|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:57 PM April 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Polygraph tests are bunk. They can't actually tell if a person is lying or not. My understanding is that the polygraph measures nervousness. Whether you are telling the truth or not doesn't factor in its results. The results aren't even admissible as evidence in a court of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 07:23 PM April 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The DNA test showed the "victim" had 3 samples present but none of them matched my husband. She also refused to take a polygraph although she specifically named my husband. The police let us know that no charges would be filed against my husband or the "accuser."
Feminist logic would counter states that just because no DNA linking the accused with the rape victim doesn't mean a rape did not occur. So you are still guilty. That is why the mantra of, "women never lie about rape" is so important in promoting the feminist agenda through false rape accusations.
The man in this case was just very lucky the police dropped him as a suspect. They really didn't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:00 PM April 2nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Innocence Project
I did a search on the above site once, and as I recall over 70 of the men on that site were released from rape convictions after DNA evidence showed they were innocent.
Think of all the lifetimes lost. Think of all the innocent men still rotting in prison who had consensual sex and so do not have DNA evidence to free them. Many of the men are in prison soley on the word of a lying or confused female, and the new more liberal definition of rape.
Look at Kevin Green's case. I just saw a videotape on his case last week. 17 years in jail, and put there on the word of a woman who is mentally incapacitated by her rape and beating. DNA evidence proved Green did not do it, and his now ex-wife stills swears he's guilty.
Men living in America today live in a gender feminist, police, hate state.
R.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 12:39 PM April 3rd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a link, and I hope you will all forgive me for that ... (it was related to the Robert Blake murder exhoneration)
Recently on CNN or some morning show, some female DA was talking about how CSI influences juries and how anyone who watches CSI should be excluded from a jury.
My point is that during the back and forth with the defense lawyer she said that men freed using DNA evidence were not necessarily innocent.
Think about that ... DNA (the "holy grail in prosecution) was not good enough to show actual innocence, those guys just got "freed".
This poor guy was lucky.
His accuser should be in jail.
it's called a deterrent.
Steven
Guerrilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Konovan on 02:01 PM April 3rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Techinically, that DA was correct that just because the DNA doesn't match doesn't mean the person is innocent.
However, in the U.S. people are supposed to be found guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt". If a person was convicted by DNA evidence (which later turned out to be wrong) then the man would have to be freed.
In a court of law, everyone's testimony should have equal weight. A woman's word should not count any more than a man's. A homeless man's words should not count any more than a Senator's or President's. Understandably, people will naturally doubt the word of said homeless man. But we must be fair not only for the sake of fairness but also to determine the truth since there is a possiblity that the homeless man does tell the truth.
It is the evidence that backs up those words that is important. Video footage, DNA, tape recorders, finger printing, and other types of evidence are very "solid" and real. It is easy to prove something occurred with physical evidence as opposed to using only testimony.
It's my understanding the most court cases aren't decided by a single piece of evidence, but many pieces that server to form the basis of the case. If a woman claimed she was raped and even had the man's DNA in her, but if that's all the evidence she had, then I would have to find the man not guilty. That DNA could have gotten there through consensual sex for all I know. It would basically be her word against his. And since both their testimonies would have equal weight, I would have no choice but to find the man not guilty by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:23 PM April 4th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"In a court of law, everyone's testimony should have equal weight. A woman's word should not count any more than a man's. A homeless man's words should not count any more than a Senator's or President's."
Everyone knows the police lie all the time in the performance of their job. They lie to people they suspect of committing crime who often have done no wrong. It's a method they use to trip up criminals.
That being the case, how can any innocent man who has ever seen the police routinely lie ever answer "yes" when asked by a judge would you give a police officer's testimony the same weight as you would give any other person. I guess the Judge thinks he/she is going to get answers like "No your honor police always tell the truth."
Anyone not a fool should always answer "No, police are habitual liars." Anyone who believes anything a police officer says in a court of law is a complete fool, because nothing any police officer says is ever credible.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:48 AM April 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"A woman's word should not count any more than a man's."
If a woman makes an allegation against a man, the man's word counts for SFA (sweet f..k all).
This is one of the fundamental principles in the justice system of any feminazified society such as USA.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
mic730 writes "My husband was accused of rape 2 years ago. After submitting to DNA and taking a polygraph he was exonerated. However, while we waited for the DNA testing I started wetting the bed from the stress of the situation and my husband became depressed. The DNA test showed the "victim" had 3 samples present but none of them matched my husband. She also refused to take a polygraph although she specifically named my husband. The police let us know that no charges would be filed against my husband or the "accuser." I am so angry that she could make these accusations and walk away. I have always considered myself a champion for women's causes and now feel like I should screen women beforehand.
My stress level of wetting the bed is no longer a problem but I will now take every claim of rape with a grain of salt until a trial occurs."