Father jailed on False Allegations
This article is found here at theantifeminist.com
(Transcribed from the original media report here which is in Spanish)
The Spanish Supreme court has acquitted a father accused of sexually abusing his daugther after a local court in Almeria had sentenced him to seven years in prison. The Supreme court heard the original trial had relied exclusively on the testimony of the 12 year old daughter, and ignored the statements from her brother, and from the girlfriend of the defendent, that the girl had confessed that her mother had told her to make a false accusation.
Now the Supreme Court, after reviewing the video of the trial, held last year, consider the testimony of the girl’s brother, 16, to be key, and who said that his sister confessed a year before the trial that the complaint was false and that she made it because her mother pressured her to. Another issue that the Supreme Court noted was the fact that the two children slept in the same room, for, according to the judges, the day on which the events took place in October 2009, the young man would have witnessed them for he used to spend all night at the computer and went to bed early in the morning. The girl had claimed that her father, in a drunken state, got into her bed and touched her breasts and slipped a finger into her vagina, at which time she woke up and upon denouncing him, her father left the room.
It would be interesting to know how much time this father spent in jail and whether any action has since been taken against the mother. Regardless, it would have had, and will still have, a horrendous impact on his life – the incident was alleged to have occured in October 2009 when the children were in the care of the Father and his girlfriend.
What is going on, why are young girls believed when the evidence is often contrary to what the girl said?
#1. Andrew. Because someone, somewhere did a study that came to the misguided conclusion that girls never tell lies … especially when it comes to rape, sexual abuse, care of children, fraud, murder or physical abuse. And the Police, Courts and countless Govt Institutions have continued to hang onto that misguided conclusion no matter how many times they are shown it is wrong. Always follow the money.
Publicly prosecuting men with unsubstantiated testimony that results in a not guilty verdict is getting some public backlash. Something the system and MPS’s don’t really like having their fingerprints on. In recent times the UK Police have announced more scrutiny with high profile personalities in historical cases. Why only high profile personalities I don’t quite understand.
Given the stakes is a life sentence you would like to think evidence was the bit that supported a testimony. Testimony for a long time now is considered the only requirement to at least hold an open public trial. And by that time even a prompt not guilty verdict is a life sentence. Often resulting in male suicide or worse.
In the simplest term ‘its unsafe’.
A scorned woman who talks her daughter into making up a sexual assault or rape complaint against her dad is in my opinion at least on par with rape and should be treated and punished to the same degree. This view is a widely held one. But it never seems to get any traction.
It is noted the mother remains un-charged, unpunished and continues to be kept safe while the blameless man endures a life of oblivion and nothingness.
Dear Lukenz, the false accuser just had a mental health problem, that might later be cured with a little love and treatment, so why punish her to dissuade her from doing it again? The people making this decision, get more money by not prosecuting her – it is their gravy train. Another name is unmanaged conflict of interest, or social vandalism. Prosecution Guidelines address this point, but there is more money to be taken by ignoring this aspect of the guidelines.
Later, in another case, jurors may be extra cautious about listening to testimony given by another woman, in case she is another undisclosed mental health problem? We mustn’t disclose a history of earlier false accusations, as this might be unfair to the complainant? The accused often has extreme difficulty to find out if the complainant has a history of false complaints, although obviously the police have easy access to this information and it should be disclosed in discovery!
Rather than supporting caught$ wages with secrecy, better to let all aspects be clearly and truthfully in the public domain. The experiment with badly managed secrecy has never been professionally evaluated. It just rolls on and on, doing further damage as it goes.