DBP66 Posted January 14, 2021 Report Share Posted January 14, 2021 5 minutes ago, Newbie said: You sound lost 🤓 you lost...the Pa. S.C. bet....remember Troll/Newbie??.....🤡..🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 14, 2021 Report Share Posted January 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, DBP66 said: you lost...the Pa. S.C. bet....remember Troll/Newbie??.....🤡..🤡 What was the time frame 🖼 on that? You seem to be assuming that it’s the same as your other bets..... but Im not like you, I would put some limits in place 🤓 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted January 14, 2021 Report Share Posted January 14, 2021 9 hours ago, DBP66 said: 0-59 in the courts....🤡 The Washington Generals are better at basketball than Republicans are at election fraud cases. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted January 15, 2021 Report Share Posted January 15, 2021 18 hours ago, Belly Bob said: Is this true? I thought corpus delicti applied even to murder. Yes it's true. An eyewitness account can not only be enough for probable cause to arrest someone...it can also be enough to convict someone. Are innocent men and women convicted based on incorrect eyewitness identification? Yes. In fact, DNA has freed many people who were wrongly convicted. But, the question here is can someone be convicted on the testimony of one eyewitness? The answer is yes; if that testimony is believed the person can be convicted. https://www.huntsvilledefenselawyer.com/can-someone-be-convicted-solely-on-the-eyewitness-testimony-of-one-witness On 1/13/2021 at 4:47 AM, Atticus Finch said: Which is just as much evidence as somebody saying that they "feel" that the election wasn't fair. If I sign a sworn affidavit saying that I saw you rob a bank you wouldn't even be arrested for that let alone convicted. They would still need, you know, actual evidence that you did it. 🤡 The second issue here is Atticus Finch's contention that a sworn affidavit isn't evidence. I've heard several Bidiots on this forum express the same thing. The following link has 18 statements on the subject by lawyers. Sixteen of the eighteen expressly say that eyewitness accounts ARE evidence. https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/do-you-need-evidences-to-be-convicted-to-a-crime-or-are-witnesses-enough-1572144.html Here are five of them for those too lazy to click on the link: -Testimony from witnesses is evidence. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form of evidence as opposed to physical exhibits or objects which is what you may be thinking of. To this day, the British courts say that witnesses are coming to give evidence. Keep in mind that the prosecution has the burden of proof, not the burden of evidence. They don't win simply because they have a lot of evidence, they still have to persuade the jury that there is no reasonable doubt of the Accused's guilt. Oral testimony alone can and often is enough evidence to convict, but there is also many instances where that will not be enough. It depends on the case, the charge, and how credible the witnesses come across. -If the witnesses saw what happened and are willing to testify, that is all the evidence that is needed. -The testimony of witnesses = evidence. -The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and sufficient to support a conviction. -Witnesses are evidence. Their evidence is eyewitness testimony. The rule says that one witness is enough to convict, if the jury believes that witness. It's not a game of measuring how much there is, only whether the evidence itself is believed beyond a reasonable doubt. People have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a single witness without any physical evidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFORDGAWOLVES Posted January 15, 2021 Report Share Posted January 15, 2021 17 hours ago, Slotback Right said: Yes it's true. An eyewitness account can not only be enough for probable cause to arrest someone...it can also be enough to convict someone. Are innocent men and women convicted based on incorrect eyewitness identification? Yes. In fact, DNA has freed many people who were wrongly convicted. But, the question here is can someone be convicted on the testimony of one eyewitness? The answer is yes; if that testimony is believed the person can be convicted. https://www.huntsvilledefenselawyer.com/can-someone-be-convicted-solely-on-the-eyewitness-testimony-of-one-witness The second issue here is Atticus Finch's contention that a sworn affidavit isn't evidence. I've heard several Bidiots on this forum express the same thing. The following link has 18 statements on the subject by lawyers. Sixteen of the eighteen expressly say that eyewitness accounts ARE evidence. https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/do-you-need-evidences-to-be-convicted-to-a-crime-or-are-witnesses-enough-1572144.html Here are five of them for those too lazy to click on the link: -Testimony from witnesses is evidence. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form of evidence as opposed to physical exhibits or objects which is what you may be thinking of. To this day, the British courts say that witnesses are coming to give evidence. Keep in mind that the prosecution has the burden of proof, not the burden of evidence. They don't win simply because they have a lot of evidence, they still have to persuade the jury that there is no reasonable doubt of the Accused's guilt. Oral testimony alone can and often is enough evidence to convict, but there is also many instances where that will not be enough. It depends on the case, the charge, and how credible the witnesses come across. -If the witnesses saw what happened and are willing to testify, that is all the evidence that is needed. -The testimony of witnesses = evidence. -The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and sufficient to support a conviction. -Witnesses are evidence. Their evidence is eyewitness testimony. The rule says that one witness is enough to convict, if the jury believes that witness. It's not a game of measuring how much there is, only whether the evidence itself is believed beyond a reasonable doubt. People have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a single witness without any physical evidence. Speaking of jail.... bgw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 15, 2021 Report