Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby
No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.
|
And how do you know for a fact that it happened?
You don't.
These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.
Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.
If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?
So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.
There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.
Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.
I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.
You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.
Threaded Mode
