Quote:
Originally Posted by Smellybuttface
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is a civil trial, and I would argue given the lower threshold for evidentiary proof than a criminal trial, by a preponderance of the evidence a jury could reasonably infer the defendant's intent. In this case, fraudulent misrepresentation. An expert witness could testify as to the statistical improbability of making the name completely randomly without knowledge of the truth. With this information, the jury would infer that a reasonable person in the defendant's position had knowledge that the representation was false.
Add in the compounding circumstance that the defendant had not one, but TWO PhD's (though the jury is still out on the falsity of this claim).
Secondly, to think science IS subjective is objectively nonsense. Google 'denial syndrome', or 'climate change NASA,' 'climate change UN,' 'climate change EPA.'
|
From the urgency of the OP I'm fairly certain this is a trial of a capital crime. With the death penalty on the table, the highest standards of evidence must be used.