In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.
For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.
Yes, “expert witness” testimony sends people to prison all the time. If you don’t know what that is, they are state lackeys labeled experts in whatever field by the prosecuting attorney to go up and lie about why the defendant is guilty in their “expert” opinion.
A shit-load more went into that conviction than just testimony, as is exampled in your link, but if you want to split hairs using an exception to the rule as an example. I honestly don’t care.
Testimony from two friends she told in the 1990s (contemporaneous disclosure)
Testimony from other women describing similar experiences
Trump’s Access Hollywood tape statements
Trump’s deposition testimony
That’s… literally all testimony and statements. No physical evidence, no DNA, no security footage, no documents. The “shit-load more” you’re referring to IS testimony. They are different types of testimony that corroborate a pattern.
You keep saying “testimony ALONE does not convict” but then when shown cases where it does, you call them “exceptions.” How many “exceptions” do you need before acknowledging it’s an established part of our legal system?
Here’s the reality: in many sexual assault cases, especially historical ones, testimony is the primary or only evidence. That’s why courts developed extensive frameworks for evaluating credibility. Because they recognized that requiring physical evidence for crimes that typically occur in private would effectively legalize those crimes.
State v. Michaels(1984): “The victim’s testimony alone, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
People v. Barnes(1986): Conviction upheld based solely on victim testimony.
These aren’t “exceptions”, they’re applications of established law.
Your HOA example actually undermines your own argument. If 28 random, unconnected people from different neighborhoods, different decades, who don’t know each other, all independently accused the same HOA president of embezzlement with similar patterns… wouldn’t that be worth investigating seriously? The legal system already has mechanisms to evaluate credibility and coordination. That’s literally what discovery and cross-examination are for. That’s literally what reasonable doubt standards are for.
Aaaaaand there’s the smoking gun. He all but admitted it. And as I said, accusations help her credibility and puts focus on his culpability, but it doesn’t convict. On its own. His own words did.
Additionally I don’t know why you’re pushing so hard to be right when we’re debating something that I admitted can be a grey area. I already said there are exceptions to the rule. But you’re buying the point of my argument by forcing the exception to be the rule.
The fact of the matter is- accusations don’t convict.
Learn how law actually works and stop googling shit, but if you must: please, look up two things:
“Burden of Proof” and-
“Presumption of Innocence”.
Because in practice, using the former informs the latter.
Now I’m done with this sideshow. If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem if it ever was to begin with.
I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.
You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.
When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.
So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.
Not usually means yes in the right circumstances, you know, like 28 independent reports of rape against a convicted rapist who brags about taking sexual advantage of girls.
Also, yes it does all the time, they have “expert witnesses” whose job is entirely to get people convicted based solely on testimony from people who had nothing to do with the situation the people are on trial for.
In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.
For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.
Thanks for bring up an example of precedence. It helps a lot.
And look at that statement:
could significantly enhance credibility.
It’s not evidence to lead to conviction.
“Great job, that definitely shows he’s a rapist, but we still can’t say he’s a rapist!” - You, that’s what you sound like.
I thought you said you were going to block me, whatever happened to that?
Can testimony alone lead to a conviction?
Yes, “expert witness” testimony sends people to prison all the time. If you don’t know what that is, they are state lackeys labeled experts in whatever field by the prosecuting attorney to go up and lie about why the defendant is guilty in their “expert” opinion.
No, not usually.
But it does happen sometimes under specific circumstances. So if it happens sometimes, there is precedent.
I encourage you to go find some sexual assault cases where nothing but testimony led to a conviction and give them a read. You might be surprised.
Here, I’ll help by offering one for you to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#%3A~%3Atext%3DIn_November_2022%2C_Carroll_filed%2Cand_his_October_2022_deposition.%3Fwprov=sfla1
A shit-load more went into that conviction than just testimony, as is exampled in your link, but if you want to split hairs using an exception to the rule as an example. I honestly don’t care.
The fact is- testimony ALONE does not convict.
The Carroll case verdict was based on:
That’s… literally all testimony and statements. No physical evidence, no DNA, no security footage, no documents. The “shit-load more” you’re referring to IS testimony. They are different types of testimony that corroborate a pattern.
You keep saying “testimony ALONE does not convict” but then when shown cases where it does, you call them “exceptions.” How many “exceptions” do you need before acknowledging it’s an established part of our legal system?
Here’s the reality: in many sexual assault cases, especially historical ones, testimony is the primary or only evidence. That’s why courts developed extensive frameworks for evaluating credibility. Because they recognized that requiring physical evidence for crimes that typically occur in private would effectively legalize those crimes.
These aren’t “exceptions”, they’re applications of established law.
Your HOA example actually undermines your own argument. If 28 random, unconnected people from different neighborhoods, different decades, who don’t know each other, all independently accused the same HOA president of embezzlement with similar patterns… wouldn’t that be worth investigating seriously? The legal system already has mechanisms to evaluate credibility and coordination. That’s literally what discovery and cross-examination are for. That’s literally what reasonable doubt standards are for.
Aaaaaand there’s the smoking gun. He all but admitted it. And as I said, accusations help her credibility and puts focus on his culpability, but it doesn’t convict. On its own. His own words did.
Additionally I don’t know why you’re pushing so hard to be right when we’re debating something that I admitted can be a grey area. I already said there are exceptions to the rule. But you’re buying the point of my argument by forcing the exception to be the rule.
The fact of the matter is- accusations don’t convict.
Learn how law actually works and stop googling shit, but if you must: please, look up two things:
Because in practice, using the former informs the latter.
Now I’m done with this sideshow. If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem if it ever was to begin with.
I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.
You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.
When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.
So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.
The smoking gun was pure testimony and yet testimony is still not enough for a conviction? How the fuck does that work?
Stop defending rapists.
Not usually means yes in the right circumstances, you know, like 28 independent reports of rape against a convicted rapist who brags about taking sexual advantage of girls.
Also, yes it does all the time, they have “expert witnesses” whose job is entirely to get people convicted based solely on testimony from people who had nothing to do with the situation the people are on trial for.