Well done Holland

[Meekychuppet]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

Um, you lost me here.

That explains a lot...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

Um, you lost me here.

That explains a lot...

I wish that had explained anything.

[Meekychuppet]

I wish that had explained anything.

Does a man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun constitute evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course it doesn't. It is merely a snapshot of a crime scene as it stood at a particular time, just like this case. This whole case was his word against hers. As I said, if he did it, I would like to see him jailed until death, but you cannot convict anyone based upon that evidence. If you claim to be an enlightened thinker you must concede that. Otherwise, you're just another local with a pitchfork.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wish that had explained anything.

Does a man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun constitute evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course it doesn't. It is merely a snapshot of a crime scene as it stood at a particular time, just like this case. This whole case was his word against hers. As I said, if he did it, I would like to see him jailed until death, but you cannot convict anyone based upon that evidence. If you claim to be an enlightened thinker you must concede that. Otherwise, you're just another local with a pitchfork.

Ah, that's better. Pity I don't agree with you.

[Meekychuppet]

I wish that had explained anything.

Does a man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun constitute evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course it doesn't. It is merely a snapshot of a crime scene as it stood at a particular time, just like this case. This whole case was his word against hers. As I said, if he did it, I would like to see him jailed until death, but you cannot convict anyone based upon that evidence. If you claim to be an enlightened thinker you must concede that. Otherwise, you're just another local with a pitchfork.

Ah, that's better. Pity I don't agree with you.

Then the simple fact is you are allowing your passions to prejudice your judgement. Nothing connects this man to the assault other than the victim's statement. If you can show me any first world legislature where that would be enough to convict then I'll believe you. The simple truth is you can't.

Your emotional response is the reason that it has been stipulated that the law must be applied without passion or prejudice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You win.

[Meekychuppet]

You win.

That's wearing thin now. You keep saying you disagree etc but offer no credible reason why or no rational argument against. You simply want this guy to be guilty so, in your mind, he is.

[charlou]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

In your hypothetical presumably the only witness to the crime itself is the dead person, so, without other evidence, we don't know if the man did it. This case is different in that the daughter, herself, is the witness to the mutilation inflicted upon her genitalia.

[Meekychuppet]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

In your hypothetical presumably the only witness to the crime itself is the dead person, so, without other evidence, we don't know if hedidit. This case is different in that the daughter, herself, is the witness to the mutilation inflicted upon her genitalia.

If the witness is also the accuser the statement is spurious on the grounds that it is self-reinforcing.

Believe me, I want this animal caught, but the case is just not there. As Mencken said, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

In your hypothetical presumably the only witness to the crime itself is the dead person, so, without other evidence, we don't know if hedidit. This case is different in that the daughter, herself, is the witness to the mutilation inflicted upon her genitalia.

Now, now, just because he motive, means and opportunity, and we have a witness, doesn't mean he did it. It just means he's the most likely suspect. And until a better one comes along, he's the best suspect.

[Meekychuppet]

The evidence is the daughter's now mutilated genitalia. That along with her testimony that her father used scissors to inflict the mutilation ought to be enough to convict him. Incredibly frustrating that it wasn't.

I wish I could see the logic they employed in reaching that decision. It would be a case study.

Let me help you out. Man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun. The corpse died of gunshot wound. Did he do it?

In your hypothetical presumably the only witness to the crime itself is the dead person, so, without other evidence, we don't know if hedidit. This case is different in that the daughter, herself, is the witness to the mutilation inflicted upon her genitalia.

Now, now, just because he motive, means and opportunity, and we have a witness, doesn't mean he did it. It just means he's the most likely suspect. And until a better one comes along, he's the best suspect.

Fortunately for us all, we in the first world are not in the habit of convicting on a 'best fit' basis. The evidence is not there. The witness is also the victim, therefore there is nothing to corroborate the accusation. The evidence is not there.

I genuinely hope you never face a jury made up of people like you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I genuinely hope you never face a jury made up of people like you.

[Meekychuppet]

I genuinely hope you never face a jury made up of people like you.

And so you continue your habit of speaking yet saying nothing.

[charlou]

Okay, let's just keep to commenting on the topic itself.

[klr]

So, we don't know who reported the mutilation, or under what circumstances. I would be very interested indeed to know those details. Part of the reason why this practice survives is the unwillingness of people (extending beyond the victims) to speak out, report, etc.

I wonder if he (and his wife) could ever face charges for gross neglect, for "allowing" this to happen?