- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:11 am to Lsupimp
quote:
That’s not how it works, Darth. One can simply google “ Danny Masterson trial transcripts “ or “ Danny Masterson victim testimony “ and read for hours. I’m not going to spoon feed you the trial testimony because you aren’t curious enough to know who and what you are defending, lol. Google, bro.
Reading comprehension must not be one of your strong points. I’m not defending Masterson. He means nothing to me. I’ve even said multiple times he’s probably guilty.
But unlike you, I know simple testimony and the fact these women gave a police report is nothing more than evidence they are alleging a crime. Literally every criminal trial ever held has a police report. That does not equal actual evidence a crime occurred. Anyone can testify someone did something. They can also tell police someone did something, which the police put in a report about whatever the person alleges happened. Neither of those is evidence what the person alleging actually happened though.
This post was edited on 9/8/23 at 9:13 am
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:14 am to Darth_Vader
is there like personal history between you and some of these guys posting on this thread? this is a weird conversation.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:20 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But unlike you, I know simple testimony and the fact these women gave a police report is nothing more than evidence they are alleging a crime. Literally every criminal trial ever held has a police report. That does not equal actual evidence a crime occurred. Anyone can testify someone did something. They can also tell police someone did something, which the police put in a report about whatever the person alleges happened. Neither of those is evidence what the person alleging actually happened though.
In our legal system, witness and victim testimony is evidence. It's not physical evidence, but that's never been a requirement to convict. It just has to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and apparently they met that threshold with whatever was presented.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the only bar they have to meet.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:23 am to Ingeniero
quote:
In our legal system, witness and victim testimony is evidence.
This is very true. However, I'm very leery of victims coming forward after nearly two decades to allege a sexual crime.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:25 am to Ingeniero
quote:
In our legal system, witness and victim testimony is evidence. It's not physical evidence, but that's never been a requirement to convict. It just has to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and apparently they met that threshold with whatever was presented.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the only bar they have to meet.
You should need a whole hell of a lot more than an allegation to get a conviction. There should be evidence that substantiates the allegation, the mere allegation is not really "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 9:26 am to RollTide1987
That’s true, just like the vast majority of criminal cases. It’s a circumstantial case. Accusations of a crime, followed by police investigation and corroborating evidence. But the evidence is compelling , consistent and resulted in a conviction. That’s our system. There is no requirement that DNA evidence be present in rape cases. Or murder cases. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. There is and always will be doubt. That’s the absolute moral significance of judging your fellow man.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:15 am to jatilen
The sheer fricking stupidity of some of the responses in this thread is just mind blowing. No wonder enforcement of crime in Louisiana is so bad...hard to get a jury that can actually understand and follow the law, even if it's written in crayon.
But even worse, many are astoundingly quick to assume what the facts of the cases involved, even though we don't know shite about what the man actually did.
Shouldn't prosecute old cases? With punishments over 3 years? Unless physical evidence? Where do you come up with this stupid shite? Statute of limitations usually never runs on murders and rapes. I guess y'all would rather just let those slide on account of father time....Bet y'all don't sing the same tune when it is your daughter that is God forbid abused or killed.
But even worse, many are astoundingly quick to assume what the facts of the cases involved, even though we don't know shite about what the man actually did.
Shouldn't prosecute old cases? With punishments over 3 years? Unless physical evidence? Where do you come up with this stupid shite? Statute of limitations usually never runs on murders and rapes. I guess y'all would rather just let those slide on account of father time....Bet y'all don't sing the same tune when it is your daughter that is God forbid abused or killed.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:26 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It’s beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. There is and always will be doubt. That’s the absolute moral significance of judging your fellow man.
I think that is what stinks about this, he went to trial before and the jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision. For each of the 3 victims the majority of jurors thought he was innocent but in the second trial the new jury was able to come to a unanimous verdict of guilty. From what I have gathered in the few articles that I read is that the judge allowed the prosecution to tell the jury that Danny had in fact drugged them even though that wasn't allowed in the first trial since there was no charge of drugging. I want to know what else changed from the first trial to the second trial.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:35 am to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
This conviction was as much against Scientology as it was Masterson.
This is what scares me. frick Scientology and frick Masterson if he did what it appears he did. And I know they’re intertwined, so it’s more nuanced and not so black and white, but who was really on trial here—the Church or Masterson?
It looks like he’s guilty, but I have a huge problem sending a person to prison for 30 years for the sins of the Church of Scientology. If that’s what actually happened.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:44 am to Warrior Poet
quote:
But even worse, many are astoundingly quick to assume what the facts of the cases involved, even though we don't know shite about what the man actually did.
well that's kind of the point though, right? we DONT know shite about what the man actually did. all we know is what three girls said happened to them twenty years ago. if there's more than that, i sure havent found it from googling, and i've been looking.
i'm with you on the statute of limitations thing though. i have no issue with trying a rape from 20 years ago. but this case specifically just seems very, very shaky.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:50 am to dewster
quote:
But the “church” members that allegedly intimidated witnesses and buried evidence were not sentenced to prison though. Masterson was
This is what I was talking about. The Church intimidating witnesses, stalking them, tampering with evidence, etc…is not proof of rape. It is only proof of whatever of those acts broke laws, and the individual members that committed them should have been prosecuted by the state for those specific crimes.
