A man is on trial, accused of raping two sisters when he babysat them.
The alleged rapes occurred -- brace yourself -- between February 1974 and February 1975. The man, now 51, was 14 years old at the time. He denies that he did it, but still he is on trial. Story: see here.
Why would these sisters make up something like that? If you seriously need to know the answer to that, you are not a reader of this blog. Spend a few months reading through this blog (that's how long it will take you if you devote a few hours to it each day) and you will never ask that question again.
Let us ask the more important question: how can a man possibly defend himself with respect to something that supposedly happened 36 or 37 years ago, when he was a boy, other than to say, I didn't do it? Any evidence of alibi (e.g., that he wasn't babysitting the sisters the days they claim they were raped) has long disappeared, and there is no possibility that he will be able to reconstruct those days. None.
For you folks old enough to remember, do you have any more than a vague recollection of your lives from February 1974 to February 1975?
Trying this man under these circumstances is an atrocity, an affront to justice. There need to be statutes of limitations for rape not exceeding a few years in duration.
Yes, it would be a terrible thing if some rapists escaped because the claims against them are time-barred. It is an even more terrible thing to subject an innocent man to charges he can't possibly defend against because the passage of time has stripped him of a defense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
It makes one wonder what evidence these women could possibly have that would warrant a trial.
Oh wait...they're women.
I forgot they don't need evidence.
I couldn't find a contact email, so I'll post this story a friend brought to me attention.
Another example of women inciting vigilante violence against a man they accuse of rape.
Two women and two men were sent to prison, but of course the men were sent for twice as long.
OT but important
please read
http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/we-are-missing-a-fucking-trick/
we need to fill this gap in the defences
Eincrou,
There doesn't appear to be any link in that. can you just post the actual http link?
Why have they published this mans name. He was a minor when the crime was committed.
Sorry, the link worked in the comment preview.
In the posted comment, I see it highlighted as a link, but it doesn't go anywhere. Weird...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43573001/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/four-jailed-after-rapest-tattooed-teens-forehead/
This is ridiculous! Having no statute of limitation for murder might be justifiable, as the victim can't come forth promptly to plead his case. But for any other crime, five or seven years is plenty.
If in fact the girls were molested, it's a shame the guilty party would escape justice, but a trial after 37 years is patently absurd.
Why these law schemes are digging only the sexual history of people.
Thanks Eincrou
"It makes one wonder what evidence these women could possibly have that would warrant a trial."
This.
Also, I wonder if there is an inheritance involved, or some other reason why these two women might be in cahoots.
This is abolutely ridiculous. There is no way that a jury can be expected to render an intelligent verdict under these circumstances.
Our system is evil and stupid.
Did this guy just win the lottery or something?
Is he running for a political office?
They waited 37 years to report this?
JdL said...
This is ridiculous! Having no statute of limitation for murder might be justifiable, as the victim can't come forth promptly to plead his case. But for any other crime, five or seven years is plenty.
If in fact the girls were molested, it's a shame the guilty party would escape justice, but a trial after 37 years is patently absurd.
Jun 29, 2011 7:03:00 PM
I agree.
Anonymous said...
This is abolutely ridiculous. There is no way that a jury can be expected to render an intelligent verdict under these circumstances.
Our system is evil and stupid.
Jun 30, 2011 10:08:00 AM
I think it might depend on who wishes to try and prosecute this man and wether they find enough feminists to infect the jury pool.
Otherwise to even make a case out of this is beyond absurd. Wherever the alleged rapes have allegedly occured must have changed during the 37 years these women waited to make such accusations/allegations. Without colloborative, physical, forensic or, witnesses the case should be thrown out and the man's name cleared. Also just compensation should be made to this man.
Mitigating evidence. I mention this not as an afterthought but, as it was one type of evidence I couldn't think of during my last post.
I ask; what mitigating evidence could the system use to try this case?
I believe what you're looking for is "aggravating," not "mitigating."
Prosecutors would want aggravating, defense attorneys would want mitigating.
I'm having a hard time believing OK law would even allow this. 37 years and there's supposed to be a legitimate trial? Perhaps somebody's looking to get a plea agreement out of him.
In science, this is called an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Even if it had happened 3 years ago, the way they said it happened some time in a 1 year span, it is impossible to present an alibi (except if he was on an exchange scholarship somewhere across the ocean, for a year).
No chance for him. Women never lie.
Of course, he's been found guilty.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/Cop-guilty-of-raping-sisters.6794842.jp
Wow, even I'm surprised he was found guilty. This sets a wonderful precedent, doesn't it gentlemen? Just another tool in the toolbox of the man-haters, another absolutely arbitrary, no-evidence-required tool.
Ghosting sounds better and better every day, does it not?
Post a Comment