Bill Cosby

[Sarah G]

Committing serial sexual assault over a 50 year period of time is hardly equivalent to having 'issues'. How insulting that is to rape victims.

Serial rapists are psychopaths. Psychopaths are particularly good at playing the emotions of other people, to include making them laugh.

So all comedians are psycopaths because they are playing emotions?

Same could be said of false accusers. And yes, many false accusers are also psycopaths.

See, Kangeroo courts are fun!

Now, back to the question as to why our criminal justice system has a statute of limitation?

Please?

Not ALL but a lot of them are really nutty:

Comedians score high on psychotic traits

Perhaps the reason comedians make us laugh is because they show high levels of psychotic traits, suggests new research from the University of Oxford in the UK.

They also score high on introverted and extroverted personality traits, say the researchers.

Writing in the latest online issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers explain how the popular belief that creativity is linked to madness has led to many studies, yet despite comedy being a prime example of creativity, little research has been done specifically on comedy and humor.

Co-author Gordon Claridge, Emeritus Professor of Abnormal Psychology at Oxford's department of Experimental Psychology, describes what they found:

"The creative elements needed to produce humour are strikingly similar to those characterising the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

But while schizophrenic psychosis itself can be detrimental to humor, its lesser form can help people "think outside the box" and associate ideas in odd or unusual ways, he explains, and adds:

"Equally, manic thinking, which is common in people with bipolar disorder, may help people combine ideas to form new, original and humorous connections."

Comedians score high on psychotic traits - Medical News Today

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

 

[Pop23]

I don't care who accuses whom of what. Those women need to PROVE it. Kinda hard to do so many years later, ain't it.

I can see your point but did you ask the same question when Catholic priests were accused of sex crimes that happened 25 or 30 years ago?

Yes, in many of the cases, just like the McMartin preschool case

 

[Pop23]

So all comedians are psycopaths because they are playing emotions?

Same could be said of false accusers. And yes, many false accusers are also psycopaths.

See, Kangeroo courts are fun!

Now, back to the question as to why our criminal justice system has a statute of limitation?

Please?

Not ALL but a lot of them are really nutty:

Comedians score high on psychotic traits

Perhaps the reason comedians make us laugh is because they show high levels of psychotic traits, suggests new research from the University of Oxford in the UK.

They also score high on introverted and extroverted personality traits, say the researchers.

Writing in the latest online issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers explain how the popular belief that creativity is linked to madness has led to many studies, yet despite comedy being a prime example of creativity, little research has been done specifically on comedy and humor.

Co-author Gordon Claridge, Emeritus Professor of Abnormal Psychology at Oxford's department of Experimental Psychology, describes what they found:

"The creative elements needed to produce humour are strikingly similar to those characterising the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

But while schizophrenic psychosis itself can be detrimental to humor, its lesser form can help people "think outside the box" and associate ideas in odd or unusual ways, he explains, and adds:

"Equally, manic thinking, which is common in people with bipolar disorder, may help people combine ideas to form new, original and humorous connections."

Comedians score high on psychotic traits - Medical News Today

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

No , I'm playing devil advocate. You are part of the lynch mob. I need more before putting the noose around the mans neck

 

[JimH52]

I think the statute of limitation is in order here, and in using that statute as should be ruled upon, then Cosby ought to be able to sue anyone who brings anything forward that falls before the time period in which the statute was enforced upon by dates or is set forth in which the statute protects one in the case during the dates as is set forth in the statute ruling.

Because rape is excusable?

No because the women can't prove their claim, so who knows if they are telling the truth or just gold diggers really ? I wouldn't want to make that call without having enough evidence or any evidence to back up my claim up, and especially on something that could destroy another persons life. Oh and was their lives destroyed, and can they even prove that to be a part of it all ?

Yeah, cause nearly 20 women cannot be believed over a celebrity multimillionaire....right. It is the typical RW conclusion....

 

[Sarah G]

Not ALL but a lot of them are really nutty:

Comedians score high on psychotic traits

Perhaps the reason comedians make us laugh is because they show high levels of psychotic traits, suggests new research from the University of Oxford in the UK.

They also score high on introverted and extroverted personality traits, say the researchers.

Writing in the latest online issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers explain how the popular belief that creativity is linked to madness has led to many studies, yet despite comedy being a prime example of creativity, little research has been done specifically on comedy and humor.

