Comment on We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

• Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I also that, but I’m also in support of massively reforging the legal system so that everyone can and will use it appropriately.

  Which a large part of that will be changing how it is funded and expanding it all that appearing before a court to have your case heard is as easy as possible.

  Any issue before a court shouldn’t be swayed so easily by how much money you can spend on it, or how long you can tie up the issue to delay and it avoid resolution.

  It’s a weird situation where I think more is better

  source
• Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.

  source

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    This is pretty ironic.

    Witness testimony in court is not “just an accusation”. It’s corroborated by cross examination.

    Cross examination is where the opposing council questions the witness in an attempt to poke holes in their testimony, point out inconsistencies and otherwise discredit the witness.

    While corroboration means:

    To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. synonym: confirm.

    Cross examination, be definition, is the exact opposite of corroboration.

    source

    • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      If the cross examination fails to do that, it’s confirmed.

      source

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        That’s not how that works at all.

        source
• Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  You can absolutely convict people with enough testimony. Word againat word doesn’t suffice but word against words can under certain conditions.

  source