Roy Moore accused of sexual harassment for 1979 events - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14864802
The accusations of crimes of a sexual nature would be much more credible if there would not be a possible financial windfall for the accuser at the end of the trials. It would take away a big motive for false accusations.
Let the offender lose his or her reputation, job and liberty, but do not compensate the accuser with sudden great wealth.

If the justice system wishes to take away the offender's wealth, fine, let it go to the State, not the accuser.
#14864814
WASHINGTON — President Trump broke with leading Republicans on Tuesday and voiced support for Roy S. Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama who has been accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers and has seen his campaign’s prospects imperiled.

In his first extensive remarks on the accusations that date back decades, the president cited the vigorous denials by Mr. Moore

Well, if they both say so, case closed.
#14864840
Doug64 wrote:I actually took a look at the women involved so far in the Moore “scandal,” and realized how much Moore’s attackers are trying to inflate their case.

Of the ten, three said that he asked to date them and was turned down. One said she got him banned from the mall where she worked, but the man that was in charge of the mall at the time says he doesn’t remember Moore ever being on his list of banned individuals. So, they have nothing to say about sexual assault.

Four actually did date him, during which he was apparently a gentleman with nothing more than maybe kissing (“maybe” because some report it and some don’t). One of the four actually married him a few years after they met, when she was twenty-four. One reports he brought alcohol when she was still a year under the legal age, but does not report that he tried to get her drunk so he could assault her.

One accuses him of groping her in his office when she was twenty-eight, but she didn’t mention it to anyone else at the time and the women that have known Moore for years if not decades simply don’t believe it (or any of the other stories of inappropriate sexual behavior, for that matter). Besides, with Republicans and Trump, and Democrats and Clinton and Franken, both parties have amply demonstrated that this kind of crass behavior is no bar to elective office.

So that leaves only two that have accused him of inappropriate sexual contact in one case and outright attempted rape in the other. However, one of the two apparently forged his signature in her yearbook (the only piece of corroborating evidence offered), and the Moore campaign has found witnesses that poke holes in her story. So that leaves a single uncorroborated story Moore has categorically denied.

On Moore’s side, he has thirty years of happy marriage without a hint of infidelity. What do we know about Leigh Corfman that would lead us to accept her word over his? Remember that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

Also, a nice example of media bias in the original column headline of Moore’s witnesses: “Moore campaign attempts to discredit accuser’s story of sexual assault.” Apparently that was A little too revealing of the Hill’s bias, and it was later changed to “Moore campaign disputes accuser’s story of assault.”

So it appears that Moore at age 32 was anxious to find a young virgin to marry. He asks some young women out on dates. Some of them rejected him for various reasons. Some went out on the dates after he got approval from their mother. While out on the date he was a perfect gentleman. In some cases, there was mutual kissing, but no sexual intercourse. He never tried to force alcohol on them to take advantage of them sexually. And finally one of the young women actually married him a few years after they met, when she was twenty-four.

The accuser of improper sexual activity that claims it happened behind the place she worked has been discredited by others that worked there. One former female worker said she never worked there and that Roy Moore never came in there. One said the dumpster was on the side not the back as the accuser claimed and the place was lite up all around, not dark as she claimed. Also her yearbook signature proof is in doubt, so much so that the attorney for the accuser would not verify its authenticity to Wolf Blitzer of CNN and would not allow forensic examination or handwriting analysis by experts. The initial D.A. at the end of his signature in a yearbook also brings up more doubt and questions.

The accuser that claimed she was 14 at the time of being molested by Roy Moore has holes in her story and needs to undergo cross examination to determine the real facts. It seems that the mother was before a custody hearing in which the mother was having discipline problems with her daughter and was asking the judge to give custody to the father. She later accused pastors of sexual assault without proof and became deep in debt after three divorces in contrast to Roy Moore never being divorced. She is not one that is know to be trust worthy. Whereas, Roy Moore has always been know as a trustworthy and honorable man.

And because of this and the timing after about 40 years of silence on this matter and suddenly being brought out a few weeks before the election by the Washington Post that had been supporting the Democrat, I tend to believe Roy Moore and think this is a Democrat hit job.
#14864844
Ter wrote:The accusations of crimes of a sexual nature would be much more credible if there would not be a possible financial windfall for the accuser at the end of the trials. It would take away a big motive for false accusations.
Let the offender lose his or her reputation, job and liberty, but do not compensate the accuser with sudden great wealth.

