09-19-2018, 09:30 AM
(09-18-2018, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of these things are exactly what Fred would bring up in court. You missed the biggest one though, that the memories were thirty years old before she revealed them to anyone. While this doesn't disqualify her recollection any person involved in this profession would eat that single fact raw. Witness and victim testimony is often inconsistent and very often changes over time. If Fred was being honest he'd admit that a common defense attorney tactic is to delay trial so witness and victim recollections of the attack can degrade over time. Definitive the night of becomes I'm not sure ten months later, much less thirty years. Again none of these factors means she's not telling the truth, but every one of them makes the possibility that her story isn't wholly based in fact a more likely possibility.
I was hoping Fred would be honest for a change when I asked him that question. He clearly dodged is as he doesn't want to be associated with the inevitable GOP response to this allegation, nor does he want to be portrayed as unsympathetic to a alleged victim of sexual assault. We get it, Fed, but going after the very factors that bfine and I brought up would be your job and if you didn't do exactly that you'd be monstrously incompetent at best. Being a defense attorney is a difficult job, you have to defend some of the worst people on Earth to the best of your ability. It's a shame Fred couldn't share some actual insight with us in this case.
The points Bfine brought up were legit. I just was not aware of them.
Generally people who are the victim of a violent crime like sexual assault do not forget who did it no matter how much time passes. Other details may become foggy, but not that one.
