I have no idea what you think you are arguing here. Let's imagine that it can be objectively demonstrated that sexual intercourse took place between an accuser and accused. The accuser claims rape and the accused consensual sex. Assuming limited or inconclusive other evidence (of assault, other witnesses), it is extremely likely that credibility will be hugely relevant to an outcome.
Do you not see how degenerate that system is though? You are advocating for the exact sort of thing that splits judicial results between social classes.
If there is evidence (most likely objective) that sinks the accusation, credibility of the victim may therefore be moot. For instance, when the accused can prove they were not in the area at that time. This is common sense. You have provided no such evidence, or even close.
Again, you're asking for proof of innocence. That is saying "if the accusation isn't literally impossible, it's probably true." This is the importance of things like the empty department and the unlocked door: her tale of the events involves all and only circumstances that not only would allow for the crime to take place, but also preclude any possibility of exonerating evidence. The empty department means there's no chance of a witness to verify, the coincidentally unlocked door means Trump wouldn't need a collaborator, the clothes she preserved wouldn't prove he didn't touch her if his dna isn't there 25 years later (part of why statutes of limitations exist), she can't even say what year the event took place in that he might have an alibi. You want objective evidence to clear him, the accusation (if false) is constructed with a combination of very specific details where they make evidence impossible and very vague details when they would allow for evidence to exist. If you wanted to actively avoid evidence that your accusation is a lie, it's hard to do better than "he committed a crime that left no trace in a place we know he's been at a time we don't remember but we're certain nobody else was around." That's why it's suspicious.
However, once you are basing arguments on the credibility of the accuser, the credibility of the accused is almost intrinsically up for examination too.
It really isn't. The testimony of the accused did not create the court case, and it shouldn't be involved in ending it unless it can be validated by others. Every accused person, innocent or guilty, has a motive to claim innocence. It does not matter how trustworthy that person is, their claim to innocence is unreliable, because a guilty person in their position would be saying the same things as an innocent person. An accuser is not made inherently unreliable by the circumstances, that is why their credibility matters. That is why it is relevant the accusation came out as she's selling her book, which is not only a memoir but is also in keeping with her style, where she writes on what she sees but also inserts herself into the stories as the protagonist.
I was saying to Silvanus the other day, lies tend to generate more questions, the truth tends to fall into place, and I think there's a way that all the pieces fall into place, starting with her book. The book is "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal", in which Carroll travels the USA asking women for their stories about how terrible men are, so that she can ultimately suggest forcing all men into reeducation camps. She was a very successful advice columnist, she really built her career on other women's horror stories about men. And maybe that's what happened here...
Seriously, truly, if you've looked into this woman, watched her speak about this, considered the details of the accusation, it's just so obviously a lie. Do your song and dance denying it, but the lady is both unhinged and an unconvincing liar. It almost unreasonable to even imagine she's telling the truth after watching her talk about it, every mannerism should be sounding alarms in your brain. But what if it's a lie, but only in some ways? I imagined ways it might be half lie, like maybe that she encountered Trump, told her friends about it, made up the sex part, and then they said it was rape and it snowballed from there, but that doesn't explain why she can't put a date on it. She claims to still have the dress and witnesses who she told at the time, but nobody can remember if it was 1995 or 1996, that reeks. So in that sense, it makes more sense if the entire thing is a lie, but that just makes her evil, and leaves me unconvinced her friends would perjure themselves to support her.
But what if it's a true story, in essence, but it's someone else's? That fits perfectly. Imagine its someone else's story. Trump went to a woman's fashion store, started talking with a women there (probably a beautiful, young woman, rather than not his type, to use his words against him), asked for help picking out a present for his wife, convinced her to try things on for him, and got the staff to look the other way as you suggested he might. He tries to have sex with her, she pushes him away and leaves, and she tells her story privately in E Jean Carroll's circle, but ultimately wants to keep it private and not come forward. One of the points of suspicion around this is that Carroll came forward in 2019, but her story almost perfectly matches one told in an episode of Law and Order SVU from 2012, a show that is made by NBC where Carroll once had her own tv show. Dick Wolf, executive producer of Law and Order, was once asked where they get their ideas from, and he said they just read the New York Post, but that incident in Bergdorf Goodman doesn't match anything in the New York Post from the 2012 time frame, it matches Carroll's claims about Trump published in 2019.
Well, what if that clique of writers, including Carroll, have known the story for years and wanted to tell it, but they were protecting the anonymity of the real victim? All those puzzle pieces fall into place really cleanly. She looks like a liar cause she is one. But the lie is that its her story, which she is saying is her story because otherwise we'd all be looking for the real person who doesn't want the attention. She has to tell the story in an unproveable way because otherwise people might prove she's lying, which would again lead to a hunt for the real victim, so she (and her friends) can lie with conviction, as their motive is to protect an innocent and go after a predator. The crime would match Trump's known behavior, he's never with women actually his age, including all of his wives, both his comments and the credible accusations about him are pretty uniformly with conventionally beautiful women he already had close access to, targeting a famous writer in a public setting is not his M.O. The lie would match E Jean Carroll's writing style, she has a history of gonzo narratives, she likes to insert herself as the protagonist into nonfiction stories, and she does like to feel she's helping people with her writing.
It took a while, but I think I finally cracked this one. That's what I think the truth behind it all is.
www.yahoo.com
