction.

That said, if a woman at least reports it, it makes a future conviction far more likely as it sets up a history of this sort of behavior.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions.

Your numbers probably include all sexual assaults.

And even then they seem optimistic.

The Vast Majority of Perpetrators Will Not Go to Jail or Prison

Only 310 out of every 1,000 sexual assaults are reported to police

50 reports lead to arrest

28 cases will lead to a felony conviction

25 perpetrators will be incarcerated


ps. I'll edit my last post to 'Less than 1% of rapes lead to felony convictions.' A claim that is borne out by E Jean Carroll's unsuccessful rape case against Trump.

[Godstud]

Rape is sexual assault. You're just going by a Washington post article(behind a paywall) and not by the actual statistics.

[Pants-of-dog]

The statistics for Canada show that rape convictions happen in less than one percent of rapes.

Over a six‑year period between 2009 and 2014, sexual assault cases experienced attrition at all levels of the criminal justice system: an accused was identified in three in five (59%) sexual assault incidents reported by police; less than half (43%) of sexual assault incidents resulted in a charge being laid; of these, half (49%) proceeded to court; of which just over half (55%) led to a conviction; of which just over half (56%) were sentenced to custody.

……

The majority of victims of sexual assault are female, particularly young women and girls (Rotenberg 2017). As previous research has found, only a minority (5% (use with caution)) of sexual assaults in Canada are reported to the police (Conroy and Cotter 2017), a low reporting rate similar to those in other western countries (Kaufman 2008; Welch and Mason 2007).

5% are reported.
Less than half of those (about 2.4%j are charged.
Half of these (about 1.2%) go to court.
Half of these (about 0.6%) are convicted.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85- ... 70-eng.htm

[Skynet]

@ingliz How many women falsely accuse men of rape???

This is a high number.


I think rapists should be hanged but their guilt has to be proven 100%, word against word is not enough!

[Godstud]

I agree with some of what you say @Sandzak , but getting 100% proof of guilt is impossible in most crimes. No one can determine if the false claims rate is a high number or not. Many sexual assault accusations might be valid but lack evidence.

What SHOULD happen is that people(men and women) who make false sexual assault claims(you'd have to prove it was false) should suffer a similar penalty to the one they were willing to mete out to an innocent. At the very least there should be a 'Perjury' and 'Obstruction of Justice' charge.

[Puffer Fish]

The statistics for Canada show that rape convictions happen in less than one percent of rapes.
...
5% are reported.

That's not necessarily even relevant.

So first off, only 5% are reported. Which means 95% of those convictions don't happen because the woman did not report it.
And then a lot of the time the woman does not even know the identity of the suspect. So a conviction will fail to happen not because they don't believe the woman, but simply because there is no suspect to accuse.

And even if the woman was not believed 99% of the time (which I have just demonstrated is false), that would STILL NOT be any reason to convict the accused man the other 1% of the time.