In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Sky King wrote: Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that.Liable and slander come to mind.

Mr. Reasonable weighs in.

rotfl

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:Sky King wrote: Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that.Liable and slander come to mind. Mr. Reasonable weighs in. rotfl


Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today.

td

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Sky King wrote:>> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that.Liable and slander come to mind. Mr. Reasonable weighs in. rotfl Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today. td
And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make
all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them.

"Sky King" <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:16232246.0402200649.308fee6c@posting.google.c om... "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob
<boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >Sky King wrote: >> >> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A >> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that. > >Liable and slander come to mind. Mr. Reasonable weighs in. rotfl Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today. td And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them.


Except in one or two of them, there IS DNA evidence that was taken at the
time. And there were police reports. The fact that the woman chose to not
go forward at the time should tell you something. A woman doesn't go for a
rape kit for fun. They are invasive, humiliating, and not something one
'enjoys' doing.

td

In article <16232246.0402200649.308fee6c@posting.google.com>,
Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >Sky King wrote: >> >> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A >> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that. > >Liable and slander come to mind. Mr. Reasonable weighs in. rotfl Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today. tdAnd no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can makeall kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them.

People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able
to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the
accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive,
humiliating, and not something one 'enjoys' doing. td

This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about being
rape".

Greg

"greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in
news:WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net:
"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive, humiliating, and not something one 'enjoys' doing. td This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about being rape". Greg

I wonder if Kobe was hanging with the UCO football team.

--
Don't Get Eliminated!!

In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsout h.net... A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive,humiliating, and not something one 'enjoys' doing. tdThis statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about beingrape".Greg

You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun?

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...

[...]
And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can makeall kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?

Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and other
women never say things like this.

Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for the
accused? That would explain your comment.

Nontheless, this illustrates just how polarized the issue is, there
are many who refuse to disbelieve any rape accusation, and no
recantation or aliby will suffice. Rather than requiring that guilt be
proven, they demand that innocence be proven, and it's pretty much
impossible by their standards.

That's one thing I say that gets lots of women upset, that all we have
most times are an accuser and an accused. And we have no knowledge
with which to access which, if either, is lying. The default
assumption BTW, is that the woman is telling the truth, and as a
consequence, that the accused is guilty. Do you think this is how
jutice is forged?

Rich

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsout h.net... A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive,humiliating, and not something one 'enjoys' doing. tdThis statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about
beingrape".Greg You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun?



Especially since at the time it was done, she didn't press charges. She
only came forward a couple years later, *after* all these other allegations
began surfacing.

td

In article <3a256c50.0402201556.516a1d29@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...[...]And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can makeall kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and otherwomen never say things like this.Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for theaccused? That would explain your comment.

No, and to say that would "explain" my comment shows a poor grasp of
logic on your part. Do you deny that a person could make a true
accusation and still not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

On 20 Feb 2004 19:24:38 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <3a256c50.0402201556.516a1d29@posting.google.com>,Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...[...] >And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make >all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and otherwomen never say things like this.Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for theaccused? That would explain your comment.No, and to say that would "explain" my comment shows a poor grasp oflogic on your part. Do you deny that a person could make a trueaccusation and still not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

Um . . . I believe in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that the default presumption of 'innocent' still applies. Any genuine
rape victim who cannot prove her charge has my sympathy, but that's
all. We simply cannot (well, should not, obviously we can and it
happens too often) convict a person of rape with nothing more than a
woman's say-so. I am sure that is a large part of what the previous
poster was trying to get you to see.

In article <a2ad301br3ufkh3nes8pvhijkdcrl12cmk@4ax.com>,
<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote:On 20 Feb 2004 19:24:38 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:In article <3a256c50.0402201556.516a1d29@posting.google.com>,Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...[...]> >And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make> >all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them.>> People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able> to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the> accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and otherwomen never say things like this.Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for theaccused? That would explain your comment.No, and to say that would "explain" my comment shows a poor grasp oflogic on your part. Do you deny that a person could make a trueaccusation and still not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?Um . . . I believe in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubtthat the default presumption of 'innocent' still applies. Any genuinerape victim who cannot prove her charge has my sympathy, but that'sall. We simply cannot (well, should not, obviously we can and ithappens too often) convict a person of rape with nothing more than awoman's say-so. I am sure that is a large part of what the previousposter was trying to get you to see.

Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape on
nothing more than a woman's say-so?

On 20 Feb 2004 19:46:55 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:

Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape onnothing more than a woman's say-so?

Well, if you want chapter and verse, I don't have it handy. If you are
so inclined though, do a quick search on the 'net for 'man cleared by
DNA evidence', or some such. There will be no shortage of examples for
you. And I don't believe it is splitting hairs on my part to point out
that I didn't say 'often', I said 'too often'. As in, 'if it only
happens once it's still too often'.
Oh, and it has happened more than once.

On 20 Feb 2004 19:46:55 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape onnothing more than a woman's say-so?

It took me about 4 minutes to make this list. You're welcome.

http://www.aidwyc.org/pdfs2/washingtonpost_jun6-2002.pdf

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/02/12/national2043EST0862.DTL

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/12/loc_kydnaevidence12.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/10/19/loc_court_grants.html

http://texnews.com/texas97/pardon100997.html

http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/oldnews/2000/00308.htm

In article <u2bd30plfp46trondotguvd3himrr6o0kk@4ax.com>,
<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote:On 20 Feb 2004 19:46:55 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape onnothing more than a woman's say-so?Well, if you want chapter and verse, I don't have it handy. If you areso inclined though, do a quick search on the 'net for 'man cleared byDNA evidence', or some such. There will be no shortage of examples foryou. And I don't believe it is splitting hairs on my part to point outthat I didn't say 'often', I said 'too often'. As in, 'if it onlyhappens once it's still too often'.

I agree.

In article <qecd30h9hhgjjdclae4uk1edfpm1l56vfc@4ax.com>,
<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote:On 20 Feb 2004 19:46:55 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape onnothing more than a woman's say-so?It took me about 4 minutes to make this list. You're welcome.http://www.aidwyc.org/pdfs2/washingtonpost_jun6-2002.pdfhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/02/12/national2043EST0862.DTLhttp://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/12/loc_kydnaevidence12.htmlhttp://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/10/19/loc_court_grants.htmlhttp://texnews.com/texas97/pardon100997.htmlhttp://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/oldnews/2000/00308.htm


If you're looking for mistaken convictions, look up the Innocence
Project and you'll find a lot more.

