*a woman pointed out a man who tortured her in court*
Indeed, any female will point to the guy at the defense table. If the defense had been allowed to switch the accused with some spectator, and put the accused seated in the third row with the tourists, she still would have pointed at the man at the accused table. Witness testimony is worse than useless. They would convict a ham sandwich if the rules allowed them to accuse one.
45 comments
These anti-woman quotes aren't fundie... but I do think this site needs a "Misogynists/misandrists say the darndest things" section.
We really should just rename the "racists say the darndest things" section to "bigots say the darndest things" - that preseves its original function but also covers scum like this guy.
There are stories of crafty defense lawyers who pulled the trick of having another man sit at the accused's position while the real defendant sat at another part of the courtroom. The witness still pointed to the man at the defendant's table.
Unfortunately, that's a biased result - who in their right mind would expect someone other than the accused to be in the accused's place? What would be more useful would be to know if this apparent unreliability of eyewitnesses can be reproduced in a more controlled situation with neutral placement of people, like a police lineup.
That quote was origially given by a judge but not (about women) he was talking that witnestestimony is the most unrelyable because it is very subjective.
"Witness testimony"? Wasn't she a tad more than a witness? Supposedly the guy had put her through a 19-hour rape/torture ordeal.
"Mrs. Smith, you say your husband beat you to within an inch of your life."
"Yes. Well I'm pretty sure it was my husband."
"Mrs X, can you see your mugger anywhere in this courtroom?"
"Yes, I can. He's right there at the defense table."
"Wrong, Mrs X! The man accused of attacking you is at the back of the courtroom! The target of your accusations is in fact... a ham sandwich."
"Case dismissed!"
Police line ups happen long before trials, asshole.
Go fuck yourself.
Guys like this ought to be forced to walk around a dark park late at night at night with a "rape me" sign on his back.
For those of you going on about eye-witness testimony, you're not realizing that this woman was held captive by this man for nearly 20 hours, and his face was in full view the entire time. In cases where the event happened quickly -- a mugging, robberies, rape, etc. -- eye-witness accounts are rarely accurate, but when the perp's face is visible for an extended period of time, such as a kidnapping case like this one, they tend to be more accurate. Not 100% perfect, of course, but I doubt she was wrong about his identity.
Stupid, worthless, misogynist, pissed off because he can't get laid for whatever reason (most likely for being a stupid, worthless misogynist).
I don't know if he's fundie but he and the other knuckledraggers on that site qualify as all of the above.
@ Ozymandias
I'm ok with a particular quote NOT being "fundie".. seeing as how it has come from the mind of a fundie.. and this site isn't necessarily called "fundies say the darndest fundie things"..
Not being argumentative, just saying.. it goes to show that not only are they illogical in their thinking when it comes to faerie-tales, myths and superstitions.. but in real life as well.
MSTDT
However:
Defense atty: Ms. Nephthys, can you identify the man who attacked you?
Nephthys: No.
Cross exam, DA: Ms. Nephthys, as stated before, you never saw you attacker and could not visually identify him, correct.
Nephthys: That is correct.
Identification happens well before the trial. Line ups, photo line up, etc.
Just sayin'.
Witness testimony is worse than useless.
Unfortunately this is being shown as more and more true. I watched a crime documentary where a man who had been imprisoned on multiple rapes was proven innocent by DNA. One of the victims was crying at the end, basically screaming that she didn't care what the DNA said, she knew he did it.
I've also 'witnessed' people being cut in half, people disappearing, etc. If I didn't know these were tricks, and someone interviewed me afterwards then I would have to say that I saw what I saw.
However, in this case it was 19 hours, she had stabbed him in the hand, and he had identifying scars. So it's a little different than the "white, average height, average weight, average looking" type of description.
Fundy? no.
Incomprehensible? Yes.
This isn't fundie. Bob is just plain stupid, and I have no idea why his fucktarded comments are seeing the light of day here.
Witness testimony in and of itself is not enough to go on. There's likely a passel of evidence against the rapist besides her positive ID.
Sounds almost like my dad.
What can I say? It was a nasty divorce, now he hates women and thinks the whole world is out to fuck over men.
"Unfortunately, that's a biased result - who in their right mind would expect someone other than the accused to be in the accused's place?"
Thats kind of the point. The defendant makes a biased assumption claiming they can remember the face yet they pick the wrong guy. Kind of proving how unreliable their testimony is
I read the article. maybe if it was something sudden, where he didn't have her very long, I could see the 'witness testimony is very unreliable' stuff (I know it is), but 19 hours? and she made a point of noticing features and identifying scars for the exact purpose of being able to identify him later. this is not a normal crime. And even if that weren't true, most of the people on that thread don't qualify as human* (not very fundie though. I'm with BIAJ on Bigots Say The Darndest Things.)
I wonder if this was a race-war crime. I've heard of a woman getting her eye lids cut off in the city and raped. It turned out to be a anti-white peeps race crime because the man didn't like white people.
Not that I care too much, women rejected men, now they can fend for themselves against whatever crazies abound.
I second renaming RSTDT to Bigots-STDT. Bob's full of shit - I gave up submitting his idiotic commentary a while ago. Nobody in their right mind would point at anyone NOT at the accused's table, especially not an inanimate object like a sandwich. While I agree that is problems with the reliability of eye witnesses, to suppose a woman who has been violated for such a length of time would not recognise her attacker is beyond retarded.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
