Look, the toe tapping and hand under the partition are still not enough to prove anything. I am not defending the man, I just think that he was stupid to admit to anything. It’s not a crime to be gay, and they actually have no proof of any illegal behavior.
Many illegal activities are observed only by policemen. Sometimes these may be documentable (video or tape recording, for example) and sometimes they’re not. However, when a policeman/woman testifies it is considered factual so long as there is no reason to believe otherwise. In the end, juries must make judgements as to the varasity of all the evidence presented—both prosecution and defense. As a general rule a policeman’s testimony carries significant weight with the judge and/or a jury.
Understanding, as someone said earlier, we are around the virtual watercooler here, there is no reason yet given to mistrust the policeman.
There are several ways the policeman’s account could be impeached. 1. He or she has a history of lying under oath. That’s gonna be a rare bird, because a policeman who lies in his oral or written reports— or court room testimony—is likely to be fired as soon after the review board hearing as possible. 2. It could be proven that the police officer was looking to entrap Mr. Craig. There is no evidence so far that such is the case. I’m sure there are other scenarios, buy you get the drift.
Look, the toe tapping and hand under the partition are still not enough to prove anything.
__________
Is the guilty plea enough to prove something?
Maybe things are different in the ladies room, Eva, but on no planet, ever, under any circumstances does a man put his hand underneath the partition into another occupied stall without a really good reason.
And the only good reason I can think of off the top of my head is if the 2 guys are deaf, and are continuing an earlier conversation using sign language.
I’d be interested in hearing what possible, innocent reasons you can come up with for the hand under the partition.