Wrongly convicted of kidnapping and rape… 46 years ago!
-
This is a travesty.. and it's not that uncommon. This man spent 46 years of his life in prison for something he didn't do!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/louisiana-man-convicted-of-1971-rape-to-be-freed-from-prison/ar-BBEZ4R1?OCID=ansmsnnews11Meanwhile.. someone like crooked Hillary Clinton can get away with a lifetime of criminal scandals and manage to evade justice every time! They used to say "Slick Willie"… Bill is not nearly as "slick" as "Slippery Hillary".
-
Well, like we were told recently, it's a wonderful that that it happened or Timmy might have been pushed down the well rather than simply fallen down it.
Innocent men in prison shows us the justice system is working at it's best. Too bad he wasn't executed. If he had been, millions of crimes he had nothing to do with would have been prevented.
-
Well, like we were told recently, it's a wonderful that that it happened or Timmy might have been pushed down the well rather than simply fallen down it.
Innocent men in prison shows us the justice system is working at it's best. Too bad he wasn't executed. If he had been, millions of crimes he had nothing to do with would have been prevented.
You reminded me of something I forgot to post weeks ago.
A member was suggesting that it is acceptable to convict someone who is innocent because that will put 10 guilty people who would have gotten off in prison.
On the surface, that theory has some validity.. but not really. In the case of rape, 994 out of 1000 rapists go free or are never caught.
Just to make this easier to explain, lets make that 990 out of 1000 rapists go free.
By the flawed logic presented that it's OK to convict an innocent person to put 10 real rapists in prison..
that would mean that out of 1000 rapes, 10 people went to prison, one innocent person got convicted, and 990 guilty people go free.By the logic of #1 and #2 with their esteemed reputations, it is better to NOT convict that innocent person at the cost of letting 10 guilty people go free.
By that logic,
that would mean that out of 1000 rapes, 0 people went to prison, no innocent people were convicted, and 1000 people go free.SO… to simplify this...
Is it better to convict 1% of rapists at a cost of putting an innocent person in prison..
Or is it better to convict 0% of rapists and guarantee that no innocent people are put in prison?Let me add that of course the conviction rate would never be just 0% because there are many cases where there is substantial DIRECT evidence to convict a rapist. What I am saying is that if there is a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that person should NOT be convicted!
In the case I refer to often, the man was convicted with NO direct evidence.. in fact, there was a ton of direct evidence which all contradicted with the man being guilty.. but it was all ignored because he was tricked / brainwashed into pursuing an insanity plea - 20 months after the murder. By doing that, it meant he was not denying committing the crime. The closest the man came to making a confession was this: (I am paraphrasing here.. this is not his direct quotes) "I don't remember doing the things I am accused of doing, and what I am telling you is what my defense attorney told me to say happened". Some confession!
I must add a bit more explanation about this. The time of the murder is known. The accused man is seen on video 5.5 hours later. When we see him, he looks like a zombie.. 100% expressionless, and behaving like a robot. He has obviously been drugged. In fact, he told the psychiatrists that he heard voices in the room, possibly talking to someone on the phone, but doesn't know who they were. *** -
Thre's a huge flaw in RAINN's stats.
They assume (wrongly) that every rape has a different rapist. Crime stats show that most rapes are the result of a multiple/serial rapist.
They also include ALL rape claims, even ones that have been proven false; like my case, Jackie at UVA, Duke LaCross, Mattress girl, Take Back The Night girl, Tawana Brawley, the womon here in the UK who got 15 men over several years sent to prison for rapes that never happened.
++++
The flaw in the "it prevents crimes to execute the innocent" is that when I hear rape claims I automatically think about my case and countless others, including reading about men wrongfully convicted.
SJWs and other loonies have made me A LOT more skeptical than I was 20 years ago. Hell, they made me a lot more skeptical than I was even 5 years ago.
Take Back The Night girl falsely accused a guy of raping her because, as she put it, "I got caught up in the moment". The guy had to leave college because his dad had a stroke and he had to go home to help take care of the family business. She remembered that so that's how she chose to use him because he wasn't there to fight against it. She maintained this lie for over 4 years until he finally reapplied to go back to college and learned he was banned because of the rape allegation. He sued her and now she's the victim.
-
Thre's a huge flaw in RAINN's stats.
They assume (wrongly) that every rape has a different rapist. Crime stats show that most rapes are the result of a multiple/serial rapist.
They also include ALL rape claims, even ones that have been proven false; like my case, Jackie at UVA, Duke LaCross, Mattress girl, Take Back The Night girl, Tawana Brawley, the womon here in the UK who got 15 men over several years sent to prison for rapes that never happened.
++++
The flaw in the "it prevents crimes to execute the innocent" is that when I hear rape claims I automatically think about my case and countless others, including reading about men wrongfully convicted.
SJWs and other loonies have made me A LOT more skeptical than I was 20 years ago. Hell, they made me a lot more skeptical than I was even 5 years ago.
Take Back The Night girl falsely accused a guy of raping her because, as she put it, "I got caught up in the moment". The guy had to leave college because his dad had a stroke and he had to go home to help take care of the family business. She remembered that so that's how she chose to use him because he wasn't there to fight against it. She maintained this lie for over 4 years until he finally reapplied to go back to college and was learned he was banned because of the rape allegation. He sued her and now she's the victim.
Well, yes.. but that brings up another problem. Many people assume that everytime someone SAYS they were raped, they are telling the truth. This can be just a difference of perspective. I have a non-sexual example involving my dad. My dad had a crush on this woman who went to the senior singles group which met at church. The concept of that group was that single people of an age group would meet to study the bible together (uh huh..). Anyway, this one woman - whom we later found out was a gold digger - was chatting up my dad and being charming, etc. She agreed to go out on a date with him. He took her to the Ringling Museum and an Amish restaurant. That museum includes an ornate estate, vast collection of classical paintings, gardens, theater, etc. My dad said it was the best day of his life.. however the woman said she never wanted to see him again! The problem was, one day a year, the admission to the museum is free. My dad being a frugal cheapskate picked that day. This did not impress Ms. Gold Digger at all.. and that was that. My point being.. one person's "nice time" is another person's "nightmare".
-
As a side, but based on our post, there's the old saying that the rich get rich by being cheap.
I used to manage some semi high end restaurants in Chicago and the more money they had, the less they tipped and they usually got their food comped.
++++
In the west, where we are supposed to have "justice" systems, women constantly get away with making false claims against men. In the UK, it's rare for a proven false claimer (rape, domestic abuse, or whatever) to be prosecuted. The same in all of the west.
In Europe, it's common for the accused's name and photo to become public immediately and to hide the victim's identity. Even when it's completely proven the "victim" lied, it's extremely rare that her name is ever released.
-
As a side, but based on our post, there's the old saying that the rich get rich by being cheap.
I used to manage some semi high end restaurants in Chicago and the more money they had, the less they tipped and they usually got their food comped.
++++
In the west, where we are supposed to have "justice" systems, women constantly get away with making false claims against men. In the UK, it's rare for a proven false claimer (rape, domestic abuse, or whatever) to be prosecuted. The same in all of the west.
In Europe, it's common for the accused's name and photo to become public immediately and to hide the victim's identity. Even when it's completely proven the "victim" lied, it's extremely rare that her name is ever released.
I would never hire anybody that I could not fire. That is why it is a terrible idea to hire family members, minorities, or women. Is that fair to them? No.. but is it fair to the employer to wind up being stuck with someone they can't get rid of? No. All those protections wind up backfiring on the people they are supposed to protect.