However, whether the only evidence in these cases was "a woman's
say-so" is less than clear from these articles. Indeed, if you look
at the convictions overturned by DNA evidence listed on the Innocence
Project's website, you'll see that in many of these cases, the woman
was killed in the course of the attack. So clearly, even mistaken
convictions are not always based solely on the woman's testimony.

On 20 Feb 2004 22:48:32 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:

If you're looking for mistaken convictions, look up the InnocenceProject and you'll find a lot more.

(snip)
clearly, even mistakenconvictions are not always based solely on the woman's testimony.

No argument from me. But then, I never suggested that they always
were.

I will look up that innocence project. Thanks for the tip.

You're being awfully civil. Are you sure you are posting to the right
group?

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsout h.net... A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive,humiliating, and not something one 'enjoys' doing. tdThis statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about
beingrape".Greg You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun?

Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit unless she
had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I believe
that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to support a
false rape allegation.

I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not lie
about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown that humans
will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not happen.

Greg

"greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in message
news:4XBZb.2111$yZ1.1174@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsout h.net...>> A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive,humiliating, and not something one> 'enjoys' doing.>> td>This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about beingrape".Greg You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun? Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit unless
she had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I believe that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to support a false rape allegation.


Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple years
ago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a rape
kit done, just for nothing.

I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not lie about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown that
humans will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not happen. Greg


I never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a rape kit
done for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed through
and brought charges?

td

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:30:51 -0500, "tinydancer"
<tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:
"greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in messagenews:4XBZb.2111$yZ1.1174@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . >> >> A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive, >humiliating, and not something one >> 'enjoys' doing. >> >> td >> > >This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about being >rape". > >Greg You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun? Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit unlessshe had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I believe that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to support a false rape allegation.Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple yearsago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a rapekit done, just for nothing. I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not lie about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown thathumans will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not happen. GregI never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a rape kitdone for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed throughand brought charges?

So why did she have it done? Why did she go through the rape kit
thing and do nothing more?

Ann

Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<itce30d14aukrbes5qslltqg9sdjp003mu@4ax.com>... On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:30:51 -0500, "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:"greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in messagenews:4XBZb.2111$yZ1.1174@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, > greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > > > >"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . > >> > >> A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive, humiliating, and not something one > >> 'enjoys' doing. > >> > >> td > >> > > > >This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about being > >rape". > > > >Greg > > You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun?

Who said they did it for fun. Many men are falsely accused of rape and these
women probably had a rape kit done. Having that done does not mean she was
raped. > Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit unless she had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I believe that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to support a false rape allegation.Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple yearsago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a rapekit done, just for nothing.

Who said it was for nothing? I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not lie about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown that humans will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not happen. GregI never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a rape kitdone for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed throughand brought charges?

Not if she thought she did not have enough evidence or if she was lying. So why did she have it done? Why did she go through the rape kit thing and do nothing more? Ann

Who knows for sure? There could be many reasons.

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <16232246.0402200649.308fee6c@posting.google.com>, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Sky King wrote: > >> > >> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A > >> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that. > > > >Liable and slander come to mind. > > Mr. Reasonable weighs in. > > rotfl Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today. tdAnd no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can makeall kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?

Rarely do unjustly accused people sue for slander. If they can't prove
the accusations then they remain just that...accusations with no PROOF.

"Sky King" <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:16232246.0402210718.70082f8@posting.google.co m... Ann <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<itce30d14aukrbes5qslltqg9sdjp003mu@4ax.com>... On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:30:51 -0500, "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:"greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in messagenews:4XBZb.2111$yZ1.1174@newsread2.news.pas .earthlink.net...>> "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> > In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> > greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> > >> > >"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message> > >news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .> > >>> > >> A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive, humiliating, and not something one> > >> 'enjoys' doing.> > >>> > >> td> > >>> > >> > >This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie
about being> > >rape".> > >> > >Greg> >> > You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun? Who said they did it for fun. Many men are falsely accused of rape and
these women probably had a rape kit done. Having that done does not mean she
was raped.> >>> Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit
unless she> had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I
believe> that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to
support a> false rape allegation.Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple
yearsago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a
rapekit done, just for nothing. Who said it was for nothing?>> I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not
lie> about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown that humans> will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not
happen.>> GregI never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a
rape kitdone for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed
throughand brought charges? Not if she thought she did not have enough evidence or if she was lying. So why did she have it done? Why did she go through the rape kit thing and do nothing more? Ann Who knows for sure? There could be many reasons.


Many women go into the hospital after having been raped, to be checked over,
tested for STD's, receive treatment. From the stories I've been reading on
this topic, it reads like this is the woman who was sodomized by two of the
players and was bleeding.

td

In article <16232246.0402210726.2b72ba30@posting.google.com>,
Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <16232246.0402200649.308fee6c@posting.google.com>, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...> "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> > In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:> > >Sky King wrote:> > >>> > >> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A> > >> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that.> > >> > >Liable and slander come to mind.> >> > Mr. Reasonable weighs in.> >> > rotfl>> Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today.>> td>And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can makeall kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Rarely do unjustly accused people sue for slander.

Don't you mean people who *claim* that they were unjustly accused?
If I had proof that I was falsely accused, I'd sue. Wouldn't you?
If they can't provethe accusations then they remain just that...accusations with no PROOF.

You mean if they can't prove their accusation that they were falsely
accused? I agree.

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d0CZb.11420$ld7.7664@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. . Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple years ago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a rape kit done, just for nothing.

I didn't say an allegation was made by the woman in Colorado. My response
was not directed at any of the facts of the Univ of Colorado case. My
comment was strictly about your statement regarding a woman's willingness to
undergo a rape kit being some type of proof that a rape occurred.
I never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a rape
kit done for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed through and brought charges?

No, not necessarily.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. Just because there is no
follow through by a woman after undergoing a rape kit, it does not
necessarily follow that a rape definetly occurred. Your prejudice is showing
here, and I don't mind prejudice, we all have them. But I think it would be
less dishonest if you admitted it. You seem to be blind to the fact that a
rape allegation, or a woman's undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence
that a rape happened.

