Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corroborating evidence is "myth and stereotype"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Corroborating evidence is "myth and stereotype"

    This decision by the Albert Court of Appeals has me really steaming: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ypes-1.4212684.
    A trial judge found an accused stepfather "not guilty" because the complainant did not exhibit any signs that she had an abnormal relationship with him either when growing up or as an adult. He said there was no evidence corroborating her story. The appeals court ordered a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge relied on "myth and stereotype." Convicting without corroboration means taking the woman's word and relying on the myth and stereotype that men are always guilty. Why are the men and fair-minded women of Edmonton not taking to the streets on this one?

  • #2
    Another tragic step in the elimination of justice, and rights under the law for men.

    There have been examples given by Diana Davidson, in her videos of how legal precedent has been used to introduce warped expert testimony into the legal system. She has given examples of how the complainant acting a certain way would be evidence of guilt, and how not behaving that way is evidence of guilt.

    In recent video on C51 she describes the scenario of how that bill which forces the defendant to expose his defence, accelerates this, as prosecution can change their testimony using this disgraceful opening to injustice.

    She describes it really well around 2 or 3 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYStzpcThDM

    This stacks on multiple steps where sexual assault cases have been constructed to strip rights of the accused and enable guilt by accusation. The last barrier being the need for evidence, afaics the only line of defence left seems to be a jury. But that jury is going to barely be given any evidence to work with, and will be told everything the complainant says or fails to says, tells the truth about lies about is evidence of guilt. We are literally getting to the stage where a complainants prior lies are evidence of guilt. What's next the complainant lying in court is evidence of guilt?

    This is a massive issue. Edmonton has been the leading location of great efforts by men's rights advocates and justice advocates, the only reason I ever heard about the place was from the videos produced by people there. One can only hope that more people will listen and follow their example.

    It's worth reading the link to the prior story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...peal-1.4091641

    Which shows just how messy this area is.

    The accusations ,from the then girl but now a woman, are graphic and explicit.

    The girl said her stepfather began to inappropriately touch her when she was in Grade 4, right after her family moved in with him.

    She described him touching her under her clothes two or three times a week, from the time she was 10 years old. She also described an incident when he removed their clothes, climbed on top of her and began to grind against her until he climaxed.

    "At any point during any of these incidents, did you give him permission to touch you in that way?" prosecutor John Schmidt asked the girl at the preliminary hearing.

    "No," she replied. "I didn't say anything."

    Defence lawyer Michael Marcovitch grilled the girl over why she didn't ask for help when she was being assaulted while others were in the house.

    "Because I didn't think I could," she said. She explained her stepfather always warned her "not to tell anyone." She also said she really didn't want anyone else to know what was happening.

    "Because it changes everything," she said.

    The girl finally went to her mother, then to police in July 2014. She was 16 years old.
    An almost classic testimony of child abuse.

    The stepfather's defence was the events never took place. His claim that there would never have even been an opportunity for that was dismissed by the judge according to the article.

    However the judge had doubts, which he substantiated as reasonable on the basis that all her behaviour in front of others and her own statements described a normal relationship.

    Her testimony of what happened is severe child abuse, that sways a lot of people, as it certainly should. But it does need to be tested and corroborated, expert witnesses are flawed in these things, they've come up with all sorts of daftness in the past, including satanic rituals, many forms of supporting recovered memory evidence that was wholly baloney and now widely discredited. The field of expert witnesses is pushed by people who have witnessed nothing being paid to to speak on behalf of either prosecution or defence, and they will do what they are paid for. In this case the article says the judge didn't rely on expert witnesses which is probably to his credit, but reacted to his own doubts. He made his judgement on 'reasonable doubt'.

    When you have damning testimony and accusations which describe abuse of a child, you won't get many people willing to protest against that, no one at all wants to be associated with protecting the rights of a child abuser, and unfortunately people are very blind to protecting what is actually the most important rights we have. That is the right to a fair trial.

    This says it's bound over to a re-trial. Kinda shows the elimination of 'double jeopardy' too.

    Society needs to relearn what it means for accused to be 'innocent until proven guilty,' the fear and threat narratives have become so embedded that people keep their heads down, for fear of the perverts, terrorists and screaming accusers all around them.

    Also completely unchecked and uninvestigated we have so called victim support groups and feminist groups that either first points of call or subsequent points of call, that coach accusers on what to say in court and how to say it. These people are influencing accusers and pressuring for laws to make their influence more effective in securing convictions, they have no interest at all in revealing truth. If they can convince a confused child they were abused or raped they will do everything they can to do so.

