E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA to test against sample from her dress

[Boiler 43,541]

3 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

From Carroll? I had not heard about this. If there is, it can certainly be brought up. It's all a little more circumscribed in civil proceedings than criminal.

 

Patterns of similar behavior of other complainants who are not witnesses or a party cannot be used as evidence in this action. Even then, the similar behavior of other complainants who could be called as witnesses can only be used as impeachment evidence on cross-examination as to credibility.

Lets put it this way, on the believabiliy index I would put here up there with Blasey Ford and Amber Heard.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Thanks -- I wasn't sure about this. There are absolutely innocent reasons I can think of for having a significant amount of DNA remaining on a garment after 25 years, like a bleeding cut on a hand brushing past. 

Or a bus rider (slyly) wiping a snot-laden finger on a nearby handy, absorbent coat.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

16 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Lets put it this way, on the believabiliy index I would put here up there with Blasey Ford and Amber Heard.

 

16 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Or a bus rider (slyly) wiping a snot-laden finger on a nearby handy, absorbent coat.

Well, you guys better hustle to establish residency in Manhattan so you can get on the jury. Just teasing. Right now, we just don't know enough to say as observers, it happened this way or it didn't. Which is, as I mentioned before, the point of discovery. Anything I "know" about the facts at this point is only a feeling or an intuition. 

[Boiler 43,541]

Discover what?

[Dashinka 23,273]

37 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  True, but they won't detect that amount of DNA on an outfit 20 years later. It's not from just brushing past someone on a bus.

Depends, we have no idea how much or large of a specimen they supposedly have.  My point is that this would only prove proximate contact and not much else.

[Dashinka 23,273]

34 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Thanks -- I wasn't sure about this. There are absolutely innocent reasons I can think of for having a significant amount of DNA remaining on a garment after 25 years, like a bleeding cut on a hand brushing past. 

Yep! That's the point of litigation.

Hair with root balls?  I know I get those all the time from my dog when she is within 30 decimeters from me.  For some reason, black or navy pants even attract it from further away.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 23,273]

28 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Or a bus rider (slyly) wiping a snot-laden finger on a nearby handy, absorbent coat.

That is gross, but I have seen it happen.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Hair with root balls?  I know I get those all the time from my dog when she is within 30 decimeters from me.  For some reason, black or navy pants even attract it from further away.

There's a reason why I have a black cat -- his fur matches my nearly monochromatic wardrobe, which is as dark as my soul.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

52 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Depends, we have no idea how much or large of a specimen they supposedly have.  My point is that this would only prove proximate contact and not much else.

 

  Well, it's enough DNA to determine they were in contact at some point. 

[Boiler 43,541]

18 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well, it's enough DNA to determine they were in contact at some point. 

We have a photo.

 

And so what?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, Boiler said:

We have a photo.

 

And so what?

 

   "So what" has already been explained. Reread the topic if you don't get it. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is gross, but I have seen it happen.

Ride the NYC subway a few times and you'll see worse.  Don't ask.