Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

I saw some woman complaining about the Kavanaugh ruling because according to her there are usually not two witnesses to a sexual crime. Why do major networks allow these bozos to fill their broadcasts with erroneous drivel?

First, during a sexual crime it is impossible to prevent many "witnesses" from testifying what took place. In any criminal investigation physical evidence is seen as a much better witness than eye witnesses.

1. A ripped blouse -- that would be evidence of assault and we could also pull epithelial cells from the shirt. DNA would be a second witness.
2. A hair can be linked directly to a single person now.
3. Fibers can be linked to the perpetrators clothes.
4. DNA, hair and fibers on the suspects clothes can tie them to the scene.
5. Smart phones can prove precisely both time and gps where they were at a certain time.
6. Phone calls and text messages can also tie a person to a location in both time and space.
7. Rape kits performed in hospitals can confirm assault charges, rape charges and provide other evidence (DNA, Fibers, etc) linking a suspect to a crime.
8. How did these people meet? At a party -- you can gather every single person at that party and provide many eyewitness accounts. Perhaps they didn't witness the assault but surely they witnessed the suspect at the party, they saw the victim when they left, they saw the behavior of both of them, etc. We used to have chaperones, people rebelled against the need for a chaperone, and now they are crying that there are no witnesses present.
9. These days there will be twenty or thirty pictures at least taken at a party. They all become physical evidence.
10. Credit cards -- if the venue is a bar the credit cards will usually confirm who was there and what time they were there.
11. One of the absolutely best pieces of evidence is to scratch the perpetrator. This proves the assault was not consensual. We can get DNA from under the woman's fingernails, and when the police question the suspect they can photograph the scratch marks.
12. Police can also find evidence at the scene. In this case with Ford they could have found her hair in the bed she said she was pushed into.

All of this evidence can also be used to exonerate a person. You say the attack took place at 10pm, but this person was withdrawing money from an ATM cross town at 9:45, etc.

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

For example, you are going to a party with your friends. 1. Take a picture of your group outside the door. This shows what everyone looked like prior to anything. 2. Take many pictures within the party and post/email them as you take them. 3. Use credit cards and ATM cards. 4. In the event that someone is attacked have your friends take a picture of them (bruised face, scratches, ripped clothes, etc). 5. Tell your friends what happened. 6. Go to the hospital and have a rape kit done, etc. 6. The sooner the better. If the woman waits a day they cannot test her blood alcohol. This is very important because one common defense is that "it was consensual" and that "she was drunk". If you go the same night you can easily destroy both of those arguments with physical evidence. When you accuse someone 36 years later this might simply be regret. But if you are in the hospital at 2am 3 hours later this was clearly not consensual.

It seems to me this is a much more valuable lesson for #MeToo movement than trying to convict a man who was 17 of an alleged event 36 years ago, in which it isn't even clear if the police would have considered it a crime at the time, and which you cannot give the time or place. All of the evidence you could have is a two edged sword. On one hand it can be used to convict the guilty on the other it can be used to exonerate the innocent.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Shouldn't these news outlets be educating women at all the witnesses they are surrounded by, instead of pushing a false narrative that we need to convict a man based on the testimony of a single witness?

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Bro, but while you were not paying attention, these "news outlets" became nothing more than Tabloid Rags.

Why should they care about "educating women?"

Both of my parents are journalists. So, sorry bro, I am aware that Tabloid rags have their place, and real journalism also has its place.

For example there are many watching these events play out like myself. We have no dog in the fight. We don't want a sexual predator named to the Supreme court, we also don't want people convicted based on uncorroborated hearsay in which they are not given any possibility of clearing their name.

After watching this we will make our judgements. 1. Democrats need to be held accountable for the entire circus. 2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

We will then act on our judgements -- turning certain news outlets off and voting in a month.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

It was a more than a shoddy job it was a coordinated and intentional attack on their opposing ideology. They used that poor woman to advance their agenda without regard for her best interests, safety, or cause.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Both of my parents are journalists. So, sorry bro, I am aware that Tabloid rags have their place, and real journalism also has its place.

For example there are many watching these events play out like myself. We have no dog in the fight. We don't want a sexual predator named to the Supreme court, we also don't want people convicted based on uncorroborated hearsay in which they are not given any possibility of clearing their name.

After watching this we will make our judgements. 1. Democrats need to be held accountable for the entire circus. 2. Certain news outlets are biased and did a shoddy job of reporting.

We will then act on our judgements -- turning certain news outlets off and voting in a month.

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

I know. That's why conservatives aren't the majority.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. That's why conservatives aren't the majority.

Being part of the "majority" is no boast. The majority of Americans score in the bottom 60% on all exams including basic reading, knowledge of history, understanding of the constitution, and scientific literacy. This "majority" also has the lowest percent of those that actually vote.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Real journalism is a dying profession. Most of the formerly respected news outlets now hold periodic purges to root out conservatives. All of America's major cities have done the same.

I don't believe it.

Plato said no one is more hated than the one who tells you the truth. It has been that way for thousands of years, so if "real journalism is a dying profession" it would have already died out long ago. Which doesn't explain many of the real journalists today like Frontline a few years ago, 60 minutes back in the day when they broke the story on cigarettes, or Spotlight breaking the story on the Catholic church.

If respected news outlets purge their ranks of real journalists then they won't be respected for long.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't believe it.

Plato said no one is more hated than the one who tells you the truth. It has been that way for thousands of years, so if "real journalism is a dying profession" it would have already died out long ago. Which doesn't explain many of the real journalists today like Frontline a few years ago, 60 minutes back in the day when they broke the story on cigarettes, or Spotlight breaking the story on the Catholic church.

If respected news outlets purge their ranks of real journalists then they won't be respected for long.

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

Yes, but if it has been dying for thousands of years it can hardly be said to be "dying".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You only explained that it is not dead, but I said it was a dying profession, citing conservative purges in the profession.

What? Liberals can't be professional objective journalists?