4 ms·

>X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations You're trying to imply there's some contradiction between the three statements, but

by gruez 1y ago

>X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations You're trying to imply there's some contradiction between the three statements, but there really isn't. For one, X never claimed "they've not been made aware of the allegations". The exact wording used in the article was "it “remains in the dark” about the specific allegations", which is different than not being aware of the allegations at all. Moreover it's not contradictory to deny allegations that you're not aware of the specifics about. For instance, if someone accused you of saying a racist thing, but didn't reference a specific incident, it'd be pretty reasonable to both claim you're "in the dark about the specific allegations", and to deny it. It'd also be reasonable to claim it's politically motivated, if for instance it was coming from someone you had beef with.

mcbrit 1y ago
Louisiana is the only jurisdiction which does not adhere to the general rule that a defendant may rely, in a criminal prosecution, upon inconsistent defenses. (In other words: prove it. I get as many counterexamples as my lawyers can dream .) Robert T. McGraw, Criminal Law: The Use of Inconsistent Defenses, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 167 (1942).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mcbrit 1y ago
  France is from the legal past that the US emerged from and it's a criminal prosecution so seems relevant. Offering inconsistent defense has got to be thing in France, particularly during criminal prosecution.
  - aredox 1y ago
    >France is from the legal past that the US emerged from The French legal system has been completely revamped by Napoleon far after the US independence, and has been so successful that countries invaded by Napoleon have retained his system after being freed from him. Meanwhile the us system is still based on a mediaeval system where nothing is ever certain and everything depends on how good a lawyer you can pay.

by gruez 1y ago

mcbrit 1y ago

Louisiana is the only jurisdiction which does not adhere to the general rule that a defendant may rely, in a criminal prosecution, upon inconsistent defenses. (In other words: prove it. I get as many counterexamples as my lawyers can dream .) Robert T. McGraw, Criminal Law: The Use of Inconsistent Defenses, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 167 (1942).

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mcbrit 1y ago
France is from the legal past that the US emerged from and it's a criminal prosecution so seems relevant. Offering inconsistent defense has got to be thing in France, particularly during criminal prosecution.
- aredox 1y ago
  >France is from the legal past that the US emerged from The French legal system has been completely revamped by Napoleon far after the US independence, and has been so successful that countries invaded by Napoleon have retained his system after being freed from him. Meanwhile the us system is still based on a mediaeval system where nothing is ever certain and everything depends on how good a lawyer you can pay.