Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[Nightman]

I've already disproven that time and again. Here's the short version:

In most grand juries, the accused does not get to present a defense. Also, grand juries have a significantly lower burden of proof than a bench trial.

But yeah, other than those 2 critical facts, they're practically the same.

You are the best at being consistently wrong......that is something I guess

 

[AsthmaField]

No, I and anyone who knows the fact of this case knows it happened.

Hardy paid her off.

There is no proof. You can't know.

 

[Rogah]

There is no proof. You can't know.

What part of "the evidence is so overwhelming as to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt" do you not understand?

He paid her off.

 

[Rogah]

You are the best at being consistently wrong......that is something I guess

Everything I said in that post is 100% fact.

 

[Nightman]

Everything I said in that post is 100% fact.

Nothing you said is accurate

Similar does not equal identical. That may help you save some time in the future.

 

[Rogah]

Nothing you said is accurate

Oh really? Which points are wrong?

 

[Nightman]

Oh really? Which points are wrong?

All of them. Always. You get nothing right.

 

[Rogah]

All of them. Always. You get nothing right.

I'm right and you know it, but aren't mature enough to admit it.

Whoops! Here's proof that everything I said about grand juries versus bench trials is correct:

https://www.chetson.com/2011/04/probable-cause-and-the-north-carolina-grand-jury/

a grand jury does not determine guilt, but merely determines whether there’s “probable cause” to believe the person committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low standard, basically indicating there are some facts to think the person may have committed the crime.

Second, the defense does not have the opportunity to either present evidence to a North Carolina Grand Jury or to even appear and hear what is said at a NC Grand Jury.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-the-bench-trial-process

As in a jury trial, the prosecutor in a bench trial must present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. The prosecutor must call witnesses to testify, present any physical evidence such as photographs, clothing, or results of tests like a breath or blood alcohol test in a DUI case, and argue any legal issues. The defense can cross-examine the state’s witnesses and argue to the court that the prosecutor should not be able to present certain evidence, if appropriate. The defendant also is entitled to call witnesses, present evidence, and testify on his own behalf.

 

[AsthmaField]

What part of "the evidence is so overwhelming as to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt" do you not understand?

He paid her off.

So now you are saying that the payoff has been proven beyond any "reasonable doubt"?

Hmmm. Interesting.

You should tell the DA in the Hardy case, because he can't prove it. I'm sure he'd find it important to if he should prosecute for tampering or not. Right now with no proof, he can't prosecute so I'm sure he'd like your info.

It won't effect the misdemeanor trial of Hardy though because the problem he ran into there is that the victim's testimonies were so wildly conflicting that he was afraid of telling a jury one of her versions of what happened that night.

I think Hardy probably did give her some money to go away, BTW. I just don't know that because there is no proof because you apparently haven't shared your inside info on that to anyone. Anywhere.

What we do know though, is that the DA routinely prosecutes people, regardless of if the victim cooperates or not. He doesn't have to have the victim/witness there to prosecute. This we know.

We also know that he specifically pointed out that because of "inconsistencies" in Ms Holder's testimonies to the police and subsequently to the judge in the Bench Trial. They conflicted so much that the DA couldn't trust his reputation to any of it. So he didn't prosecute without the victim because he knew what she had said, either to the police or to the judge, was not true.

This we know. The DA wrote it down. We know.

He hinted that she wasn't around because of a payoff. Of this we have no proof other than speculation from one man who might could save face by blaming the absence of the victim for his defeat.

It couldn't be that his "victim" was lying and he was charged with prosecuting a case that was impossible to win, could it?

Anyway man... You don't have to answer that. Everyone who said you don't listen to reason appears to be correct. I mean if you can't even say that we don't know Holder was paid off, but she likely was... then you aren't going to be swayed by any amount of reasoning or common sense.

So I bid you good day sir.

 

[Nightman]

I'm right and you know it, but aren't mature enough to admit it.

Whoops! Here's proof that everything I said about grand juries versus bench trials is correct:

https://www.chetson.com/2011/04/probable-cause-and-the-north-carolina-grand-jury/

a grand jury does not determine guilt, but merely determines whether there’s “probable cause” to believe the person committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low standard, basically indicating there are some facts to think the person may have committed the crime.