Co-author Gordon Claridge, Emeritus Professor of Abnormal Psychology at Oxford's department of Experimental Psychology, describes what they found:

"The creative elements needed to produce humour are strikingly similar to those characterising the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

But while schizophrenic psychosis itself can be detrimental to humor, its lesser form can help people "think outside the box" and associate ideas in odd or unusual ways, he explains, and adds:

"Equally, manic thinking, which is common in people with bipolar disorder, may help people combine ideas to form new, original and humorous connections."

Comedians score high on psychotic traits - Medical News Today

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

No , I'm playing devil advocate. You are part of the lynch mob. I need more before putting the noose around the mans neck

It's a little more than that, it seems like you support him in his effort to deny these women their voice.

He's suffering right now and he deserves to. Karma.

 

[JimH52]

I think the statute of limitation is in order here, and in using that statute as should be ruled upon, then Cosby ought to be able to sue anyone who brings anything forward that falls before the time period in which the statute was enforced upon by dates or is set forth in which the statute protects one in the case during the dates as is set forth in the statute ruling.

Because rape is excusable?

No because the women can't prove their claim, so who knows if they are telling the truth or just gold diggers really ? I wouldn't want to make that call without having enough evidence or any evidence to back up my claim up, and especially on something that could destroy another persons life. Oh and was their lives destroyed, and can they even prove that to be a part of it all ?

Yeah, cause nearly 20 women cannot be believed over a celebrity multimillionaire....right. It is the typical RW conclusion....

Sorry I forgot the most important part of the conclusion...A Male celebrity multimillionaire.

 

[Pop23]

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

No , I'm playing devil advocate. You are part of the lynch mob. I need more before putting the noose around the mans neck

It's a little more than that, it seems like you support him in his effort to deny these women their voice.

He's suffering right now and he deserves to. Karma.

Now your not only reading Bill Cosbys mind, your reading MINE?

Get the hell outta my head Sarah!

It's problematic when you run into someone who doesn't run on pure emotion but instead wants facts.

I get that

 

[beagle9]

I don't care who accuses whom of what. Those women need to PROVE it. Kinda hard to do so many years later, ain't it.

I can see your point but did you ask the same question when Catholic priests were accused of sex crimes that happened 25 or 30 years ago?

Hmm (very good point), but when a child tells something or even explains that something had happen to them as a child be it then or even later on, then I don't think that it has the same components involved that this other case would have or does it ? Children have no reason to lie almost always, and when a person is telling something that may have happen to them as a child, then there is usually no gain from this telling what so ever other than to seek justice in such a thing when looking back. Different situation all together when dealing with children and something happening to them as a child, than the alleged consentual legal aged adults playing around or not playing around as with the Cosby case wouldn't you say ? Now if the women can prove their case, then more power to them I say, but they have to prove it at this stage I would think, and especially due to all the components that are involved in the case. Hec, even the kids are required to prove their case also or have an adult do it for them and/or prove it as an adult themselves when they decide to come forward down the road am I right ? A kid that had something happen to them as a kid, has a lot more going for them in the believability factor, than in a case like the Cosby case wouldn't you say ? I think the proof bar is set higher in the Cosby case, but both cases still have to be proved somehow either way. It's a great thing the Priest were outed like that, and the fall began for them, because the kids deserved justice without a doubt. The women deserve justice if true also, but it is a different case in a lot of ways, and that is my opinion of it.

 

[beagle9]

I think the statute of limitation is in order here, and in using that statute as should be ruled upon, then Cosby ought to be able to sue anyone who brings anything forward that falls before the time period in which the statute was enforced upon by dates or is set forth in which the statute protects one in the case during the dates as is set forth in the statute ruling.

Because rape is excusable?

No because the women can't prove their claim, so who knows if they are telling the truth or just gold diggers really ? I wouldn't want to make that call without having enough evidence or any evidence to back up my claim up, and especially on something that could destroy another persons life. Oh and was their lives destroyed, and can they even prove that to be a part of it all ?

Yeah, cause nearly 20 women cannot be believed over a celebrity multimillionaire....right. It is the typical RW conclusion....