Anyone who thinks the way you do should NOT sit on any jury, IMHO,
especially if the case involves a woman alleging she was raped.

Greg

In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:
You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.

Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.
Anyone who thinks the way you do should NOT sit on any jury, IMHO

Look who's talking.

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1894h$4i4@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <16232246.0402210726.2b72ba30@posting.google.com>, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <16232246.0402200649.308fee6c@posting.google.com>, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote: >"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8ceZb.36456$kR3.3270@bignews4.bellsouth.net>... >> "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >> news:c13qi4$had@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> > In article <4035547C.9080105@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >Sky King wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Gee..no charges pressed but many allegations thrown around. A >> > >> reasonable person could draw some conclusions from that. >> > > >> > >Liable and slander come to mind. >> > >> > Mr. Reasonable weighs in. >> > >> > rotfl >> >> Actually, that would be sixth rape accusation, as of today. >> >> td >> >And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make >all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Rarely do unjustly accused people sue for slander. Don't you mean people who *claim* that they were unjustly accused?

OK
If I had proof that I was falsely accused, I'd sue. Wouldn't you?

One..it would be hard to prove and two..no I would not always sue.
The person they would be suing may not have ANY money.If they can't provethe accusations then they remain just that...accusations with no PROOF. You mean if they can't prove their accusation that they were falsely accused? I agree.

LOL. They don't have to prove anything. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Its the alleged victim that bears the burden. IF the alleged victim does not
file charges the men have nothing to disprove.

In article <16232246.0402221003.423b8ca@posting.google.com>,
Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1894h$4i4@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
If I had proof that I was falsely accused, I'd sue. Wouldn't you?One..it would be hard to prove

Kind of like a lot of genuine rapes, eh, Sky?
You mean if they can't prove their accusation that they were falsely accused? I agree.LOL. They don't have to prove anything. They are innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent in the eyes of the law. Doesn't mean the woman lied. Don't
pretend the distiction is beyond your intellectual capacity. Unless
you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious
crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent until proven
guilty.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote... Unless you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent until proven guilty.

You assume too much- the accuser of the alleged false accuser who's
accusation allegements are considered against the accused who is presumed
innocent is presumed innocent as is the presumed innocence of the accuser of
the alleged accuser of the alleged false accuser and the attendant
accusations.
Those guys always miss that.

c.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.

Huh?

An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's willingness
to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.

Can you explain what you mean here?

Greg

In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.Huh?An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's willingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here?

Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.Huh?An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's
willingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?

Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to be
the truth, but doesn't have to be.

"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message
news:e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >>> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a
woman's> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.>> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.>Huh?An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's willingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to be the truth, but doesn't have to be.


Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence.

td

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:37 -0700, "Chas"
<chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote... Unless you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent until proven guilty.You assume too much- the accuser of the alleged false accuser who'saccusation allegements are considered against the accused who is presumedinnocent is presumed innocent as is the presumed innocence of the accuser ofthe alleged accuser of the alleged false accuser and the attendantaccusations.Those guys always miss that.

. . . so putting the better butter in the batter made the bitter
batter better. Got that?

In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >>> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.>> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.>Huh?An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman'swillingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to bethe truth, but doesn't have to be.

Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why
we have juries.

On 21 Feb 2004 22:58:25 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.

It's annoying when you're right. 'Course, we may have a slightly
different idea of what you're right about.

Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone had
a rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the tricky
thing, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takes
to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where the
work is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies it
all up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.
It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course,
mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away with
their crimes. I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he
(or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote.... Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.

Actually, it's probably 'hearsay'.
Eyewitness is actually very good evidence; two 3rd Party Eyewitness' is
enough to convict in most cases. Video, as an example, is 'eyewitness'.

Chas

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:05:13 GMT, Sillyman@famous.com wrote:
On 21 Feb 2004 22:58:25 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.It's annoying when you're right. 'Course, we may have a slightlydifferent idea of what you're right about.Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone hada rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the trickything, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takesto come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where thework is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies itall up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course,mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away withtheir crimes.

There's always Bob, you've not met him I presume.

Ann
I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he(or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message
news:o1fi30h60md6vece672qgkphu50htvhbhj@4ax.com... On 21 Feb 2004 22:58:25 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. It's annoying when you're right. 'Course, we may have a slightly different idea of what you're right about. Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone had a rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the tricky thing, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takes to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where the work is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies it all up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence. It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course, mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away with their crimes.


You're kidding, right? You have included soc men in your lists of groups
this is posted to, and you still can make that statement?

td


I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he (or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:47:14 -0500, "tinydancer"
<tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:
Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone had a rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the tricky thing, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takes to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where the work is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies it all up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence. It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course, mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away with their crimes.You're kidding, right? You have included soc men in your lists of groupsthis is posted to, and you still can make that statement?
I'm not kidding about any of it. Did you perhaps mean just that last
sentence? If you feel that posters to soc.men want rapists to get away
it, well, I've only been reading this group for less than two weeks so
I couldn't say. However, since I don't know any of them my statement
is quite factual. I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he (or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a
woman's >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. >> > >Huh? > >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman'swillingness >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > >Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to
bethe truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries.

You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in with
my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think that
just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful.

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message
news:0vei30pmkn1dt376amonp6c5qptqjfm7r8@4ax.com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:37 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote>... Unless you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent until
proven guilty.You assume too much- the accuser of the alleged false accuser who'saccusation allegements are considered against the accused who is presumedinnocent is presumed innocent as is the presumed innocence of the accuser
ofthe alleged accuser of the alleged false accuser and the attendantaccusations.Those guys always miss that. . . . so putting the better butter in the batter made the bitter batter better. Got that?

I was gonna say peter piper picked a pail of pickled peppers...

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message
news:rnki30lelqme955aas6al8r3002o42plmo@4ax.com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:47:14 -0500, "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote: Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone had a rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the tricky thing, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takes to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where the work is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies it all up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence. It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course, mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away with their crimes.You're kidding, right? You have included soc men in your lists of groupsthis is posted to, and you still can make that statement? I'm not kidding about any of it. Did you perhaps mean just that last sentence?

Yup, sorry I should have made that clear.