Second, the defense does not have the opportunity to either present evidence to a North Carolina Grand Jury or to even appear and hear what is said at a NC Grand Jury.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-the-bench-trial-process

As in a jury trial, the prosecutor in a bench trial must present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. The prosecutor must call witnesses to testify, present any physical evidence such as photographs, clothing, or results of tests like a breath or blood alcohol test in a DUI case, and argue any legal issues. The defense can cross-examine the state’s witnesses and argue to the court that the prosecutor should not be able to present certain evidence, if appropriate. The defendant also is entitled to call witnesses, present evidence, and testify on his own behalf.

and that is why it is similar to a bench trial

they weed out the weaker cases

both are meaningless once the jury trial starts

like I said, you are always wrong when it comes to Hardy and the Pats

 

[Rogah]

I think Hardy probably did give her some money to go away, BTW.

So in other words you agree with me but, for some reason, you decided to be argumentative regarding something you agree with.

It couldn't be that his "victim" was lying and he was charged with prosecuting a case that was impossible to win, could it?

Well considering he won* in the bench trial, it's pretty silly to call it impossible to have won* the next round.

* Please note I hate using the word "won" in reference to a prosecutor gaining a guilty verdict because it is not an appropriate term, but I am using it since that is the term you used there.

 

[Rogah]

and that is why it is similar to a bench trial

they weed out the weaker cases

both are meaningless once the jury trial starts

Child, you got schooled. You said I was wrong, you wouldn't show how I was wrong, then I posted some paragraphs proving I was 100% right.

Just admit it and move on. You would look a lot less silly.

 

[AsthmaField]

I'm right and you know it, but aren't mature enough to admit it.

Whoops! Here's proof that everything I said about grand juries versus bench trials is correct:

https://www.chetson.com/2011/04/probable-cause-and-the-north-carolina-grand-jury/

a grand jury does not determine guilt, but merely determines whether there’s “probable cause” to believe the person committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low standard, basically indicating there are some facts to think the person may have committed the crime.

Second, the defense does not have the opportunity to either present evidence to a North Carolina Grand Jury or to even appear and hear what is said at a NC Grand Jury.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-the-bench-trial-process

As in a jury trial, the prosecutor in a bench trial must present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. The prosecutor must call witnesses to testify, present any physical evidence such as photographs, clothing, or results of tests like a breath or blood alcohol test in a DUI case, and argue any legal issues. The defense can cross-examine the state’s witnesses and argue to the court that the prosecutor should not be able to present certain evidence, if appropriate. The defendant also is entitled to call witnesses, present evidence, and testify on his own behalf.

I think what people are trying to say is that a bench trial and a grand jury are similar in that they both help determine if a jury trial is needed.

 

[AsthmaField]

So in other words you agree with me but, for some reason, you decided to be argumentative regarding something you agree with.

No. You said you know that she was paid off. I most definitely don't agree with that. Nor do I agree that is why the DA chose to not prosecute.

Her testimony was crap was why he didn't prosecute.

 

[Nightman]

So in other words you agree with me but, for some reason, you decided to be argumentative regarding something you agree with.
Well considering he won* in the bench trial, it's pretty silly to call it impossible to have won* the next round.

* Please note I hate using the word "won" in reference to a prosecutor gaining a guilty verdict because it is not an appropriate term, but I am using it since that is the term you used there.

you understand that is because of Holder's testimony at the bench trial that the DA could no longer 'win' at the jury trial

 

[Rogah]

No. You said you know that she was paid off. I most definitely don't agree with that.

What happened to Mr. "I bid you good day sir"?

Pretty sad when someone doesn't even have the fortitude to leave a conversation after indicating they are going to do so.

 

[Rogah]

you understand that is because of Holder's testimony at the bench trial that the DA could no longer 'win' at the jury trial

Considering the DA "won" at the bench trial, it's pretty silly to consider it impossible to "win" with a jury.

 

[Nightman]

Considering the DA "won" at the bench trial, it's pretty silly to consider it impossible to "win" with a jury.

see there you go being wrong again and again and again.........

once the gold digging coke ***** testified under oath, she became toxic as a witness

 

[AsthmaField]

What happened to Mr. "I bid you good day sir"?

Pretty sad when someone doesn't even have the fortitude to leave a conversation after indicating they are going to do so.

lol... you really are reaching.

I must admit even though I know you have your mind made up and won't change your very ineffective debating method... it still is a little fun to watch you do it.

Now I'm really going to try to leave you alone. If I can't manage it though... please do make another post dedicated to it.

 

[Rogah]

lol... you really are reaching.

I must admit even though I know you have your mind made up and won't change your very ineffective debating method... it still is a little fun to watch you do it.

Now I'm really going to try to leave you alone. If I can't manage it though... please do make another post dedicated to it.

Don't worry, if I wanted to hook you back in here I could do so quite easily.