For some reason - despite the mountain of
evidence that I have given you in my
piece about the Home Office - you still insist on seeing the majority of
accusers as innocent. But the evidence shows that 90% of rape accusations are
With regard to Lindsay Armstrong who committed suicide
after having had to show her knickers in court as evidence, you assume that she was
an innocent, weak and vulnerable victim at the time of the rape.
And she might well have been. I just do not
However, I look at it this way.
She accused this boy of raping her.
Most accusations are false.
The boy must therefore be presumed innocent until found
otherwise - unless, of course, you want to corrupt our traditional
system of justice.
Therefore, interrogating her about all the
details concerning the case is necessary.
What were you wearing? What were you doing?
What did he say? What did you do? Have you had sex with him before? etc etc etc.
All these things might have some relevance. Or they might not.
The knickers were just part of that evidence.
No-one is saying that skimpy clothing entitles
one to rape. It is simply that clothing might be relevant when you add it to all
the other bits.
For example, "And there she sat on the
grass in front of me with her legs wide open."
Well, to me, what 'she' was actually wearing
while she sat in that position has some relevance to what happened
For example, what if she was wearing nothing?
As such, clothing might be relevant with
regard to how the scenario crept toward a 'rape'.
And for women to suggest that what a woman is
wearing while her legs voluntarily part company is never relevant to
understanding a sexual scenario clearly exposes their desire to pervert the
justice system in order to be able to
hurt men severely - and with impunity.
It must also be obvious to any fair-minded
person with even a modicum of intelligence that when it comes to serious
crimes, courts must have the power to investigate all the evidence.
There is no acceptable alternative.
And those groups of people who want to hide
evidence in these situations - feminists, mostly, in this case - must be hounded
viciously and discredited relentlessly until the public sees them for what
malicious and wicked people they are.
And those politicians and judges who go along
with corrupt legal procedures designed to hide evidence from jurors in cases of
serious crime need to be removed from office.
By their attitudes alone they show themselves
to be deceivers and liars.
Never should such people be given much in the
way of power.
They can never be trusted.
Further, I would like to point out that if you
start out with the presumption that the accusing woman is genuinely a victim of
rape - which means that you presume that the man is guilty - something
that is completely contrary to the presumption of innocence - then it
makes some sense to argue that one needs to protect the victim from being upset
any further, even if this does hide some of the evidence.
After all, he is guilty!
But if you are to presume that the man is
innocent - until proved otherwise - then you must also presume that the woman is
lying, exaggerating or mistaken.
Further, at the very least, the very fact that
she is in the courtroom means that she would like to see the man punished very
severely. Why else would she be there? She is therefore hardly an objective
witness, even if she is a genuine victim.
In fact, she is a hostile witness.
It is no use simply paying lip service to the
notion that men should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise while at the
same time sneakily presuming his guilt and also conveniently forgetting the fact
that the accuser - even if she is a genuine victim - is a hostile witness!
Furthermore, people who want to hide evidence have
something to hide. And feminists want to hide as much evidence as
possible because they know that women often make false accusations. But a court is a place where the
whole truth should be sought.
This girl seemed more upset ('angry',
actually) over having to show her knickers to the court than she was about the
actual rape! "She was furious," is what her father kept saying - despite the fact that the 14
year old boy had already been found guilty and sent to prison.
In other words, she was no wilting angel. She
was a woman full of anger.
Well, with so many false accusations around these
days I'm afraid that every piece of evidence must be scrutinised. If the jury
does not find some evidence to be relevant, fair enough. But it is up to a jury
of ordinary men and women to decide this, and not for the accusing woman to say,
"Sorry. I refuse to give you this evidence because it will upset me or
it might undermine my case."
Professor Jennifer Temkin, of Sussex University's School of Legal Studies, and
an ardent feminist, a woman barrister seeking to justify
the use of sexual history evidence said: "There are lots of women who
make complaints of rape who would sleep with the local donkey."