If you feel that posters to soc.men want rapists to get away it, well, I've only been reading this group for less than two weeks so I couldn't say. However, since I don't know any of them my statement is quite factual.


From what I've read of them, soc men don't think there is such a thing as
rape. All women are 'askin for it'. And if you've bought a woman dinner or
a movie, it's an entitlement.

td


I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he (or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message
news:JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape
happened.> >>> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.> >>> >> >Huh?> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman'swillingness> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.> >> >Can you explain what you mean here?>> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to bethe truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries. You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in with my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think
that just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful.



My earlier statement was>


Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence.


Now what about that statement do you disagree with exactly?

td

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:led_b.8694$Ve2.3124@bignews6.bellsouth.net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> >> In article
<EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. >> >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. >> >> >> > >> >Huh? >> > >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's >willingness >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. >> > >> >Can you explain what you mean here? >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed
to be >the truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries. You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in
with my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think that just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. My earlier statement was> Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence. Now what about that statement do you disagree with exactly?

What you posted was said....already established. Why did you feel the need
to say it again? I think it's because a statement is sworn, you think it's
true...it's not.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu...Huh?An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's
willingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?

I wasn't thinking of an allegation as beng sworn testimony, but okay.

Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo a
rape being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that you still
believe that to be the case?

Greg

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:10:47 -0700, "Chas"
<chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:
<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote.... Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.Actually, it's probably 'hearsay'.Eyewitness is actually very good evidence; two 3rd Party Eyewitness' isenough to convict in most cases. Video, as an example, is 'eyewitness'.Chas

Hearsay is not admissable in court except under very special
circumstances (and it's been a long time since high school law class,
I don't remember what those circumstances are). I know cops have no
qualms listening to hearsay evidence. It is hoped that they
investigate it thoroughly before acting on it though.

It's a truism in many fields, inclucing law enforcement, that 10
different eyewitnesses will give you 10 different versions of what's
happened. If you've ever been snookered into umpiring a kid's softball
game you'll know what that's like. In the few times I had to settle
disputes during my brief coaching career I learned what a lot of cops
and insurance guys have learned - if two eyewitness accounts are
identical, suspect that they've been rehearsed (ie, conspiracy, a
lie).

I can't cite you examples at the moment, but I know that challenge of
eyewitness testimony has led to acquittal many times. Credibility is a
serious issue in this, thus the furor over juries not being told that
a woman accusing rape has done so several times in the past and not
ever proven it.

None of this contradicts what you've said regarding likely conviction
based on the eyewitness testimony of two third parties. I couldn't
prove it either way, I'm happy to take your word for it. I would hope,
and I'm sure you would as well, that the stories and credibility of
those two witnesses would be well vetted. From the number of cases in
the news regarding convicts later being exonerated by DNA testing, I
would suggest the vetting process is often too lax.

As regards video evidence, that is not an 'eyewitness' account,
anymore than a photograph is. That is physical evidence which can be
gone over again and again, and is not subject to vagaries of memory,
and not coloured by emotion. Video evidence may raise strong
emotions, but the video itself has no motive and no agenda.

In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >> >>> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or awoman's> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.> >>> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.> >>> >> >Huh?> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman'swillingness> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.> >> >Can you explain what you mean here?>> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed tobethe truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries.You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in withmy thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think thatjust because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful.

I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this
thread.

I take it you agree that testimony is evidence?

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message
news:euki30h4mglm08f84c3h2u385t31she4jc@4ax.com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:10:47 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote.... Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.Actually, it's probably 'hearsay'.Eyewitness is actually very good evidence; two 3rd Party Eyewitness' isenough to convict in most cases. Video, as an example, is 'eyewitness'.Chas Hearsay is not admissable in court except under very special circumstances (and it's been a long time since high school law class, I don't remember what those circumstances are).


Excited utterances, and usually admisible in court.



I know cops have no qualms listening to hearsay evidence. It is hoped that they investigate it thoroughly before acting on it though. It's a truism in many fields, inclucing law enforcement, that 10 different eyewitnesses will give you 10 different versions of what's happened. If you've ever been snookered into umpiring a kid's softball game you'll know what that's like. In the few times I had to settle disputes during my brief coaching career I learned what a lot of cops and insurance guys have learned - if two eyewitness accounts are identical, suspect that they've been rehearsed (ie, conspiracy, a lie). I can't cite you examples at the moment, but I know that challenge of eyewitness testimony has led to acquittal many times. Credibility is a serious issue in this, thus the furor over juries not being told that a woman accusing rape has done so several times in the past and not ever proven it. None of this contradicts what you've said regarding likely conviction based on the eyewitness testimony of two third parties. I couldn't prove it either way, I'm happy to take your word for it. I would hope, and I'm sure you would as well, that the stories and credibility of those two witnesses would be well vetted. From the number of cases in the news regarding convicts later being exonerated by DNA testing, I would suggest the vetting process is often too lax. As regards video evidence, that is not an 'eyewitness' account, anymore than a photograph is. That is physical evidence which can be gone over again and again, and is not subject to vagaries of memory, and not coloured by emotion. Video evidence may raise strong emotions, but the video itself has no motive and no agenda.

In article <GLc_b.8797$CQ6.8077@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in messagenews:0vei30pmkn1dt376amonp6c5qptqjfm7r8@4ax .com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:37 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote>>... Unless> you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious> crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent untilproven> guilty.You assume too much- the accuser of the alleged false accuser who'saccusation allegements are considered against the accused who is presumedinnocent is presumed innocent as is the presumed innocence of the accuserofthe alleged accuser of the alleged false accuser and the attendantaccusations.Those guys always miss that. . . . so putting the better butter in the batter made the bitter batter better. Got that?I was gonna say peter piper picked a pail of pickled peppers...

Run away from the point however you want. But don't think people
won't notice that you did so.

In article <2pd_b.8806$CQ6.7647@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:led_b.8694$Ve2.3124@bignews6.bellsouth .net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote: > > > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, > >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> >> In article<EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, > >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's > >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. > >> >> > >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Huh? > >> > > >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's > >willingness > >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > >> > > >> >Can you explain what you mean here? > >> > >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > > > >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposedto be > >the truth, but doesn't have to be. > > Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why > we have juries. You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed inwith my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think that just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. My earlier statement was> Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence. Now what about that statement do you disagree with exactly?What you posted was said....already established. Why did you feel the needto say it again?

