Potentially a paedophile is the same as an alleged one. What's your problem?
Paranoid
Saying someone is potentially a Paedophile is not just criticism lol.
But I'm not saying he is that. I've openly said that I'm on the fence as to where I stand.
So would you agree that his behaviour with children was not normal?
I hate that (that it makes it sound like it's true) the wording is awful!There's a lively discussion happening over on Twitter about the recent tentative ruling from the California Court of Appeal. Yesterday I did a quick copy and paste of the text of a couple of tweets with the intention of going back later to catch up properly. Too late. Twitter is doing that thing where it blocks you if you don't have an account. I'm not signing up but am posting this excerpt from the tentative ruling as FYI. I believe that, when they make their ruling, the judges operate as if the claims being made (by WR and JS) are true. I think that's how it works. Which is why this excerpt seems to be supporting those two.
If anyone is interested in this I think the Twitter account was Justice for the Falsely Accused. Something like that. I didn't make a note, didn't think I'd need to.
I know. I was hoping that someone on the board with some proper legal knowledge would be able to shed light on all of this. My understanding is, in a civil case, when the judges decide whether to let a case go forward or not, they work on the assumption that the claims are probably true. That does not mean that the judges believe the claims being made. It just means that they assume that the claims are true and they focus solely on whether the case has any legal merit and should be allowed to proceed to court.
this is all so absurd!
Excellent point. She does do great stuff and explains stuff very clearly. I think I just need to be more patient. This has all only just happened this week. Helena is a busy woman and is also meticulous with her research and her writing so it could be a while before she gets anything up. But when she does post stuff it is always worth reading, ime.
Mm, s'pose. I'm not on Twitter. Not about to start.
Fair point. Watch and wait is maybe the way to go on this. I need to be more Zen about it. Go and have some fun with the APOM video.
Do we know anything about this judge? And will this be the judge that will go through with the trial (if one will be held)?
It's probably the same Twitter stuff I saw before the block kicked in. Lots of indignation which is understandable.
Y'know, I'd forgotten all about the 10 year thing. 1993, 2003, 2013 ...
Three judges. I saw the names somewhere but can't remember them. And can't get back on Twitter atm.
No. This is the California Court of Appeal. The case, if it goes ahead - which it likely will - has to go to a lower trial court which I think is a court in LA. I'm not American so don't quote me on that. I posted a great tweet the other day, let me post it again. I found it very clear and helpful.
I believe zinniabooklover is just refferring to the court of appeals, so no jury....
I don't have a Twitter account and have no intention of signing up. That said, I do find some useful stuff on there. When all of this kicked off I posted a few tweets from @andjustice4some. Yesterday I saw a bit of an interesting convo about all the stuff we've just been talking about. I copy and pasted a couple of the tweets as a reminder to myself. Later on, when I went back to look at the convo properly, I couldn't get in. Sometimes Twitter blocks you if you don't have an account - presumably to encourage you to sign up - but it never lasts very long. This is still going on today. Plus the page that's coming up now isn't the usual 'sign up' thing. I dunno, maybe they're having a technical glitch or something. It's been out of reach to me all day and that is unusual.
Yes, this is what I meant. Today it's been a different page, this one's asking me to retry but, of course, it hasn't worked.
I don't have an account but I don't normally have any problems accessing Twitter. I really think it'll be a technical hiccup.
Fingers crossed. The convo I saw yesterday, there was one comment about how the three judges seemed to have conceded lots of stuff to WR and had only conceded a few points to MJE. But I'm not gonna stress about it bc that's pointless. Michael's legal team will be used to this, I'm sure. I'm confident they will have anticipated all the different possible outcomes and will have relevant contingency plans in place re how they will respond. So I'm not losing hope. I'm anxious, ngl, but am trying to stay hopeful.
Exactly.
Indeed. Feels very different.
No, no. There were 3 judges at the California Court of Appeal who decided that WR can take his case to court. He got rejected by the trial court in LA but the Appeal Court has now said he can go ahead. And it was 3 judges who reviewed his case and made that decision.
Exactly!
btw: I just noticed your call yourself "booklover" - we're a good team
