[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]
JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]
ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.
sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.[/quote]
You are an idiot. If you kill someone and I see you do it, I can testify in court about your actions because I have personal knowledge of it; that’s not hearsay and it IS direct evidence. Testimony is direct evidence when the witness personally observed the act. So if the servants saw her torturing and killing people, that is direct evidence moron. [/quote]
its common knowledge, that people always look to blame someone else for their actions. these servants knew, they were after the countess. these were admitted killers who were caught in the act. the countess wasn’t. sorry, to me thats not direct evidence. anyone can say anything they like. but it has to be credible evidence. i can say your mom blew me, that doesn’t mean she did, now does it.
anyone can say anything about anyone. does it make it true. of course not. oh, they said she did it, big freaken deal. of course they are going to say that. or she made us do it. how can she make you do it, when she wasn’t even there. like i said, it would be laughed out of any court in this world today. it was a sham. do some research. imagine a woman of incredible power and wealth.
men hate women like that today, imagine 400 years ago, were women were just property, for the most part. witness testimony can be powerful evidence if it comes from reputable and upstanding citizens. but when testimony comes from admitted killers, their testimony is crap. pure and simple. even today, most scholars beleive at the very least, it was politically motivated. thats the very least. many now beleive it was a total set up.
she was in charge of her servants, and her sevants did do commit brutal crimes, and that she is guilty. but when you look at the times she lived in, where brutality was common place, things were different back then.[/quote]
You can’t just say, “to me that’s not direct evidence.” There is a definition for what direct evidence is. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it circumstantial evidence. It doesn’t mean that it’s enough evidence to get a conviction, but you can’t simply make up your own definitions.
I continue to be amazed and baffled by the constant flow of BS emanating from your posts. You try to act like you know what you’re talking about, when it’s obvious you have no clue.
Imagine this modern-day scenario. There is a rich and powerful woman that lives in a mansion. It’s discovered that for years, her live-in servants have been killing and torturing young girls inside the mansion. They are caught and as they are interviewed, they all say that the rich woman not only directed them to commit theses acts, but that she herself had a hand in it. Do you really think the police and prosecuting attorney would just laugh off these allegations? [/quote]
ok, I do understand what your saying. but these 4 servants were caught in the act committing these crimes, while the countess wasn’t there. They might do an investigation, yes. but when all you have is the word of admitted killers. and they admitted in court transcripts to killing the girls, each one admitted to the killings.
not to mention being caught red handed. the biggest thing is that she was never allowed to testify on her own behalf. they knew she would blast their whole case to shreds. she had no defense. [/quote]
Again, JESUS H you’re fucking bat shit crazy and dumb. I’m beginning to understand why you see yourself as some sort of Peter Pan. You are one stunted individual.
You don’t follow too many RICO cases do you? Built entirely on the backs of informants that were caught “doing the dirt” including murders, and later implicated co-conspirators to save their own ass and shave time off their sentences. There are many many many men sitting in jail now for the REST OF THEIR LIVES based on such testimony.
Do you live in a cave, or just look like you do?[/quote]
without evidence to back up what they say, all the prosecuters have is the word of a killer. thats it. now, if you have other evidence to back up what they are saying, their testimony will have more weight. but the simple word of a killer, won’t do the job. those men you speak of, how many had a good lawyer. I’d also wager there was a ton of evidence besides testimony. I’m also aware that juries can be a bunch of idiots and make stupid decisions.