But just to be clear, I didn’t follow the trial and am not suggesting that the judge did allow evidence in that should not have been or was sending a message to the Church by giving him the maximum sentence. I am simply suggesting that would be my fear in a case such as this when it’s hard to draw a line between the defendant and the organization he/she is a member of.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 10:59 am to jatilen
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:15 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
What I am saying is without evidence, there is no way to verify to veracity of the allegations.
Witness testimony is evidence. In fact, it’s one of only 3 examples of “direct evidence.” Attorneys, correct me if I’m wrong, but the only things you considered “direct evidence” of a crime are:
1) video/audio of the crime actually being committed
2) eye witness testimony
3) confession
Everything else is considered circumstantial. Even DNA and fingerprints are considered circumstantial. They can be proof that a suspect/defendant was physically at the scene of a crime, but not that he/she actually committed the crime. It is up to the jury to determine whether or not it’s reasonable to believe that the defendant was at the scene of the crime, but didn’t actually commit it. And most of the time, it’s not reasonable to doubt they committed it.
So most cases are actually won due to mounting circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence, though for some reason, we seem to have been wrongly taught that you can’t convict on circumstantial evidence. Not only can you, circumstantial evidence, especially when it’s piled up, is usually the most compelling evidence.
It’s certainly a semantics, and you can argue, with what we know about human memory, whether or not witness testimony should be considered “direct evidence” and/or even if it is, how much weight you think it should have. But as now, our system puts that determination in the hands/minds of the juries.
After the judge’s discretion on whether to allow it in or not, obviously. Again, I didn’t follow this case and can’t speak intelligently on whether or not this particular judge allowed in evidence that should not have been. I certainly hope not. But if so, I hope he wins an appeal and gets another trial where the proper evidence can be presented by the state, and then respectively weighed by the prospective jury.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:25 am to GetCocky11
quote:
im sorry but if i had the money he had and i was out on bail....im gone.
I'd imagine his passport was confiscated
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:39 am to Sam Quint
quote:
well that's kind of the point though, right? we DONT know shite about what the man actually did. all we know is what three girls said happened to them twenty years ago. if there's more than that, i sure havent found it from googling, and i've been looking.
i'm with you on the statute of limitations thing though. i have no issue with trying a rape from 20 years ago. but this case specifically just seems very, very shaky.
There is always going to be victim testimony in a rape. It's a crime of secrecy. No one except the victim and the suspect are ever there.
There is rarely physical evidence to show a rape happened. There is rarely DNA evidence because most rapes are not reported immediately due to a number of reasons. This is one of the most commonly studied phenomenon in crime data. There are countless studies that go in depth on these types of issues.
And to your point, rarely is it JUST the victim's testimony. There are always other witnesses/people to corroborate aspects of what the victims say. Sometimes these are the most important people in the entire case.
It is extremely hard to get 12 people to unanimously convict someone of this type of horrible crime, especially in a very liberal and anti-police city like where this case was held. That is one of the epicenters of scientology supporters. We don't know shite about the case, but if a jury of 12 in that left-wing socialist county was willing to convict the dude and give him the maximum punishment, my gut says the evidence was pretty compelling unless/until I see or hear otherwise.
Just my two pennies.
People need to use common sense and stop grasping at straws to explain things. It hurts our justice system and makes it easier to get away with serious and violent crimes because one person is too stupid to see what is obvious to reasonable people.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:43 am to Warrior Poet
quote:
It is extremely hard to get 12 people to unanimously convict someone of this type of horrible crime
This is the thing. We couldn't get 12 people to agree that a plane hit the Pentagon in a thread earlier this week. I think people are underestimating just how hard it is to get a jury to convict.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:47 am to Sam Quint
quote:
but this case specifically just seems very, very shaky
The only thing you have to support that belief is the fact that the crimes occurred 20 years ago.
Pure speculation is all this is. It's dangerous to speculate like this in my opinion. You get in the habit of applying this kind of logic in other situations that could actually cause unintended harm to other people.
Not to mention the prosecution overcame this exact speculation and convicted 12 strangers to unanimously find the man guilty.
If the "church" issue played a role, it was in the jury's assessment of punishment....not whether the crime did or did not occur.
What people are questioning in this case is really about the 30 years...might not be appropriate. We didn't hear the evidence so it's hard to tell. At the end of the day we have to have faith that 12 strangers would come to an agreed punishment that "fit" the crime.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:50 am to Ingeniero
quote:
This is the thing. We couldn't get 12 people to agree that a plane hit the Pentagon in a thread earlier this week. I think people are underestimating just how hard it is to get a jury to convict.
In today's word, it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to get a jury to convict someone of any serious crime.
And in jurisdictions where the politics are primarily blue, it is even more difficult.
Posted on 9/8/23 at 11:50 am to 777Tiger
quote:
Have no idea who this is?
Rooster from the Ranch
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News