Uh, because you went to a post where it didn't appear, and pretended
tinydancer said something else? Not nice, Raqui, and not very honest,
either. Of course, you're not under oath, but I think we can still draw
some conclusions about your credibility from the fact that you did so.

In article <ICd_b.4328$yZ1.589@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo arape being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that you stillbelieve that to be the case?

You seem a little unclear on the "rape" concept, greg. Have someone
explain it to you, preferably before your next date.

(snipped)

TJAB > > Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?
RAQUI > Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed
to be the truth, but doesn't have to be.


TD > Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence.



Those two statements to me, are the same. Look it up. The subject was court,
and there is but ONE definition. Honesty has nothing to do with it, I stand
by what I said, and I've seen enough of your postings to judge what side of
the fence you're on too.

"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message
news:OAe_b.8933$CQ6.2661@fed1read05... (snipped) TJAB > > Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? RAQUI > Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you
know...supposed to be the truth, but doesn't have to be. TD > Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence. Those two statements to me, are the same. Look it up. The subject was
court, and there is but ONE definition. Honesty has nothing to do with it, I
stand by what I said, and I've seen enough of your postings to judge what side
of the fence you're on too.


If that's the way you approach testifying in court it says more about you.
If someone lies under oath, they can be prosecuted for perjury. Ask Martha.

td

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> >> In article
<EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or awoman's >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape
happened. >> >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. >> >> >> > >> >Huh? >> > >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's >willingness >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. >> > >> >Can you explain what you mean here? >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed
tobe >the truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries.You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in
withmy thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think
thatjust because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this thread.

Scroll back again.
I take it you agree that testimony is evidence?

"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message
news:77f_b.9025$CQ6.5730@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>wrote:> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> >> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message> >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu...> >> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,> >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or awoman's> >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened.> >> >>> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.> >> >>> >> >> >> >Huh?> >> >> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's> >willingness> >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.> >> >> >> >Can you explain what you mean here?> >>> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?> >> >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed tobe> >the truth, but doesn't have to be.>> Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why> we have juries.You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in withmy thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think thatjust because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this thread. Scroll back again.


I don't see it either?

td

I take it you agree that testimony is evidence?

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%mf_b.9481$ks2.6829@bignews5.bellsouth.net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:77f_b.9025$CQ6.5730@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui
<WestCoast@TV.com> >wrote: >> > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >> >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> >> In article
<S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >> >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> >> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, >> >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or
a >woman's >> >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Huh? >> >> > >> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A
woman's >> >willingness >> >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. >> >> > >> >> >Can you explain what you mean here? >> >> >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? >> > >> >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you
know...supposed to >be >> >the truth, but doesn't have to be. >> >> Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why >> we have juries. > >You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in with >my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to
think that >just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this thread. Scroll back again. I don't see it either? td

Don't see what? You know you replied. You know what comment you made.

"Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message
news:Rqg_b.9256$CQ6.4832@fed1read05... "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%mf_b.9481$ks2.6829@bignews5.bellsouth.net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:77f_b.9025$CQ6.5730@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui
<WestCoast@TV.com> wrote: > > > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> > >wrote: > >> > > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >> >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> >> In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, > >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >> >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> >> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, > >> >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation,
or a > >woman's > >> >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Huh? > >> >> > > >> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's > >> >willingness > >> >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > >> >> > > >> >> >Can you explain what you mean here? > >> >> > >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > >> > > >> >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to > >be > >> >the truth, but doesn't have to be. > >> > >> Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why > >> we have juries. > > > >You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed
in with > >my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems to think that > >just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. > > I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this > thread. Scroll back again. I don't see it either? td Don't see what? You know you replied. You know what comment you made.

I've already done this for you a couple times. Get it right.

My earlier statement was>


Testimony is sworn statement given as evidence.


Now what about that statement do you disagree with exactly?

td

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<d0CZb.11420$ld7.7664@bignews3.bellsouth.net>... "greg brown" <noway@way.com> wrote in message news:4XBZb.2111$yZ1.1174@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c166g2$p51@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <WVuZb.1568$yZ1.1047@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:hGqZb.13380$c14.5268@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. . >> >> A woman doesn't go for a rape kit for fun. They are invasive, humiliating, and not something one >> 'enjoys' doing. >> >> td >> > >This statement reminds me of another one, "a woman wouldn't lie about being >rape". > >Greg You mean you think a woman *would* do a rape kit for fun? Your statement implies that a woman would not undergo a rape kit unless she had really been raped, because I assume, rape kits are not fun. I believe that a woman might undergo a rape kit under false pretences to support a false rape allegation. Except no allegation was made at the time. This happened a couple years ago. And no, I don't think a woman would go to the hospital, have a rape kit done, just for nothing. I think we need to get away from this notion that a woman would not lie about being raped. Women are human and I think it has been shown that humans will lie about pretty much anything, including crimes that did not happen. Greg I never said some women might not lie. But if a woman was having a rape kit done for the purpose of lying, don't you think she'd have followed through and brought charges?

Seems to me that if she was inventing charges, she would be more
likely, not less, to have second thoughts about the whole deal. In
any case, waiting a few years before proceeding does not make the
accuser seem more credible to me.
td

Sillyman@famous.com wrote in message news:<euki30h4mglm08f84c3h2u385t31she4jc@4ax.com>... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:10:47 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:

[snip]
As regards video evidence, that is not an 'eyewitness' account, anymore than a photograph is. That is physical evidence which can be gone over again and again, and is not subject to vagaries of memory, and not coloured by emotion. Video evidence may raise strong emotions, but the video itself has no motive and no agenda.

Except that of the cameraman and editor...