If the justice system wishes to take away the offender's wealth, fine, let it go to the State, not the accuser.


These cases are civil, not legal. The award is given to the victim to cover their costs (ie the rapist fires the victim, then spreads the word she's not to be hired) and for pain and suffering, and frequently forbids the victim from discussing the case. If the offender lost his liberty, that would be a legal case. In some instances the state can fine the perpetrator and the state keeps the money.
#14864854
Stormsmith wrote:he award is given to the victim to cover their costs (ie the rapist fires the victim, then spreads the word she's not to be hired) and for pain and suffering, and frequently forbids the victim from discussing the case

No, I don't buy that.
"Pain and suffering" amounts to millions of dollars ? The US is as far as I know the only place where you can become a millionaire by having a wrong corrected by huge money. I stand by my earlier post. The absence of monetary rewards would make for more automatic credibility in the process.

I exclude objective damages from what I said.

In fact, guilty people sometimes get off because a jury suspects monetary motivation from the accusers, like in the case of Michael Jackson.
#14864859
Pants-of-dog wrote:and they do not magically become guilty as soon as the community decides through some specific legal rite.

That's an interesting choice of words and spellings...

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The legal principle of presumed innocence is not an argument. That makes sense when you are trying to ensure individual liberty from tyrannical government, but not in a debate.

It most certainly is a legal principle that shifts the burden to the accuser, not just to protect people from government but also from self-serving accusers.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This shifts the burden of proof onto the women targeted by Moore, assumes a fact that is not actually a given (i.e. Moore’s innocence), and ignores the very real possibility that Moore is guilty and that it cannot be proven.

That is how the system is designed.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It also ignores the reality faced by women who come forward about sexual assault: their reputations will almost certainly be attacked and questioned in the media and during the trial.

This is typically the case in politics. In other venues, the accuser's credibility depends on timeliness, evidence, motivation, etc.

Stormsmith wrote:These cases are civil, not legal.

Hmm.... :eh: :hmm: :roll: :knife:
#14864862
blackjack21 wrote:It most certainly is a legal principle that shifts the burden to the accuser, not just to protect people from government but also from self-serving accusers.

Pants-of-dog and some liberals apparently believe conservatives are guilty as accused, even without a trial or a chance to defend themselves. And if you say otherwise, then they consider you a racist or an arrogant and ignorant troll. HalleluYah
#14864863
The statistical reality is that most sexual assault accusations are not fake. A certain percentage turnout to be false, or are at least cannot be substantiated. That doesn't mean it never happened.

Facts:
- Only about 40% of all sexual assaults are every reported to the police. This is partly because victims know that if their claim becomes public, their every behavior will be scrutinized, they will be shamed for their sexual history, and they will be labeled as lunatic, psychotic, paranoid, and manipulative. Just because someone does not report their crime does not mean it did not happen. Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution, so if the DA decides not to prosecute, that says nothing about whether or not it happened.

- Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes. Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/crimin ... ice-system

Based on being logical and reasonable, it's a safe bet to be of the opinion that Roy Moore's a sexual deviant. Being a Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with recognizing the reality.
#14864867
Godstud wrote:Based on being logical and reasonable, it's a safe bet to be of the opinion that Roy Moore's a sexual deviant. Being a Conservative or Liberal has nothing to do with recognizing the reality.

It does if there is an important election coming up.
#14864869
That has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the odds of these charges being completely legitimate. This is just an attempt to deflect criticism from Roy Moore. It is irrelevant.

That a victim might come forward when they see Roy Moore running for senate(because they don't want him to enjoy that after harming them) does not make the charges any less likely.

Honest question, @Hindsite Would you leave your 14 year daughter with Roy Moore for a few hours unsupervised, and in complete privacy, given that the likelihood of him being a kiddy-fiddler is about 98%? Would you really take a chance on those kinds of odds?
#14864872
Godstud wrote:That has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the odds of these charges being completely legitimate. This is just an attempt to deflect criticism from Roy Moore. It is irrelevant.

That a victim might come forward when they see Roy Moore running for senate(because they don't want him to enjoy that after harming them) does not make the charges any less likely.