Share Posted January 15, 2021 17 hours ago, Slotback Right said: Yes it's true. An eyewitness account can not only be enough for probable cause to arrest someone...it can also be enough to convict someone. Are innocent men and women convicted based on incorrect eyewitness identification? Yes. In fact, DNA has freed many people who were wrongly convicted. But, the question here is can someone be convicted on the testimony of one eyewitness? The answer is yes; if that testimony is believed the person can be convicted. https://www.huntsvilledefenselawyer.com/can-someone-be-convicted-solely-on-the-eyewitness-testimony-of-one-witness I think you're confused. You can't convict someone of murder, for example, unless you can prove that someone has died. I think the legal principle is called corpus delicti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 19 hours ago, Slotback Right said: [...] The second issue here is Atticus Finch's contention that a sworn affidavit isn't evidence. I've heard several Bidiots on this forum express the same thing. The following link has 18 statements on the subject by lawyers. Sixteen of the eighteen expressly say that eyewitness accounts ARE evidence. But the chief GA election investigator, who works for the Republican secretary of state, claims in an affidavit that the video you keep appealing to as evidence of voter fraud doesn't show voter fraud. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 7 hours ago, Belly Bob said: I think you're confused. You can't convict someone of murder, for example, unless you can prove that someone has died. I think the legal principle is called corpus delicti. I could show you famous cases where there was a conviction without a body, but it's not important to my point that a person can be arrested without any other evidence than a believable eyewitness. 6 hours ago, Belly Bob said: But the chief GA election investigator, who works for the Republican secretary of state, claims in an affidavit that the video you keep appealing to as evidence of voter fraud doesn't show voter fraud. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit 1. As I mentioned earlier, Raffensperger is a blithering idiot. This election was his responsibility, and it was a chaotic disaster. Quoting someone who works for him holds little weight, since angering one's boss could end one's career. 2. "...The leak turned out to be a urinal that overflowed earlier that day, Watson said. She claimed that, according to her investigation, which included viewing footage and interviewing witnesses, no one asked media or observers to leave. "They simply left on their own when they saw one group of workers, whose job was only to open envelopes and who had completed that task, also leave,” Watson said." -Yeah, that's believable. 3. She said that at approximately 10 p.m. that night, ballots that had been opened but not counted were sealed in boxes that were placed under the table while observers and media were present. “This was done because employees thought that they were done for the night and were closing up and ready to leave,” Watson said, adding that “the counting continued into later in the night,” and that the boxes were then opened so those ballots could be counted. Two problems with that: It's not the way it looked to me, and there were no poll watchers there to keep them honest...and a new video with sound has shown up, showing that they were anything but honest. 4. Watson’s affidavit does not address why workers thought the counting was done [which contradicts what she says earlier in the article] or why it later continued. It also does not dispute the allegation that counting took place after observers and media left. 5. The article is dated December 7th, and...She does note that “[t]he investigation remains open” and that investigators are continuing to look into the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 10 hours ago, Belly Bob said: But the chief GA election investigator, who works for the Republican secretary of state, claims in an affidavit that the video you keep appealing to as evidence of voter fraud doesn't show voter fraud. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit Hey that’s great denial from someone who is supposed to be responsible 👍 but perhaps you missed the version that has them dead to rights with the audio included 🤓 https://www.bitchute.com/video/11ASdCwLSwsC/ 🍿 ps would even ignorance be considered better than thinking your side cheated ? 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 4 minutes ago, Newbie said: Hey that’s great denial from someone who is supposed to be responsible 👍 but perhaps you missed the version that has them dead to rights with the audio included 🤓 https://www.bitchute.com/video/11ASdCwLSwsC/ 🍿 ps would even ignorance be considered better than thinking your side cheated ? 🤣 "dead to rights"??....LOL...0-59....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 8 hours ago, Slotback Right said: 1. [...] 2. [...] 3. [...] 4. [...] 5. [...] In other words, affidavits don't count for much after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 5 hours ago, Slotback Right said: I could show you famous cases where there was a conviction without a body, but it's not important to my point that a person can be arrested without any other evidence than a believable eyewitness. [...] I don't think you need a body, but you need to prove that someone has died before you can convict someone of murder, which you can do without a body. And my apologies: I thought we were talking about conviction. 👇 On 1/15/2021 at 12:52 AM, Slotback Right said: Yes it's true. An eyewitness account can not only be enough for probable cause to arrest someone...it can also be enough to convict someone. [...] Do we not have any lawyers on this site who could enlighten us on corpus delicti? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 1 hour ago, Newbie said: [...] ps would even ignorance be considered better than thinking your side cheated ? 🤣 Not for me, but it appears that there are two or three people on our forum who prefer ignorance. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 16, 2021 Report Share Posted January 16, 2021 3 hours ago, DBP66 said: "dead to rights"??....LOL.....🤡 I knew you would like that...🤣 🤓 just go ahead and see If you can figure it out 😆 🍿 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.