MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
The mother can’t forget, the sound that came from her son.
When they found him guilty.
Based on the comments made.
The accuser has made 3 false complaints in the past.
Despite saying sex took place.
No evidence of sex taking place was found.
After an alleged crime, she continued to socialise with the accused.
Having, other people present, the whole time.
The accuser was seen socialising.
Before, during, and after.
Evidence obstructed.
Since when can a defendant, not defend themselves.
Presenting any evidence, to help them.
The scales of justice tipped.
The prosecution with rights, to evidence.
The defendant, without rights.
The prosecutor permitted to create stories, scenarios.
Use emotive, derogatory speech, but the defendant silenced.
Without evidence, the corrupt trial, finds guilt.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 9th October 2021 @ 9:30 am
The 3 false complaints comment in #1 is wrong.
It’s from another case.
Involving a male spending $100,000 to get not guilty.
However with all the secrecy by the prosecution.
Not handing evidence to the defence until after the case.
Who would know, her history.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 9th October 2021 @ 5:47 pm