Honest question, @Hindsite Would you leave your 14 year daughter with Roy Moore for a few hours unsupervised, and in complete privacy, given that the likelihood of him being a kiddy-fiddler is about 98%? Would you really take a chance on those kinds of odds?

Your arguments against Roy Moore aren't very convincing. So I stand by the policy of innocent until proven guilty. Praise the Lord.
#14864877
Guilty, with a probability of 98%. Believe what you want, but the statistical reality is that he's likely guilty.

As already said though, he can't serve any jail time due to the statue of limitations on sexual assault, that once existed in Alabama. They changed them in 1985, because abused people sometimes take a long time to come to grips with their abuse, and it was seen as a more serious crime.

If Moore's innocent, then I hope he is vindicated. I would not put any bets on this, mind you, and he can still be sued in civil court.
#14864882
Godstud wrote:Guilty, with a probability of 98%. Believe what you want, but the statistical reality is that he's likely guilty.

As already said though, he can't serve any jail time due to the statue of limitations on sexual assault, that once existed in Alabama. They changed them in 1985, because abused people sometimes take a long time to come to grips with their abuse, and it was seen as a more serious crime.

If Moore's innocent, then I hope he is vindicated. I would not put any bets on this, mind you, and he can still be sued in civil court.

At least you give him 2% chance of being innocent and 98% chance of being sued. The people of Alabama will decide that. HalleluYah
#14864905
So Liberals could I just clarify something.

You seem to be saying that there's two completely different categories of accusations and its disgusting that people should ever for one moment conflate the two. So yeah Al Franken, was maybe, maybe just slightly insensitive, a bumbling, inept, but essentially harmless man, the pathetic idiotic, but basically good father figure that we're so used from Hollywood movies. Liberals are saying Ok Leeann you've had your five minutes of fame now its time to get over it bitch. And I have to say Leeann Tweeden strikes me as a very smart lady, she's like one of the survivors of Stalin or Mao's Communist parties. One of those people who can read the early signals that the party line is changing. Woe to those who continued to mouth what the great leader had been saying last year or last month. And she has backed off.

Moore on the other hand (according to Liberals) is an evil manipulative predator. He's the secular equivalent of a vampire. He is evil personified.

So my question to Liberals is which category is Trump in?
#14864937
Ter wrote:No, I don't buy that.
"Pain and suffering" amounts to millions of dollars ? The US is as far as I know the only place where you can become a millionaire by having a wrong corrected by huge money. I stand by my earlier post. The absence of monetary rewards would make for more automatic credibility in the process.

I exclude objective damages from what I said.

In fact, guilty people sometimes get off because a jury suspects monetary motivation from the accusers, like in the case of Michael Jackson.


Fair enough. I just wanted to explain the difference between civil courts with it "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and civil court, with its less demanding standard. Only under civil court would the perp be packed off to prison. But getting him incarcerated is extremely low. Lower still in the military, which is why sex crimes arent reported more often. Unless the incidence is witnessed, it becomes a case of "she says v he says", and as Trump said, "Moore denies it. He denies it. What's more, Moore totally denies it"


Happily, the courts are a little more vigorous in prospecting crimes that aren't sexual. Imagine if these worked as well. If the defences of Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy only needed to amount to: I didn't kill anyone. Same as Bernie Madoff: I didn't rip off anyone. I just got lucky playing the ponies.

So, when victims don't get justice, they go to civil court.

Now, theses massive awards of which you write may be contracts between a private source and a victim and involve a far less formal process, as was the case with R Ailes, B Oreilly, etc. As is the case with universities. As is the case with Congress. It keeps the company et al out of court, and all parties remain closed lipped. Course the perp is still at large. No system is perfect.
#14864977
Drlee wrote:POD. You are not making any argument to answer the question Beren posed. "So what now?"

You have offered a convoluted non-argument about how the truth is just the truth and....

Shrodinger's cat.

I am with Beren. I agree that the women are probably telling the truth. Or at least some of them are. So each person, just like a jury, is free to decide who they believe and vote accordingly.


So you and Beren agree with me. Cool.

But then there is court. In any real determination of truth the burden of proof must lie with the accuser. To attempt to construct any system operating differently is to turn the courts into instruments of extortion.


Not quite.

In a court of justice, the burden of proof lies with accuser, and this is a resilt of ensuring individual liberty when the accuser is a state.