Just because someone is a multimillionaire, does that make them automatically guilty of something in your mind ? Wow, so now we see you are part of the blanket occupy of wall street mentality now, and to hell with individual justice huh ? Hate to break it to you bud, but all Americans are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Desperado]

I don't care who accuses whom of what. Those women need to PROVE it. Kinda hard to do so many years later, ain't it.

I can see your point but did you ask the same question when Catholic priests were accused of sex crimes that happened 25 or 30 years ago?

Hmm (very good point), but when a child tells something or even explains that something had happen to them as a child be it then or even later on, then I don't think that it has the same components involved that this other case would have or does it ? Children have no reason to lie almost always, and when a person is telling something that may have happen to them as a child, then there is usually no gain from this telling what so ever other than to seek justice in such a thing when looking back. Different situation all together when dealing with children and something happening to them as a child, than the alleged consentual legal aged adults playing around or not playing around as with the Cosby case wouldn't you say ? Now if the women can prove their case, then more power to them I say, but they have to prove it at this stage I would think, and especially due to all the components that are involved in the case. Hec, even the kids are required to prove their case also or have an adult do it for them and/or prove it as an adult themselves when they decide to come forward down the road am I right ? A kid that had something happen to them as a kid, has a lot more going for them in the believability factor, than in a case like the Cosby case wouldn't you say ? I think the proof bar is set higher in the Cosby case, but both cases still have to be proved somehow either way. It's a great thing the Priest were outed like that, and the fall began for them, because the kids deserved justice without a doubt. The women deserve justice if true also, but it is a different case in a lot of ways, and that is my opinion of it.

Some of these cases , the charges were brought 25 or 30 years later when the accuser was no longer a child.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I am still a newbie and to be honest I can't stand this multi-quote function, so I'll just respond to various points made and if you are reading my post, hopefully you remember it's you who made the point:

McMartin pre-school and the other cases from the 80s that constituted America's dark period of hysteria involving false allegations of wide-spread child sexual (and other) abuse shouldn't be used as an example in this debate; the coerced testimony of children which has been proved came about due to faulty techniques in child questioning which have since been addressed in how we question kids in such cases today, and is the reason why we record any such questioning of children on video/audio so the defense can see how the children were questioned and cross-examine for bias.

Could we agree to let that one drop? I hope so, as false analogies do nothing to truly support one's position in a debate.

Trying, convicting and executing Cosby in the court of public opinion should drop from this discussion too - he isn't being charged with rape and he is unlikely to ever be charged with rape - I'm not sure where all the alleged incidents are alleged to have occurred, but even if one or more occurred in a jurisdiction without a statute of limitations on rape/sexual assault, it's unlikely a gutless prosecutor would take on a prosecution at this time given they'd be concerned about people on the jury like you folks posting in defense of Cosby the serial rapist.

So, why don't we drop those references from this discussion, too. Cosby's not going to jail. The American public has the same right to judge him based on numerous unanswered charges of sexual assault as we had the right to love him based on his comedy routine and acting roles.

As to statute of limitations, here's a good source for anybody reading who wants to know the laws/limitations in their state regarding sexual assault, rape, incest:

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/DNA Resource Center/sol-for-sexual-assault-check-chart---final---copy.pdf?sfvrsn=2

You might note that the word 'none' appears often on this chart, showing that many states have NO statute of limitations on first degree rape. There are often exceptions to any statute in cases where DNA exists, too. In regard to sexual crimes against children, the statute of limitations either doesn't apply, or is very generous to accommodate the phenomenon of 'delayed outcry' which we in the biz understand very well is very common and NOT a sign that the rape allegation is a fabrication.

For the guy who keeps asking (Pop?) here's a Wiki link:
Statute of limitations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You seem to be looking for a simple answer and there isn't one; Wiki is a good source for legal concepts expressed in a way that is generally understandable. You will note that our sister countries Canada and the UK - who derive their law from the same common law system upon which US law is based - have NO statute of limitations on sex crimes. Many US states have no statute of limitations on sex crimes.

It might be easier for me to ask, what is YOUR point about the statute, which differs depending on type of criminal or civil complaint?

Yes, statutes of limitations were initially designed to protect criminal and civil defendants, but in light of the fact that despite the assertions of those here who watch CSI and base their expectation of the criminal justice system on that fantasy, in most rape cases the only evidence is the testimony of the accuser (and yes, testimony is direct evidence at trial) then what difference does it make if the case is tried one year or twenty years after the incident?

