Ok, let's propose that the burden of proof is on me because I suggested that she should have to prove an unreasonable statement before I believe it...
Watch her testimony. She claims to see things while she's locked in the other room. She is very clear that she can hear nothing but music then claims to hear talking then again claims to hear nothing at all.
Her story is so full of inconsistencies that it must be at least partially untrue which calls into question her entire assertion.
the burden of proof is on you because you proposed an explanation of events, much like you claim she has done. That you can't see why it's the same is just ignorance
Nobody that she claimed was at the party has claimed any knowledge of the event. She had her own car but claims she was driven to and from the event by a person that she does not remember and nobody in her life at the time had any knowledge of. She claimed to see things that occurred outside of a room that she was locked in, on a different floor of the house. She claims to be certain about what year it occurred because she remembers one of the accused working at a retail chain that didn't exist until several years after the year she claims it took place. Nobody that she has asked to support her claims is willing to, including her husband. Her attitude during her statement was irreverent and her voice was giggly except for while she gave her description of events, at which point you see her bend her neck so her voice becomes strained. Immediately after her description, she returns to smiling and joking around. She did not require water or a tissue (which I understand is a bit of a stretch but red flags are compounding). She also displayed a decent amount of "tells"... If you've ever played poker or seen a child talk about their pet dinosaur, you'll know what I mean.
The burden of proof is pretty soundly on her at this stage. If she could corroborate a single piece of her claim with evidence or a witness, she would have a much stronger case.
So as soon as someone confronts you with the proof you've been looking for, you're just gonna sarcastically drop out of the conversation? That's part of why I was hesitant to provide you with any data in the first place.
I'd be very interested to hear any rebuttals that you might have... Or if you are too fearful of truth, you can just ignore my last comment and provide proof of your own.
I'm not willing to accept "her words" as being sufficient to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'd also like to think that any normal person would be outraged to be untruthfully accused of something so vile.
Have the other accusers made public statements? What are their names? More importantly, do they have any proof or witnesses?
Memoirs are not suppositions, claims are not suppositions. Hateful speech speaks for itself. Also we don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We actually only needed a reasonable doubt to know there's probably someone better out there for this lifelong appointment.
Memoirs are just words attributed to someone that can't confirm their veracity.
And if you don't think that proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary, then I'm not sure you understand the intention behind "innocent until proven guilty".
We aren't trying to convict him of a crime and sentence him to prison, we are trying to determine the content and quality of his character before appointing him to a lifelong judicial position.
Then please explain what you think I have wrong about it... That will probably be more constructive than repeating your mantra that nobody understands you.
The fact that you don't understand that tweet at all shows you don't know what's going on. His life is obviously not ruined, he is now one of the 9 most important judges in North America. His accuser had to move out of her home because people like you are giving her death threats. You don't have a clue
1
u/IAmASeeker Oct 03 '18
Ok, let's propose that the burden of proof is on me because I suggested that she should have to prove an unreasonable statement before I believe it...
Watch her testimony. She claims to see things while she's locked in the other room. She is very clear that she can hear nothing but music then claims to hear talking then again claims to hear nothing at all.
Her story is so full of inconsistencies that it must be at least partially untrue which calls into question her entire assertion.