Translate

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

The more promiscuous the female, the more unreliable her grasp of truth and reality

She was an alcoholic.  

Was this point taken?

If the complainant is alleging that she only became an alcoholic because of the sex she had with Rolf Harris, one must wonder at the kind of parenting she received.

Did this complainant go on to become sexually promiscuous after the alleged sexual contact with Rolf Harris? Did her parents not notice, warn or advise her against such a lifestyle choice?

Is it just possible that she would have become sexually promiscuous anyway, even if she had never met Rolf Harris?

Her parents could have been cross-examined on what she was like as a daughter and when they noticed she was going wrong.

Is it possible that Rolf Harris would not have sexually abused her as she alleged if she had in some way suggested directly or indirectly that she welcomed his attentions?

Was Harris asked the occasion of his first sexual contact with her and asked to give all the gory details? Doing so would be necessary to establish the time of that first sexual encounter and also her age, as well as her demeanour.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-five-key-3531845

She could have complained to Bindi if she really was such a close friend or told her parents or just not gone to his house any more, but she clearly preferred to continue going to his house and continuing to have sexual encounters to him. By going to the place of alleged abuse, she must be deemed to have consented and invited it. If she invited it, then it was not abuse.

  ******************************
Any wealthy British man is now vulnerable to these accusations and British men will be held in hatred, ridicule and contempt by men of other races and nations. Not only are they potential sex offenders, they are also afraid of their women, who are mostly sluts and feminazis. Only Islam will protect these men from their fearsome women now, it seems.

The feminazis have no idea what the damage they are doing to themselves even as they gloat that any retired alpha male can be punished by them on a whim.

I know at least two women who told me they had lost their viriginity  when they were 13. These days we all know that most liberally-parented 13 year old schoolgirls will think nothing of having sex and it would probably be difficult to find one who is still a virgin. So why all this hypocritical fuss over stale evidence?

I am surprised that Harris’ lawyer did not take the point about the bad character of his daughter’s friend who is now an alcoholic, and possibly the characters of the other complainants. The more promiscuous the female, the more unreliable her grasp of truth and reality.

(I am not sure why this is. Perhaps a promiscuous female just lies more because she has to, in order to make men find her attractive? And perhaps she lies to herself to tell her that it is OK to do what she does.)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201302/certain-aspects-promiscuity
Are promiscuous women by definition stupid, weak and defective in character?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201307/why-does-morality-focus-so-much-sex
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/how-marriage-worked-to-improve-quality.html

If they had not taken that point he should bloody well refuse to pay their fees.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

"Non-defendants" are not defined in the Act but the term should include victims, whether or not they give evidence, the deceased in cases of homicide, witnesses, police officers who have been involved in the case, third parties who are not witnesses in the case and defence witnesses.

Evidence of bad character of non -defendants is admissible only through one of the three gateways in section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

It is important explanatory evidence i.e. without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case; and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (section 100(2) CJA 2003);

It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is both in issue in the proceedings and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In assessing this value the court must have regard to the following factors: The nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;

When those things or events are alleged to have happened or existed;

The nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct where the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct and it is suggested by the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct;

The extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time where the evidence is evidence of a persons misconduct and it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged and the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed;

Any other factors the court considers relevant;
All parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible. Prosecutors should only agree to admitting evidence of the bad character of a prosecution witness when one or both of the other gateways are satisfied or it is in the interests of justice to do so.

NB: The judge has no residual discretion to exclude evidence of a non-defendant's bad character once it is admissible.


http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/nigella-lawson-not-a-victim-of-the-criminal-justice-system/

Admissibility is governed by s 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

                        (1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if-

                                (a) it is important explanatory evidence,

                                (b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which-

                                          (i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

                                          (ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole; or

                                (c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.

Gateway (a) – important explanatory evidence

What might be important in this context is further defined in s 100(2) as follows:

                        (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) evidence is important explanatory evidence if-

                               (a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

                                (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

This allows for the admission of background evidence to put the circumstances in context. Such evidence can become admissible either as going to the facts of the case or as the bad character of the witness (as well as the defendant).

Gateway (b) – substantial probative value

The factors which might indicate probative value are generally those which indicate similarity of conduct and are set out in s 100(3) as follows:

                       (3) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers                                                          relevant)-

                              (a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;

                               (b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

                               (c) where-

                                          (i) the evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct, and

                                         (ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct,

                               the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;

                                (d) where-

                                      (i) the evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct,

                                      (ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged,  and

                                     (iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed,

                                           the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.




What would I do if I were Rolf himself? Fight this to the bitter end. There is nothing left for him to do now anyway. Either die in disgrace or fight to the bitter end.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts

No comments: