Andrew L. Urban.
Bypassing the police with her rape allegation, the complainant publishes it in a book, some 37 years later. But it may have been 36 years …The case goes to trial in a civil court.
With the date/time obscured, the accused is denied the opportunity to present an alibi. Insisting on his innocence, the accused is also denied the opportunity to present certain items of evidence in his defence, by the judge.
The jury did not find that the accused had raped the complainant, as she alleged. But it said he was shown on the balance of probabilities to have sexually abused her, and then told a malicious falsehood about her (that she was making it up) that did serious damage to her reputation. Last year, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing victims a one-year window to file a sexual assault lawsuit over older cases. That is how the case wound up in a courtroom.
The accused is again highly critical of the outcome and accuses the complainant of making it up – “a made up SCAM”. That triggers another legal action, in which the complainant successfully sues the accused for defamation. Criticism of the allegation is verboten!?
This case, as briefly outlined above, was only possible because of the Adult Survivors Act and the personalities involved. Justice was clearly not blind in this case.
The New York where 93% voted for left / socialist candidates in 2020. And if I revealed the identities of the protagonists, you’d understand why such unjustifiable bias is alive and well in the Big Apple. Since when is justice dependant on who is being judged?
Go ahead, take a guess ….
The accused’s name would be Donald Trump.
90% voted Left/Socialist candidate,… Kindly please cite your source.
Apologies, I can’t now retrieve the source that I found. All I can find by way of voting results just confirm what everyone knows, namely that New York is a deep blue state…meaning the majority of voters vote left. More than 86 per cent of voters supported Joe Biden in 2020. Which is why Shriver doesn’t trust the jury pool (or the judges there) to decide impartially.
Seems a lot like our Co Incidence and Tendency Trials in Australia.
As a footnote, here is an excerpt from a column by the acclaimed Lionel Shriver, writing in The Spectator Australia:
I’m an unlikely defender of Donald Trump. Politically, he’s not my boy. Aside from producing two witnesses to whom she confided after the assault, Carroll presented no corroborating evidence. All she had was her story.
As for that story, it’s never gelled for me – though I’m nervous about questioning the particulars, lest I end up in court. In her 2019 account in New York magazine, Carroll claims to have met Trump at the door of the department store. He stopped and said, ‘Hey, you’re that advice lady!’ Really? Trump reads advice columns in women’s magazines? So loyally that he recognises her face? Carroll couldn’t pinpoint the year this happened, and in court had to rejig her timeline when it was pointed out that the designer coat-dress she described herself as wearing hadn’t yet been manufactured. Yet in the text, her memory of their flirtatious banter is surely too vivid – too long, too detailed and entirely couched in direct quotes. She can’t recall to what degree she was physically violated, and her description of the attack in the dressing room is anatomically dubious.