    This I hope starts coming to light. It is surely equally sick and twisted to convince someone, who is vulnerable for many reasons, that they were raped and assaulted turning them into a victim, as it is to actually raping someone. This victim coaching needs to be investigated.
    Last edited by voidspawn; 07-20-2017, 11:04 AM.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Originally posted by menrppl2
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

    Comment


    • #3
      not sure how i feel about "this" case
      i think you can have a really normal relationship while abuse is going on. because kids dont understand the "normalcy" fully.

      but.. as far as myth and stereotype...total garbage.
      Originally posted by MatrixTransform
      where were you before you put yourself last?
      Originally posted by TheNarrator
      Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
        not sure how i feel about "this" case
        i think you can have a really normal relationship while abuse is going on. because kids dont understand the "normalcy" fully.

        but.. as far as myth and stereotype...total garbage.
        This is the really hard thing about these issues. There has to be an absolute commitment to protect the innocent, a victim of abuse can be the innocent or a falsely accused person can be the innocent. Everything I've seen or read shows MHRM treating this very sensitively, very aware that child victims are innocent boys and girls and have been seriously harmed, but also cognizant that the system of justice developed to have balances for the citizen (rights) to protect from abuse by the state. That abuse of citizens could be by oppression, corruption, incompetence, laziness or personal vindictiveness by those who hold positions of authority in the legal system. These rights and protections are vital, without them we have little reason to accept citizenship and be contributing parts of the nation. Without them the most sensible position is secession, get away from a huge entity which will arbitrarily grind it's people to dust.

        I've read a lot of stories on the Innocence Project. It's horrendous what happens to an innocent man, for the lucky ones exonerated by DNA evidence they've spent 18 years in prison with very dangerous people, locked up for a crime which a large proportion of those very dangerous people are very likely to attack them for. They don't just lose their jobs, family and relationships. Literally everything falls apart, if they don't have some loyal member of their family or friend who will protect something for them, they are stripped of everything as all of their stuff gets used up, sold off or destroyed.

        If the state just did that arbitrarily to people as an act repression and warning to the population, people would soon rebel. That feminists and those campaigning to make the state do this on their accusation is horrendous, that they don't bother in the slightest even thinking about the cost of miscarriage of justice, even worse.

        With each of the frivolous hoax cases there should have been a huge outcry from feminist activists to demand that the system only be used sincerely. There is no such demand at all. They know full well what the outcome will be. The more the state locks up innocent men, the more the entire credibility falls down. But they of course only ever point to the difficulties faced by real victims. A massive act of conflation. Real victims of abuse have absolutely no connection to false accusers, but false accusers do impersonate real victims. False accusers and those coaching them are vile people easily as vile as the worst of sex crime abusers.

        The position of governments, court officials powered forward by feminist activism and doctrine is to react to the push back that is the result of suffering caused by false convictions and false accusations, with more repression. One of the first and most consistent attacks feminists made on MHRM and MRAs was claiming they protect abusers, and accusing them of being an abusers club or rape apologists. An act of repression to a campaign issue that isn't even directed at feminists, but at the system.

        This has been the most telling difference between MHRM and feminists, any case where a woman's rights are being violated by the state, institutions or individuals either gets the support from the MHRM or at worst is simply ignored and left to women's rights activists and feminists without any comment. Situations reversed not the same response, MHRM stands up to state or institutional oppression, feminists used presumed guilt to slander and attack MHRM. They should just ignore it and state the people have a right to advocacy to protect themselves from incompetence and oppression, then let system be sorted out, let power be held to account. However they don't they attack MHRM and slander them, they do everything they can to associate MHRM campaigners with trolls posting vile things or commenters posting angry and insulting messages on news stories (has to be said that more than once these have been exposed as feminist sockpuppets). They do this to derail any chance of course correcting injustice, they muddy the issue with more accusations and fear mongering that prevents the development of a proper system that protects all innocents, victims and falsely accused.

        What conclusion can be made from that? Seems only one feminists want a legal system and will push for it no matter the social cost that can empower females to use the full power of the state as a tool for proxy violence against any man. And these monsters call it social justice.
        Last edited by voidspawn; 07-20-2017, 03:44 PM.
        "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
        Originally posted by menrppl2
        Can't live with em, life is great without them.

        Comment


        • #5
          See my latest article, which covers Canada: https://news.wikinut.com/The-Fallacy...Laws/438g_6__/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
            Another tragic step in the elimination of justice, and rights under the law for men.
            IMO the root problem is that now that females are well and truly out of the home, they are discovering that they are not in Kansas anymore.
            There is a world out there, and although men have eliminated the danger from wolves and bears, it can still be something of a jungle.

            What happens now is that they demand that this world be as safe as their living room. No cussin', no spittin', and please use coasters.
            They assume they have the right to define what is "appropriate behaviour" and to regulate human interaction accordingly.
            Again, those who stand to take the loss of freedom this implies, will be men.

            It is in this edneavour that females are taking hold of "justice" in some belief, pretended or not, that this means "absolute protection by authorities",
            as if the police were their chaperones and the courts like a principals office
            where boys who tease them at lunch break get five smacks with the ruler if they tell on the boys.
            I.e., men are to be sourrrounded by an all-female army of police informers, in some kind of and 'Gender East Germany' nightmare.

            So they want to be able to snitch to police and courts that so-and-so did this-and-that, and have them punished.
            Like school, they expect these institutions to simply listen to them and obeyingly visit violence upon the accused,
            and never investigate the accusation to find out whether the accusation is true or not - and certainly not question the accuser.

