Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
It is kinda funny that you point out the futility of speculating on EMs underlying intentions and then proceed to speculate the potency and reasoning for certain statements in the judge's decision.
Both points are worthy of discussion. It is interesting how the judge supports her statements on credibility with arguably trivial examples. And then her statements on the men's credibility are supported by certain text messages - while other texts that arguably undermine that narrative were excluded from evidence.
It's all worthy of discussion.
|
Maybe some of them were arguably trivial, but some of them weren't and the judge was considering the totality of the evidence. It's like circumstantial evidence in a trial. It might vary on how significant each piece is in isolation, but when there is a lot of it, it becomes harder to ignore. The case seemed to really fall apart when she pretty much admitted that she was acting sexually aggressive but because she was so out of it or afraid. It seemed outlandish when it was first mentioned by the defense that she would be acting that way, but when she couldn't deny it, the credibility shifted.
The judge then had to decide if the video evidence and her actions during and immediately after corroborated her state of mind. It was in her qualified opinion and assessment that they didn't. That was not a small thing IMO, and when you add the smaller or "trivial" things on top of that, the questions of reliability and credibility increase or decrease by increments.