this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
787 points (93.0% liked)
Political Memes
9891 readers
1168 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
“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.
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%7E%3Atext%3DIn_November_2022%2C_Carroll_filed%2Cand_his_October_2022_deposition.%3Fwprov=sfla1
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.
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.
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.