Miscarriage of Justice.

 

This above title suggests that someone has been convicted of a crime of which they had no connection too. In other words,  what we are dealing with is a wrongful conviction based on a multiplicity of erroneous propositions. It is important to understand just what this does to the one whom it happened too; and to all those who are related to them. It is simply outrageous and unwarranted. It is another example of dangerous conduct on those who are doing such a thing. How does one live with themselves when they are so willing to bend the rules in order satisfy some personal grudge.

The scriptures tells us that the Law must not operate on  "false balance" because it is "an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight." (Proverbs 11:1) In pointing this out, I am simply saying that any court of Law which acts out of clear prejudice and bias has already lost its true aim which is "punish evil doers and protect the innocent." (Romans 13:1-7) But there is a clear case that they are being manipulated by corruption from within; and when this happens, they are no better than the true criminals that are getting away with unchecked crimes.   And when these people are quick to justify the unjustifiable; then it is evident that they don't care for the truth.

Over the last decade there have been multiple case where an innocent man has been put in prison based on the most flimsy evidence; and in some case, based on zero evidence. Now let us consider on of the clearest examples of this: Daniel Holtzclaw a former American football hopeful turned cop in Oklahoma in the united states of America. 

A clear cut case of being railroaded

One night after he had gotten off shift, he witnessed a lady in a car swerving and decided to pull her over to make sure things were okay (obviously He did not know it was a women before pulling her over); he carried out his duty of making the appropriate checks and searching her person and car.  There was only one thing he did which could be a problem: he turn off his surveillance equipment. But apart from that every was above order.  And they part ways to go to their own places after 10 or 15 minutes (this whole event was captured on CCTV; but it was not a clear picture in any manner).  With this in mind, we turn to the following days and weeks. This lady reported that he had been stopped and then accused him of a sexual assault. 

And this whole thing snowballed out of control to where there were 13 accusers claiming to have been assaulted by Him. Now why do I say that it was not the case? Simply because there was no evidence for any of the crimes that had been committed; and certainly none tying him to them. this man even offered up his clothes; gives d.n.a samples; said he would do a lie detector test if necessary. And yet, there was nothing to suggest that he done it. 

The lead detective went in with her blinders on believing the worse based on nothing more than one person's words. And then proceeded to reject any other view point to contrary even a fellow officers who had been honest in his account. Now to answer the obvious question: why would this lady lie about something like this? the officer asked this and answered it: because people do. And this lady is no different. Let us operate on the premise that she is a human and human can and do lie until its proven otherwise. this applies to both men and women. but should we just discount this fellow officers statement which he said a number of time and it never changed once; and yet all thirteen witness were so inconsistent with each other and themselves? 

Just think for a moment on two of them: one repeatedly said no and then changed her mind when asked if a cop has assaulted her. And another asked at the end of an interview if what she said was good; and then in a round about fashion practically said he did not do anything to her. something very fishy. But this is all compounded when you see how it played out in court: (1) the prosecutor told a bold face lie about the only piece of evidence that had which was inconclusive as to how it ended up where it was. he said that it came from the woman's vagina wall when it did not. it was more likely touch transfer (2) but what is more important is that this piece of evidence contained a second unknown male contributor; so unless he sexually assaulted a man at the same time, this proves very little.   

The lead detective even painted these women fit a particular profile; and therefore, labelled them as trash. Consider these words: 

she is boisterous and rebellious, her feet do not remain at home; she is now in the streets, now in the squares, and lurks by the corner.  (Proverb 7: 11-12)

 Is it clear that such a person should not be trusted. I am not saying that the women fit this bill that is the detectives own words. 

with her many persuasions she entices him; with her flattering lips she seduces him. suddenly he follows her like an ox to the slaughter..." (proverbs 8: 21-22)  

In reality if this is the truth; then these women must be convicted of their own crimes. It appears to be a cover up for their own transgressions.  let us also note that there is no victim blaming or shaming as their were none. We are simply trying to establish the truth. 

