We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
…
If the central physical claim of a witness is disproved by the physics of the scene, a court that still convicts on her sole word owes us a demonstration, not an assertion, of why the contradiction does not matter. …
Two minutes in a lift. Two storeys of a hotel. Two stories, hers and his, each told with conviction, each carrying a life within it. One court found the first story unproved. Another found it proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the same record. That divergence is not an embarrassment to the system. It is the reason the system builds in a final, full appeal. Let that appeal be heard. Let the analysis be dispassionate. And until then, let the rest of us have the humility to say the three hardest words in public life: we don’t know.
https://x.com/sanjayuvacha/status/2087046071612801217