But this is not a way of arriving at truth. It is a methodological principle of law, not an actual tool for discerning truth from falsehood.

Consequently, using that as an argument on PoFo makes no sense.

For our non-American friends. In a criminal case our system requires that the allegations be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a deliberately high standard. The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

In a civil case, and these women could bring one, the standard is very different. The jury decides on the preponderance of evidence. Like tipping a scale if 51% of the evidence favors one side and 49% favors the other the jury decides for the 51%.

IF I apply that standard here I can decide that the eyewitness accounts of several women that Moore frequently behaved this way may push the scales against him even though it is not proved that he did anything.

I am sorry that women face so great a burden. I am not sorry that the state faces the same burden when I am falsely accused of burglary.

There is no solution POD other than the OJ alternative. Faced with the decision by a jury that the state did not prove that OJ killed the two people, the parents of one of the victims sued OJ in civil court where the burden of proof was much less....and took him for everything he was worth.


Yes, I am very clear on how the justice system is set up and how this severely disadvantages women who have been sexually assaulted.

——————————————

Doug64 wrote:Yes, a standard defense tactic in sexual assault cases is to call the character of the victim into question, in order to cast doubt on her victim status.


So we can say that in a majority of sexual assault trials, the victim has their repuation tarnished.

Since the number of false rape allegations is much smaller than the number of sexual assault trials, and since the number of men who actually have their repuation tarnished is only a small percentage of these, the number of men who have their repuation tarnished by false rape allegations is far smaller than the number of women who have their reputations tarnished after being sexually assaulted.

Please do not post whole articles about irrelevant stuff when replying to me. It just means I have to spend more time erasing stuff than actually replying to the important points.
#14864993
So you and Beren agree with me. Cool.


:roll:

In a court of justice, the burden of proof lies with accuser, and this is a resilt of ensuring individual liberty when the accuser is a state.

But this is not a way of arriving at truth. It is a methodological principle of law, not an actual tool for discerning truth from falsehood.


Nonsense. A court is seeking the truth. It looks for proof and includes the use of reasoning skills on the part of jurors. The same skills we on this forum ought to use in deciding whether the allegations are true or not.
Consequently, using that as an argument on PoFo makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense. Look at the title of the thread. We are debating whether or not those accusations are proven. Each of us is doing that. We arrive at what we believe is true. Using that decision as a basis for our action we decide what to do about it. It is perfectly possible for someone, the governor of Alabama for example, to believe the women and decide to vote for Moore anyway. That may not be what you or I would find reasonable but they certainly can sacrifice their integrity to serve what they consider a greater good.


Since the number of false rape allegations is much smaller than the number of sexual assault trials, and since the number of men who actually have their repuation tarnished is only a small percentage of these, the number of men who have their repuation tarnished by false rape allegations is far smaller than the number of women who have their reputations tarnished after being sexually assaulted.


This is not even logical. Look at what you wrote and get back to us.
#14865001
The only interesting aspect of the sexual assault frenzy is that the left seems to really want to challenge the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It started on university campuses and is now spilling out into wider society.

I actually hope they carry on with these witch hunts, especially among their own and those who have publicly professed to be progressive. It demonstrates nicely how dangerous their mindset is. And if they don't, they look utterly hypocritical. If the right cannot capitalise on this politically, they'll only have themselves to blame.
#14865017
The only interesting aspect of the sexual assault frenzy is that the left seems to really want to challenge the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It started on university campuses and is now spilling out into wider society.

I actually hope they carry on with these witch hunts, especially among their own and those who have publicly professed to be progressive. It demonstrates nicely how dangerous their mindset is. And if they don't, they look utterly hypocritical. If the right cannot capitalise on this politically, they'll only have themselves to blame.


Absolutely correct. And the damage is far greater than they realize. Look for a moment what the average working person takes away from high school. Just about the only point of law that survives into adulthood is the saying, "innocent until proven guilty". That is literally the extent of the legal education of the majority of Americans. I mean literally. So the average American sees any attempt to water down this treasured idea as a direct assault on our democracy and the rule of law.

Progressives are no stranger to shooting themselves in the foot. They do it all of the time. They treasure their iconoclastic nature and are the first to form a circular firing squad. Of course, since they give the average person way to much credit in the deep thinking department so they are unaware of this problem.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 36
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]