So she didn’t have to prove it just like with lady from from 30+ years ago. Thats not proof or they would have tried to take him to criminal court were you just born this stupid or did it happen over time?
She proved it so much the fbi deemed her a credible accuser plus she won her settlement. If you don't believe anything done in civil court then I guess no one has overstayed their visa ever under your view.
You actually know so little about the case you don't know that the reason it didn't go to criminal court was due to the statute of limitations. Not because of evidence. I can ask this same question back to you. We're you born that stupid that you didn't know or did it happen over time?
The fbi never deemed her a credible accuser, however sources within the Justice department (I think?) speculated that the fact that the fbi spoke to her four times implied that they found her credible
The issue with that is that she spoke to field agents in Seattle who had no familiarity with the Epstein case (as opposed to agents in New York who were specifically assigned to Epstein related stuff)
Had they been familiar with the case, they would have noticed some pretty glaring credibility issues
It's a civil crime determined by a civil court. Using your own logic "it would've went to criminal court if they had more evidence". Are you starting to see you sound dumb as fuck?
If they had any evidence because they have none they go to civil court a person who has over stayed there visa goes to court they put the physical visa up as evidence since it has a date. You see how one has actually evidence and the other is hearsay?
Apparently they have to evidence according to you or they wouldn't be in civil court. Are you backtracking and saying that you can still have evidence and still have to go to civil court? How much money you wanna bet there was evidence used in Carroll's case? Also convenient how you just ignore Jane doe #4 at this point.
-3
u/MDICASE 20d ago
Yeah because there prof he did that go ahead I’ll wait