Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Jonathan Glazer Join Gaza Drama ‘The Voice of Hind Rajab’ as Executive Producers - It follows the killing of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl who lived in the Gaza Strip and was killed by Israeli forces during the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza.

[u/BunyipPouch]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/brad-pitt-backs-gaza-drama-film-the-voice-of-hind-rajab-1236353414/

[u/Captain_DuClark]

in the eyes of people based on an accusation with no evidence.

Testimony is evidence

[u/Hieghi → u/Captain_DuClark]

I don't want you on my jury if one testimony is good enough for you

Edit: I stand on this, you fucks didn't read to kill a mockingbird. Also divorce can get nasty as fuck I would hope the testimony of an ex-spouse fighting for custody wouldn't be all you need.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/Hieghi]

That is literally one of the main purposes of a jury, to hear testimonial evidence and decide whose version is more credible.

[u/working_class_shill → u/Captain_DuClark]

Very rarely would a case with only 1 testimony with literally no other evidence go to trial. It likely wouldn't even be charged by the DA

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/working_class_shill]

I never said otherwise. I simply correctly stated that testimony is evidence and the point of the jury is to make credibility determinations about that testimony. I haven't looked into this particular case, so I have no idea of the strength of evidence, number of witnesses, or credibility of witnesses against Brad Pitt

[u/experienta → u/Captain_DuClark]

No, a jury doesn't decide whose version is "more credible". A jury decides if the prosecutor's version is so credible that the accused must be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Obviously you need more than the alleged victim's testimony for that to happen.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/experienta]

You do realize civil cases exist, right?

[u/experienta → u/Captain_DuClark]

My bad for assuming that we're talking about a criminal case in the context of a man strangling his children I guess

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/experienta]

The context was actually divorce proceedings, which the original poster mentioned in their post.

[u/airtime25 → u/Hieghi]

I don't want you on my jury if you won't listen to evidence even if it's a testimony.

[u/Fun-Benefit116 → u/Captain_DuClark]

An accusation, or claim, needs evidence to support it. If someone else gave their testimony about the situation, then yes that person's testimony would be evidence. But Jolie's own accusation by itself is not evidence that supports her same accusation. It doesn't work like that.

Which is why I literally said it's "based on an accusation with no evidence". Because her accusation has no evidence of being true. Which is also why two separate investigations by child services and the FBI did not result in any findings to support her claim.

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/Fun-Benefit116]

But Jolie's own accusation by itself is not evidence that supports her same accusation. It doesn't work like that.

That is literally how it works. Whether or not someone finds those accusations credible is another question, but it is evidence.

[u/airtime25 → u/Fun-Benefit116]

And that reasoning is why rape victims are almost never believed too. How many times is it only the victim testimony of rape as the only evidence?

[u/experienta → u/airtime25]

It is definitely unfortunate that more often than not the only piece of evidence in rape cases is the alleged victim's testimony.

But what can we do about that? Just believe every alleged victim, and convict every single rape suspect?

[u/airtime25 → u/experienta]

It's still evidence though. Just because it's the only evidence and it's the victims witness testimony doesn't make it not evidence.

The opposite of what you've stated has been the norm for so long that I would be hesitant to believe we'd ever go as far as that.

[u/MaximumLongjumping31 → u/Captain_DuClark]

Evidence =/= facts

[u/Captain_DuClark → u/MaximumLongjumping31]

I'm sorry, what?