Archive for September 7, 2010

Victor Davis Hanson is a bit of a scholar so how bad does an article have to be for him to say this:

I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.

And it’s not like there is no competition out there. I’m presuming he is referring to the full article but would like to know if that’s the case.

All that’s missing is “I’ll have my bond“.

Hey Victor I sent a Resume to Time maybe they’ll hire a conservative blogger or two and then change their ways….sometime before the next century.

Just a thought, since democrats keep talking about new spending as an “investment” does that mean they should have to run that warning whenever they talk about spending?

I think so.

Speaking of things that deserve a big warning label:

So, like Stimulus I, which was initially intended to put infrastructure spending first, but evolved into a multi-purpose slush fund that put infrastructure last, the “infrastructure bank” envisioned by progressives on Capitol Hill would be “looking at a broader base” to finance “green energy” and “other large-scale works” based on “social benefits” determined by a panel appointed by the president.

What could go wrong?

Well this certainly changes the story or does it?

Posted: September 7, 2010 by datechguy in the courts
Tags: ,

it looks like that old “rape by deception” involved more than meets the eye.
A lot of people are jumping on this story saying people jumped the gun on the other one, I have some questions. In the base story of the guardian they quote of of the judges:

Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not “a classical rape by force,” the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

Question, if this is a plea bargain why is the judge saying something like this if there is evidence of force? Let’s look at the newly translated story again:

Over the years B. filed 14 complaints, most of them for sexual offenses, against her father and other men. Some of the complaints were found to be justified, the defendants confessed and were sent to prison. Other complaints didn’t result in indictments, sometimes due to lack of evidence, and sometimes because B.’s testimony was doubted. When B. was first put on the stand in Kashur’s trial, the defense didn’t have all the 14 cases, but only a short list with the details of the cases, without all the evidence. Therefore, A’ladin applied to receive the cases following B.’s testimony. A’ladin’s intention was to put B. back on the stand and question her about the details of the cases where she was found to be unreliable – in order to discredit her in this case as well.

The Deputy Prosecutor Wittman did not like the idea of putting B. back on the stand. The previous time was, as mentioned, nothing less than traumatic, and B. was not interested in it herself. “We thought that the defense attorney’s request to question the plaintiff again about those past complaints, some of which didn’t lead to indictments, was legitimate”, Wittman explained to HaIr, “therefore, we faced a dilemma whether to expose the plaintiff once against to the cross-examination of the defense attorney over these complaints, which would inevitably lead to another traumatic experience for the plaintiff, or reach a plea bargain, as the defense attorney suggested.”

And this:

“Kashur was tried for forcible rape, but during the hearing of testimonies some difficulties with evidence arose and therefore negotiations were held between the Prosecution and Defense and we reached a plea bargain… according to the plea, even the Defense admitted to rape and deceit.”

I don’t claim to be either a lawyer or an expert on Israeli law, but I have several questions:

1. In the US you can indict a ham sandwich if there is a history of complaints that doesn’t result in incitements would you not be suspicious?

2. I note that about you see a list of “confessions” that led to prison, but not a single trial. How many of those confessions were plea deals? If Miss “B” has a history of accusations wouldn’t you think that at least one would go to trial?

3. How is it that a defendant after a plea bargain can appeal? Wouldn’t that be waved as part of a plea deal?

4. The “Confessions” listed above, what were they confessions of? Were they of lesser charges to avoid being tagged as a rapist?

It certainly sounds like B had a hard life, but read this closer. I have to disagree with the folks at the Volokh Conspiracy, they are basing their conclusion on “B” ‘s testimony which may or may not be reliable. I’ll give them their point on a plea bargain, but the judge’s statement suggests that this didn’t involve violence.

The fact that several anti-Israeli sites jumped on this naturally gives them suspicion, they’ve earned that suspicion for their denial of reality on other issues, but I would like to know more about those other cases. Is this guy just one of several who made a deal out of fear? Consider this story.

The idea that traumatised people, especially the victims of child sexual abuse, deliberately repress horrific memories goes all the way back to the 19th century and the theories of Sigmund Freud himself. But now some experts are saying the evidence points the other way. Professor Grant Devilly, from Griffith University’s Psychological Health research unit, says the memory usually works in the opposite way, with traumatised people reliving experiences they would rather forget.

Here is a thought, how many of those guys coped a plea during those days to avoid worse charges? How guys who didn’t plead were convinced by this stuff?

I’ll give Volokh that I may not know all the facts, but I don’t think he does either and one additional report doesn’t make the story complete, at least not yet.

The problem is that people are looking at an Arab v Jew issue. I think this case is less about that and more about a disturbed woman with issues and the men Jewish and Arab she has sent to prison over the years. Is this an abused woman who was abused one more time or Duke on the Jordan?

I don’t know, and most likely when it comes down to it, neither do you.

Memeorandum thread here