Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
It's the qualifier "tended to" and "on Kane's bed" that I was referring to me.
In a civil case, she would testify to a jury. Presumably so would he. The forensic stuff would be included, obviously. But the oral evidence os the "shred" you are looking for. I've won cases based on nothing more than the testimony of a witness who was believed over another who was not. And the standard isn't "I believe A and not B". It's "I don't 100% know who to believe but I am more persuaded by A". It could be that such testimony is far more persuasive to a jury than the prosecutor, who has seen lots of witnesses and likely is harder to convince.
|
I guess I just don't understand the value of evidence if it vindicates someone and yet you're still willing to consider them a rapist because an accuser guilty of lying already tells a really good yarn.