These articles mention evidence but no examples. Did the woman have motive to lie?
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
17 points (100.0% liked)
Television
2834 readers
348 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Ward consistently maintained that the encounter was "wholly consensual". His defense highlighted that the two exchanged friendly messages afterward and that the woman gave no indication she wanted to leave the vehicle during their interaction."
Yes, I also read the article, but were those messages admitted to evidence or is that all hearsay? Because unless there was a video of the intercourse, the statement about her not saying anything in the vehicle is definitely hearsay which is inadmissible.
No. Hearsay is when person A claims person B made a statement when person B is not available in court to be cross examined. The messages were admitted as evidence and were a main point in the defenses' argument. They were admissible because the messages were between the 2 parties to the lawsuit, therefore both were available to be questioned.
Oh okay good, if the messages were admitted then that answers my question. Ty.
I need to correct myself. The messages would be admissible either way having nothing to do with hearsay. The messages are direct, documented evidence on their phones. As you pointed out the statements made (or not made) in the car, absent video, audio, or a third party, could only have been available from the 2 parties statements and therefore needed both parties to be available in court to be entered.