"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Ucd_b.8690$Ve2.750@bignews6.bellsouth.net>... <Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message news:rnki30lelqme955aas6al8r3002o42plmo@4ax.com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:47:14 -0500, "tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote:> Testimony is not proof, but it is evidence. The fact that someone had> a rape kit done is not proof, but it is evidence. That's the tricky> thing, isn't it? Deciding how much evidence, how many clues it takes> to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where the> work is. It's the absence of incontrovertible evidence that muddies it> all up. Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.> It's corrupted even more by, well, corruption. And, of course,> mistakes. I don't know anyone who wants rapists to get away with> their crimes.You're kidding, right? You have included soc men in your lists of groupsthis is posted to, and you still can make that statement? I'm not kidding about any of it. Did you perhaps mean just that last sentence? Yup, sorry I should have made that clear. If you feel that posters to soc.men want rapists to get away it, well, I've only been reading this group for less than two weeks so I couldn't say. However, since I don't know any of them my statement is quite factual. From what I've read of them, soc men don't think there is such a thing as rape. All women are 'askin for it'. And if you've bought a woman dinner or a movie, it's an entitlement. td

Bob aside, this is unadulterated bull****. In any case, a similar
analysis of your posts (i.e. ignoring all disclaimers and evidence to
the contrary) would lead one inescapably to the conclusion that you
don't beleive that women ever lie about being raped.
I also don't want anyone going to jail for a crime he> (or even she) didn't commit. I'm pretty sure you don't either.

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1atng$3er@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <16232246.0402221003.423b8ca@posting.google.com>, Sky King <rebeo727@adelphia.net> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1894h$4i4@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... If I had proof that I was falsely accused, I'd sue. Wouldn't you?One..it would be hard to prove Kind of like a lot of genuine rapes, eh, Sky? You mean if they can't prove their accusation that they were falsely accused? I agree.LOL. They don't have to prove anything. They are innocent until proven guilty. Innocent in the eyes of the law. Doesn't mean the woman lied. Don't pretend the distiction is beyond your intellectual capacity. Unless you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a serious crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent until proven guilty.

It seems to me that convicting someone of either making bad faith
accusations of rape or making accusations of rape with reckless
disregard for truth would be at least as difficult as convicting
someone of rape, if not more so what with the reluctance of the legal
system to "deter victims from coming forward"

In article <Rqg_b.9256$CQ6.4832@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:%mf_b.9481$ks2.6829@bignews5.bellsouth .net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:77f_b.9025$CQ6.5730@fed1read05... "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote: > > > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui<WestCoast@TV.com> > >wrote: > >> > > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >> >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> >> In article<S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, > >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > >> >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > >> >> >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, > >> >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, ora > >woman's > >> >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Huh? > >> >> > > >> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. Awoman's > >> >willingness > >> >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > >> >> > > >> >> >Can you explain what you mean here? > >> >> > >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > >> > > >> >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration youknow...supposed to > >be > >> >the truth, but doesn't have to be. > >> > >> Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why > >> we have juries. > > > >You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed in with > >my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems tothink that > >just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. > > I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in this > thread. Scroll back again. I don't see it either? tdDon't see what? You know you replied. You know what comment you made.

I see you're going to persist in your dishonesty. That says something
about you.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1cu0h$7pr@rac3.wam.umd.edu... In article <Rqg_b.9256$CQ6.4832@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:"tinydancer" <tinydancer@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:%mf_b.9481$ks2.6829@bignews5.bellsouth .net... "Raqui" <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote in message news:77f_b.9025$CQ6.5730@fed1read05... > > "tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > news:c1bq7v$18a@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > > In article <JGc_b.8796$CQ6.4716@fed1read05>, Raqui
<WestCoast@TV.com> > wrote: > > > > > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > > >news:c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > > >> In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui<WestCoast@TV.com> > > >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > > >> >news:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > > >> >> In article<S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, > > >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... > > >> >> >> In article > <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, > > >> >> >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation,
ora > > >woman's > > >> >> >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape > happened. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Huh? > > >> >> > > > >> >> >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. Awoman's > > >> >willingness > > >> >> >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Can you explain what you mean here? > > >> >> > > >> >> Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence? > > >> > > > >> >Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration youknow...supposed > to > > >be > > >> >the truth, but doesn't have to be. > > >> > > >> Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why > > >> we have juries. > > > > > >You posed a question by asking if testimony is evidence. I weighed
in > with > > >my thoughts. Explain the whole thing to tinydancer. She seems tothink > that > > >just because testimony is sworn it has to be truthful. > > > > I scrolled back, and I don't see "tinydancer wrote" anywhere in
this > > thread. > > Scroll back again. I don't see it either? tdDon't see what? You know you replied. You know what comment you made. I see you're going to persist in your dishonesty. That says something about you.

And you scrolled back and didn't see where tinydancer said anything in this
thread. Says a lot about you too.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1bqmu$29v@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <GLc_b.8797$CQ6.8077@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com>
wrote:<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in messagenews:0vei30pmkn1dt376amonp6c5qptqjfm7r8@4ax .com... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:03:37 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote: >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote >>>... Unless >> you want to drop your belief that a false rape accusation is a
serious >> crime (I agree), the alleged false accuser is also innocent untilproven >> guilty. > >You assume too much- the accuser of the alleged false accuser who's >accusation allegements are considered against the accused who is
presumed >innocent is presumed innocent as is the presumed innocence of the
accuserof >the alleged accuser of the alleged false accuser and the attendant >accusations. >Those guys always miss that. . . . so putting the better butter in the batter made the bitter batter better. Got that?I was gonna say peter piper picked a pail of pickled peppers... Run away from the point however you want. But don't think people won't notice that you did so.

What point? Know what you're talking about. You don't understand why I
responded like I did...oh well.

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote.... Eyewitness testimony is famously the least reliable evidence.Actually, it's probably 'hearsay'. Hearsay is not admissable in court except under very special circumstances

Because it is the least reliable evidence, but evidence it is- excited
utterance, statement against penal interest, death-bed statement, statements
during a crime, as related by an investigator,......
It's a truism in many fields, inclucing law enforcement, that 10 different eyewitnesses will give you 10 different versions of what's happened.

Depends on the complexity of the event.
Everybody may well agree on the basic information (he shot the man), and
disagree on the particulars (holding the gun in his left hand), or on
perceptions (he had on a dark blue/black jacket), or on details unknown to
the witness (it was a '99 Buick, it was a 2000 Chevy)
I can't cite you examples at the moment, but I know that challenge of eyewitness testimony has led to acquittal many times.

again, depends on the complexity of the event, the quality of the observer,
the particulars.
Credibility is a serious issue in this, thus the furor over juries not being told that a woman accusing rape has done so several times in the past and not ever proven it.

