MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: It's a civil suit. It doesn't have to be proven. Honestly, I think there is a large amount of denial on this thread. The only way this could be "all about the money," as seems to be the mantra here, is if she had set up the assault herself. That's a stretch. Sure, she's looking for a pay day. But, that's clearly not all that's at play here. This could very well be extremely damaging to Shady, regardless of his guilt, or innocence. I'm sure everyone knows this, but a civil lawsuit is based on a preponderance of evidence. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. So you contradicted your self. It doesnt have to be proven like you said. Or it does have to be proven like you later say?? If I am shady I am immediately filing a counter slander suit. Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: So you contradicted your self. It doesnt have to be proven like you said. Or it does have to be proven like you later say?? I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. So how does that happen with no suspect identified?
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: I think you may be misreading my post. The allegations do not have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," as they would in a criminal case. She just has to have a more convincing story than him. They have to be proven. Preponderance of Evidence is still a very legal standard of proof. But ABSOLUTELY still has to be proven the standard of proof in most civil cases in which the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more credible and convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not; the evidence meeting this standardplaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's negligence proximately caused the injuries Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby
Lurker Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Lfod said: She's not giving up. Why should she. She's got nothing to loose and everything to gain. A dollar and a dream...
x-BillzeBubba Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 29 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Gonna be hard to prove this. I really doubt this little bombshell would have stayed unknown up til now...I call BS
White Linen Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: So how does that happen with no suspect identified? Cry during testimony?
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: They have to be proven. Preponderance of Evidence is still a very legal standard of proof. But ABSOLUTELY still has to be proven A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence. She has no evidence. That is the point. Merely stating that the attacker said he knew McCoy is not evidence.
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: A preponderance of evidence equates to "more likely than not." If the jury believes that she is 51% likely to be telling the truth, that is a preponderance of evidence. So again HAS To prove it right??? Just a lower standard of proof.
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: So how does that happen with no suspect identified? I think that there is probably enough here (all hearsay, and circumstantial, of course) for a good legal team to put together a decent case. I suppose it would hinge on the testimony of the witnesses. She wasn't home alone, right? If Shady is smart, he'll settle out of court, if he can.
Bob&Doug Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: Damn, now we lost our 183 page thread for a civil suit. Closed because ????..... oh yeah....cut and paste Edited August 13, 2018 by Bob&Doug 1
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 Her “ the attacker knew McCoy” McCoys defense “How do you know. Where is the attacker, why were you squating at My Clients House so again where is the attacker to show he knew my Client.”
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said: So again HAS To prove it right??? Just a lower standard of proof. We're just into semantics here, at this point. But, I wouldn't say that if something is 51% likely to be true that it has been "proven." Would you? Edited August 13, 2018 by Rocky Landing
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said: We're just into semantics here, at this point. But, I wouldn't say that if something is 51% likely to be true that it has been "proven." Would you? By this specific burden of proof. Yep it has been proven. Edited August 13, 2018 by MAJBobby
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: I think that there is probably enough here (all hearsay, and circumstantial, of course) for a good legal team to put together a decent case. I suppose it would hinge on the testimony of the witnesses. She wasn't home alone, right? If Shady is smart, he'll settle out of court, if he can. Nope! So she and her cousin corroborate the "story" of what the attacker said? Not evidentiary enough to pass the preponderance burden of proof. Won't fly in a court of law.
Rocky Landing Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: She has no evidence. That is the point. Merely stating that the attacker said he knew McCoy is not evidence. Well, her testimony would certainly be admissible.
MAJBobby Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 She overplayed her hand here. That really is the reality of the situation. She must have ran out of cash flow.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 13, 2018 Author Posted August 13, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: Well, her testimony would certainly be admissible. Testimony is not evidence.
Recommended Posts