if the jury found him not guilty of rape, doesn’t mean they thought she perjured herself?
RE: if the jury found him not guilty of rape, doesn’t mean they thought she perjured herself?
The Jury verdict really makes little logical sense to me.
Firstly, E. Jean Carrol does not remember the date ( even the year ) when it occured.
Secondly, there were no eyewitnesses even to Trump being in the place where she alleged they went in together.
Thirdly, Even if the rape did occur ( doubtful ), why didn’t she SCREAM? Report it to security?
Fourthly, The Jury decided that it was NOT rape ( as opposed to her testimony ), but decided sexual assault did occur.... HOW DID THEY DETERMINE THAT? Her accusation was NOT just sexual assault, it was RAPE. They did not believe the RAPE accusation, yet, decided a sexual assault occured?
It’s Just bizzare how they made this weird verdict.
It wasn’t a criminal trial, there was no guilty or not guilty. Most likely, they didn’t find her entirely believable, but since the defense didn’t give them anything, they split the difference. If Trump’s side had a credible strategy, the plaintiff would have gotten nothing.
“if the jury found him not guilty of rape...”
This is a civil case. The correct terminology is “liable.” The word “guilty” applies to criminal prosecutions.
That’s my take...so I have no idea how they came up with sexual assault. 3 people who more likely than not keep a diary...and no one can even come close to a date...bunch of liars. Wonder how much her two friends got...I’d say E. got 50 and the two got 25 and 25.