Yeah; they're having the same trouble at CU- dozens of rape allegations and
none of their highly protected athletes convicted- gee; wonder what the
problem is.
None of this contradicts what you've said regarding likely conviction based on the eyewitness testimony of two third parties. I couldn't prove it either way, I'm happy to take your word for it.

See; 'two-witness rule'.
As regards video evidence, that is not an 'eyewitness' account, anymore than a photograph is.

It's just the best of the eye-witness testimony.
That is physical evidence which can be gone over again and again, and is not subject to vagaries of memory, and not coloured by emotion. Video evidence may raise strong emotions, but the video itself has no motive and no agenda.

It's just the difference between 'seen' and 'seen and recorded'; higher
standard of evidence.

Chas

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1bri2$3qu@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <ICd_b.4328$yZ1.589@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo arape being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that you stillbelieve that to be the case? You seem a little unclear on the "rape" concept, greg. Have someone explain it to you, preferably before your next date.

LOL.

There was a little typo in my last post. It should have read:

"Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo a
rape kit as being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that you
still believe that to be the case?"

In other words, you implied that a woman's willingness to have a rape kit
done was evidence a rape occurred. Is this still your position, and if so,
why?

Greg

In article <B4t_b.5369$yZ1.2788@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:There was a little typo in my last post. It should have read:"Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo arape kit as being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that youstill believe that to be the case?"In other words, you implied that a woman's willingness to have a rape kitdone was evidence a rape occurred. Is this still your position, and if so,why?

Evidence, yes. Proof, no.

<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message
news:euki30h4mglm08f84c3h2u385t31she4jc@4ax.com...
Hearsay is not admissable in court except under very special circumstances (and it's been a long time since high school law class, I don't remember what those circumstances are).


Actually, there are about 23 exceptions and exclusions (give
or take a few, depending on how you want to format the list).
My Evidence prof says we'll cover ten to twelve of them in our
year-long class, given that most lawyers and judges only know of
or care about that many.

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:c1doaf$80u@rac3.wam.umd.edu... In article <B4t_b.5369$yZ1.2788@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:There was a little typo in my last post. It should have read:"Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo
arape kit as being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that youstill believe that to be the case?"In other words, you implied that a woman's willingness to have a rape kitdone was evidence a rape occurred. Is this still your position, and if
so,why? Evidence, yes. Proof, no.

Why do you believe a woman's willingness to have a rape kit done is evidence
of a rape?


Greg

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.

It is not evidence, it's the criminal complant itself.
Anyone who thinks the way you do should NOT sit on any jury, IMHO Look who's talking.

Sounds like you would believe a rape occurred even if no evidence is
presented beyond the woman's complaint.

Rich

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1belq$6kp@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <e8a_b.8770$CQ6.5266@fed1read05>, Raqui <WestCoast@TV.com> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <S87_b.3815$yZ1.705@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message >news:c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu... >> In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, >> greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote: >> > >> >You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman's >> >undergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. >> >> Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is. >> > >Huh? > >An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's willingness >to undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred. > >Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?Testimony can be a lie...it's just a declaration you know...supposed to bethe truth, but doesn't have to be. Just about any piece of evidence *could* be a lie. That's why we have juries.

---

tbab> People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not
tjab> be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see
tjab> anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder
tjab> why not?

---

Then there are some for whom it would seem that the trial is a mere
formailty, who only see one side of this particular coin. YMMV.

Rich

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c168g6$rrd@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3a256c50.0402201556.516a1d29@posting.google.com>, Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...[...] >And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make >all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them. People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and otherwomen never say things like this.Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for theaccused? That would explain your comment. No, and to say that would "explain" my comment shows a poor grasp of logic on your part. Do you deny that a person could make a true accusation and still not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

No, do you deny that women make false accusations of rape and report
being raped when they were not? Do you deny that women sometimes are
raped and misidentify their assailant?

Now if you are sitting on a rape jury, is the only possibility on your
mind going to be the one you posted (so far the only one you post,
over and over again)? Or perhaps, just perhaps, it might help to look
at the evidence, if any, and keep in mind that witness identification
sucks? Even if she was raped and she's sure that the man on the stand
did it, women are often proven wrong by DNA evidence. There are many
many reasons for this BTW.

Perhaps the most interesting I've seen lately is a study mentioned in
this month's Scientific American.

Rich

---

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000A011D-C17F-101E-B40D83414B7F0000

None So Blind
Perceptual-blindness experiments challenge the validity of eyewitness
testimony and the metaphor of memory as a video recording
By Michael Shermer

Image: BRAD HINES

Picture yourself watching a one-minute video of two teams of three
players each. One team wears white shirts and the other black shirts,
and the members move around one another in a small room tossing two
basketballs. Your task is to count the number of passes made by the
white team--not easy given the weaving movement of the players.
Unexpectedly, after 35 seconds a gorilla enters the room, walks
directly through the farrago of bodies, thumps his chest and, nine
seconds later, exits. Would you see the gorilla?

Most of us believe we would. In fact, 50 percent of subjects in this
remarkable experiment by Daniel J. Simons of the University of
Illinois and Christopher F. Chabris of Harvard University did not see
the gorilla, even when asked if they noticed anything unusual (see
their paper "Gorillas in Our Midst" at
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_ lab/). The effect is called
inattentional blindness. When attending to one task--say, talking on a
cell phone while driving--many of us become blind to dynamic events,
such as a gorilla in the crosswalk.

[...]

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c16keg$ej7@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <qecd30h9hhgjjdclae4uk1edfpm1l56vfc@4ax.com>, <Sillyman@famous.com> wrote:On 20 Feb 2004 19:46:55 -0500, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:Any evidence for your claim that we often convict men of rape onnothing more than a woman's say-so?It took me about 4 minutes to make this list. You're welcome.http://www.aidwyc.org/pdfs2/washingtonpost_jun6-2002.pdfhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/02/12/national2043EST0862.DTLhttp://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/12/loc_kydnaevidence12.htmlhttp://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/10/19/loc_court_grants.htmlhttp://texnews.com/texas97/pardon100997.htmlhttp://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/oldnews/2000/00308.htm If you're looking for mistaken convictions, look up the Innocence Project and you'll find a lot more. However, whether the only evidence in these cases was "a woman's say-so" is less than clear from these articles.