            Females feel they are on the safe side, as they are risk averse and hence tend towards compliance; and also, and most importantly .... since this is a man's world ... it's mainly the things men do that have been criminalized. Men can't shove a female aside if she bars the door, but females can yell and scream and use psychological terror and torture against whole families, and get away with it because there is no law against it.

            They have not the faintest idea that due process and other safeguards are in place to protect the individual against the overwhelming might of the state as it executes its monopoly of force. _This_ is what is under threat, _this_ is what men have been fighting for centuries to establish firmly in law; to prevent the law from becoming an instrument of violence and repression to be wielded by tyrants-in-office.

            Which it seems they aspire to be. Time someone had the conversation with them, explain this and have them behave like adults, not school kids.

            M
            Last edited by Manalysis; 07-20-2017, 07:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I find women in positions of power, wield it with an iron fist, little things like truth honour decentcy respect, admitting fault, compassion and cooperation, in short the responsibilities of power are cast aside. they feel there authority should be absolute unquestionable and to do with as they like. predjudice replaces fairness, and disdain and disregard and disrespect is the order of the day.
              A man can gain no more respect than by, laying down his life for a woman. And a woman, no more than by, beating down a man. For a man to ask, what is fair and good and true and just, is to offend.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
                not sure how i feel about "this" case
                i think you can have a really normal relationship while abuse is going on. because kids dont understand the "normalcy" fully.
                While kids ideas of normalcy is indeed affected by their experiences at home, those experiences inevitably affect their worldview. For example, a child continuously exposed to violence learns that the world is a violent place and will adapt to this world accordingly (usually by becoming aggressive and/or fearful). Similarly a child who learns that sexual touching is normal will react by accepting, promoting or, in some cases, avoiding those who resemble to abuser. In other words, there are telltale signals when the behaviour of the abused is compared to the non-abused. Of course, these facts are termed "myths" by those who want convictions on the basis of accusations.

                I think the reason we may not know how to react to this case is because the details elicit disgust and none of us is in favour of child abuse. Research internet memes shows that the emotion of disgust can manipulate our perceptions and memories. There is also the carefully cultivated stigma that step-parent dads are likely abusers (although all males are viewed as potential abusers by feminists and court judges who have taken "sensitization" training on "women's issues"). On the other hand, stepparent relationships are difficult and teenage children have been know to phone the police with manufactured stories to get even with a stepparent that has not recognized or catered to their sense of entitlement. The bottom line is there needs to be corroborating evidence.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                  What conclusion can be made from that? Seems only one feminists want a legal system and will push for it no matter the social cost that can empower females to use the full power of the state as a tool for proxy violence against any man. And these monsters call it social justice.
                  great post void, and yes taht is the only possible conclusion.

                  i keep telling everyone. its time to abandon ship. its sinking.
                  Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                  where were you before you put yourself last?
                  Originally posted by TheNarrator
                  Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lloyd77 View Post
                    I think the reason we may not know how to react to this case is because .......
                    no, i dont know how to react to this case because i wasnt there

                    and there are a LOT of assumptions made by everyone here..AND by that article
                    Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                    where were you before you put yourself last?
                    Originally posted by TheNarrator
                    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                      IMO the root problem is that now that females are well and truly out of the home, they are discovering that they are not in Kansas anymore.
                      There is a world out there, and although men have eliminated the danger from wolves and bears, it can still be something of a jungle.

                      What happens now is that they demand that this world be as safe as their living room. No cussin', no spittin', and please use coasters.
                      They assume they have the right to define what is "appropriate behaviour" and to regulate human interaction accordingly.
                      Again, those who stand to take the loss of freedom this implies, will be men.

                      It is in this edneavour that females are taking hold of "justice" in some belief, pretended or not, that this means "absolute protection by authorities",
                      as if the police were their chaperones and the courts like a principals office
                      where boys who tease them at lunch break get five smacks with the ruler if they tell on the boys.
                      I.e., men are to be sourrrounded by an all-female army of police informers, in some kind of and 'Gender East Germany' nightmare.

                      So they want to be able to snitch to police and courts that so-and-so did this-and-that, and have them punished.
                      Like school, they expect these institutions to simply listen to them and obeyingly visit violence upon the accused,
                      and never investigate the accusation to find out whether the accusation is true or not - and certainly not question the accuser.

                      Females feel they are on the safe side, as they are risk averse and hence tend towards compliance; and also, and most importantly .... since this is a man's world ... it's mainly the things men do that have been criminalized. Men can't shove a female aside if she bars the door, but females can yell and scream and use psychological terror and torture against whole families, and get away with it because there is no law against it.

                      They have not the faintest idea that due process and other safeguards are in place to protect the individual against the overwhelming might of the state as it executes its monopoly of force. _This_ is what is under threat, _this_ is what men have been fighting for centuries to establish firmly in law; to prevent the law from becoming an instrument of violence and repression to be wielded by tyrants-in-office.

                      Which it seems they aspire to be. Time someone had the conversation with them, explain this and have them behave like adults, not school kids.

                      M

                      Yes, ^^^ THIS ^^^. This is it exactly.
                      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                      It's time to call it out for what it is.
                      == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X