So what do we make of this first line of enquiry. 

 The me too trope: believe all women 

Sexual assaults of all kinds are all act of evil and completely wicked; and everyone who commits such wickedness must be punished. But before that can be carried through; we must be certain in whom it was that done such acts of evil.  Do not simple except someone's allegation without evidence to substantiate any such claims regarding a sexual assault. And if it is proven to have taken place; let us therefore make sure that the person being accused of such a crime not only fits the description; but likewise is a match for any DNA retrieved, as we do not want to put an innocent man behind bars.

The case before us is riddled with many inconsistencies: (1) there is no definitive video evidence showing what the woman claimed to take place actually had taken place. All it showed is a cop pulling over some. The officer can be identified; and neither can the driver of the car.   (2) there is no clear DNA evidence from the woman to substantiate any sexual assault taken place; even with all the claims to the contrary. (3)  when you consider that the 12 additional allegations; we still have many inconsistencies as to purpose behind the original allegations being made. Most had other arrest warrants out for them which were quashed. 

The question as to why so many women would make false allegation may be many: it could be manipulation by the two lead detectives in this case; it could be simply because they have brought into some false movement such as "me too;" or in this case, because it was all black women related to the "black lives matter" Marxist movement. Whatever it may be, it is still not a good reason to make false allegation against someone who has done nothing wrong. In a sense, we are seeing another evidence of what we can call "hate all men" movement Feminism. And when we consider the fact that at the time of the trial the B.L.M were heavy on the matter trying to influence the whole outcome; and I feel that it may have in fact done so.  this is a hard matter.

Don't tell me that women cannot lie: because they can and do. All humans do. Now do not get me wrong I love women; but what I despise is people who are lying being held up as paragons of all virtue. 

 The ever-change narrative

Now here we come to the issue which cast doubt upon all of these women who made these allegations in the first place.  Let us look at two pieces of evidence: one is the descriptions; and the other is the ever evolving statements. Whether any of them was ever attacked and assaulted is not the issue here; but the fact that we have reason to doubt that it was this man. 

Now we can see that  Daniel is a 6'2 man who has is made of two people groups: he is both of white and Japanese descent. And His physique was muscular. Why is this all important because none of the description matched him.  We were told: (1) he was a short black man; another said that it was that her attacker was shorter than her; she being 5'11 so around 5'8-9. (2) he was described as a dark man with blond hair by another woman; but he is a most light with black hair.  Do you see the problem? there is no clear description; and therefore, there is no clear reason to point at any man at this early stage.    

Next, we have wildly different events being described; even contradictory.  (1) woman A said that nothing happened seven times; and then said it did. was she lying 7 times or telling the truth seven times? or did she later lie in order to get out of a difficult situation which pertains to another matter. (2) Women B said that she was raped on her door step. Was there any witnesses to this?  but what is more interesting is what she told her mother "she met this hot cop.. and would going on a date with him." Sounds mighty fishy. Which is it rape or potential boyfriend? why lie to her mother if not the second? these two cast a lot of doubt on their own accusations as well as the others too. 

Let this be a lesson. Not everything is clear cut as we are led to think. Cops should not take someone statement as fact until their is clear and undeniable evidence to establish a case. 

When we consider the whole matter; it is easy to take it upon a biblical principle:

 The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him. (proverbs 18:17)

It is never good to accept something simply based on the face value basis. it must be thoroughly examine for the truth to be established. Every point must be examined without bias. if a cop holds a grudge against the accused that must be left out of the process as much it possibly can. if you like someone for it. Stop. Allow the evidence colour the judgement and not prejudices. 

 

Conclusion

Am I saying that some of these women were not assaulted on the nights in question? No.  Am I saying that this man committed any crimes? No. I do not know. What am I saying then, in these cases, there is no evidence to implicate or tie him to any assault he was accused of. And on that basis alone the case should be dropped or re-investigated to get to the truth.