So then you assert then that NO men were ever convicted on a woman's
say-so? Please affirm this.
Indeed, if you look at the convictions overturned by DNA evidence listed on the Innocence Project's website, you'll see that in many of these cases, the woman was killed in the course of the attack. So clearly, even mistaken convictions are not always based solely on the woman's testimony.

These were murder trials tjab, not rape trials. And except for
juvinile cases, all rape trials are based upon a woman's say-so,
embodied in her complaint to the police and affirmed to the jury
during the trial. A woman's say-so is the essence of every rape trial,
even if juvinile and the say-so is via a video-tape.

Or do you deny that the woman's say-so is what creates a rape trial?

Rich

In article <3a256c50.0402231645.601b686@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.It is not evidence, it's the criminal complant itself.Anyone who thinks the way you do should NOT sit on any jury, IMHO Look who's talking.Sounds like you would believe a rape occurred even if no evidence ispresented beyond the woman's complaint.Rich

What do the words "Proof, no" mean on your planet?

In article <3a256c50.0402231709.53984e46@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c168g6$rrd@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3a256c50.0402201556.516a1d29@posting.google.com>, Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c15ikf$3fs@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...[...]> >And no charges or convictions as of TODAY. Hmmmmm. Folks can make> >all kinds of accusations...lets see if they can prove them.>> People can make all kinds of TRUE accusations and still not be able> to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see anyone suing the> accusers for libel or slander? Do you wonder why not?Oddly enough, when it's a man saying that he's innocent, you and otherwomen never say things like this.Let me ask you this tjab, is your default asusmption guilt for theaccused? That would explain your comment. No, and to say that would "explain" my comment shows a poor grasp of logic on your part. Do you deny that a person could make a true accusation and still not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?No, do you deny that women make false accusations of rape and reportbeing raped when they were not?

Put in the word "sometimes" and I'll go along with that.
Do you deny that women sometimes areraped and misidentify their assailant?

Nope. Now, would you care to elaborate on the reasoning process that
led you to conclude that a default assumption of guilt for the accused
would "explain" my comment?

In article <3a256c50.0402231737.287e1e15@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:So then you assert then that NO men were ever convicted on a woman'ssay-so? Please affirm this.

Why would I affirm the product of your overheated imagination?

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1bri2$3qu@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <ICd_b.4328$yZ1.589@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo arape being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that you stillbelieve that to be the case? You seem a little unclear on the "rape" concept, greg. Have someone explain it to you, preferably before your next date.

I believe that there is a blatantly obvious typo, which of course you
cannot see.

Try reading it like this...

"Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to
undergo a rape **kit** being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to
assume that you still believe that to be the case?"

Considering the context how could anyone miss it? Don't answer.

Are you really here for discussion? By this point one has to wonder.

Rich

In article <3a256c50.0402232105.69077c8f@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1doaf$80u@rac3.wam.umd.edu>... In article <B4t_b.5369$yZ1.2788@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:There was a little typo in my last post. It should have read:"Since you didn't address your implying a woman's willingness to undergo arape kit as being evidence that a rape occurred, am I to assume that youstill believe that to be the case?"In other words, you implied that a woman's willingness to have a rape kitdone was evidence a rape occurred. Is this still your position, and if so,why? Evidence, yes. Proof, no.But then, proof is not needed, is it?

To convict? Of course it is.

tinydancer wrote: From what I've read of them, soc men don't think there is such a thing as rape. All women are 'askin for it'. And if you've bought a woman dinner or a movie, it's an entitlement. td


LOL. Keep lying *****.


Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

In article <c1b6lm$k94@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
An allegation of rape is NOT evidence a rape occurred. A woman's willingnessto undergo a rape kit is NOT evidence a rape occurred.Can you explain what you mean here? Is it your belief that testimony is not evidence?

Testimony is obviously evidence, by definition, but that doesnt mean it
is evidence that a crime has been committed.

On 23 Feb 2004 16:45:24 -0800, rpayne@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c199d1$m5t@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <EoVZb.4284$aT1.3344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, greg brown <noway@way.com> wrote:You seem to be blind to the fact that a rape allegation, or a woman'sundergoing a rape kit, is still not evidence that a rape happened. Proof, no. Evidence? Of course it is.It is not evidence, it's the criminal complant itself.

The allegation perhaps isn't evidence per se, but the fact that a rape
kit was done *is*, and the rape kit will be part of the evidence used
to try to show that a rape happened. Just as the defense will use
evidence to try to show that a rape did not happen, or that the
defendant did not commit the rape. The same thing can even be used as
evidence for either side, to try to show opposing claims. It's all in
how it's presented and what someone is trying to claim that it shows.
Evidence is a much weaker animal than proof is.

Laurie

In article <3a256c50.0402251315.6de33607@posting.google.com>,
Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:The rape complain is what, theoretically at least, needs to be proven,it is not proof of it's own validity. Do you really think it is?I think many here, tjab for example, really think that way BTW.

If you find it easier to argue with a straw man, suit yourself. But
don't put my name on the sign you hang around his neck.

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1eh02$cu2@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3a256c50.0402231737.287e1e15@posting.google.com>, Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:So then you assert then that NO men were ever convicted on a woman'ssay-so? Please affirm this. Why would I affirm the product of your overheated imagination?

You were asking for proof that any were tjab, remember? Perhaps if you
responded to the text you cut you could focus on the issues? But you
ain't really interested in debating the issues are you tjab, you just
like to attack men it seems. That would explain your delete and attack
mode.

I've seen no evidence that you believe that any man was ever convicted
on a woman's say-so yet tjab. And you refuse to respond to the cases I
posted.

Rich

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<c1jm78$bmb@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3a256c50.0402251315.6de33607@posting.google.com>, Rich <rpayne@mybluelight.com> wrote:The rape complain is what, theoretically at least, needs to be proven,it is not proof of it's own validity. Do you really think it is?I think many here, tjab for example, really think that way BTW. If you find it easier to argue with a straw man, suit yourself.

No straw man here, and you don't respond to questions, so how you
appear is a function of what you post. So far by appearances, you
believe all rape accusations or reports, and admit, theoretically
only, that false rape accusations are possible. Given a real case you
won't respond or discuss it.
But don't put my name on the sign you hang around his neck.

You've claimed that women don't have rape kits done for fun (which is
a fine bit of misdirection as "fun" is not a reason why women make
false rape accusations). I'v