I can tell you that in reality, rape and other sexual assault cases have a 50% acquittal rate nationwide, whether trying a case from last year or twenty years ago - this happens because of the ugly prejudices of jurors that despite careful voir dire, are very hard to overcome in the juror selection process. Rape is one kind of case where a defense attorney is likely to recommend that her client take his chances at trial, unless a very favorable deal is offered by the State - because the defense attorney need only convince one juror to acquit, while the State must convince all 12 to convict.

Why all this? Because of our still largely pathetic social attitudes toward victims of sex crimes, as this thread exhibits.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Folks, Cosby can and very well might be charged with rape.

New York (where most of the allegations stem) has no limitations on rape.

Witness testimony is a valid form of evidence to consider.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with your last statement, but I strongly, completely, believe that only a 'shit house' lawyer would believe it is acceptable to try, convict and sentence someone based on media stories. If there is anything to this, it should be adjudicated in court, not in the media.

What exactly is a 'shit house' lawyer? I'm just curious because I've never heard that term here in the US. Do you have lawyers who practice out of toilets where you live? If so, perhaps that explains your misunderstanding of so much in the law.

For the record, we have 'jailhouse' lawyers here, many of whom are actually pretty darn good in that they've had years to study the law without the demands of an active practice. For the record, this process which is called 'reading' the law, is still an option in lieu of law school in certain states in the US - admittedly, however, very few Bar applicants who skipped law school are able to pass the Bar exam.

Perhaps by now you've read my other post and understand that I'm not advocating trying, convicting or sentencing Cosby the serial rapist based on evidence before the court of public opinion - but I believe we are all capable of making a judgment based on the evidence presented thus far that he is a scumbag who no longer deserves our admiration in any form.

As to your underlying insinuation that I just suck and haven't a clue: I earned my JD at one of the most prestigious US law schools; I learned the criminal law specifically from a professor there named Samuel Dash, who was a lion in American criminal jurisprudence - he prosecuted President Richard Nixon in the Senate Watergate proceedings, but also founded the Harvard Defenders when he was a law student. He also for many years was affiliated with the American Criminal Law Review, a publication of my alma mater and the definitive resource for scholarship in US criminal law.

Please don't waste your energy questioning my credentials; if I cared about your opinion I would happily provide you with the info necessary to 'prove' who I am. I'm not ashamed about anything I've said here, especially not about calling you a ****, because there are certain women in this world whose mindset is so destructive to their sisters that they fully deserve such a designation, IMHO.

 

[Sarah G]

Folks, Cosby can and very well might be charged with rape.

New York (where most of the allegations stem) has no limitations on rape.

Witness testimony is a valid form of evidence to consider.

Explain that to all of the pretend lawyers we have in this thread. Good grief, Cosby is afraid of something, he isn't even allowed to speak.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not ALL but a lot of them are really nutty:

Comedians score high on psychotic traits

Perhaps the reason comedians make us laugh is because they show high levels of psychotic traits, suggests new research from the University of Oxford in the UK.

They also score high on introverted and extroverted personality traits, say the researchers.

Writing in the latest online issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers explain how the popular belief that creativity is linked to madness has led to many studies, yet despite comedy being a prime example of creativity, little research has been done specifically on comedy and humor.

Co-author Gordon Claridge, Emeritus Professor of Abnormal Psychology at Oxford's department of Experimental Psychology, describes what they found:

"The creative elements needed to produce humour are strikingly similar to those characterising the cognitive style of people with psychosis - both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

But while schizophrenic psychosis itself can be detrimental to humor, its lesser form can help people "think outside the box" and associate ideas in odd or unusual ways, he explains, and adds:

"Equally, manic thinking, which is common in people with bipolar disorder, may help people combine ideas to form new, original and humorous connections."

Comedians score high on psychotic traits - Medical News Today

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

No , I'm playing devil advocate. You are part of the lynch mob. I need more before putting the noose around the mans neck

Dear Pop23 i think the mistake being made is forcing people to take one side over the other.
Nobody on either side has to be demonized.

If the man has a sickness, then he needs to get help. that is not a bad thing to come out and get it resolved.
Gee whiz, if people are applauded as heroes for coming out gay, or for using their disabilities to encourage others to get help,
when are we going to encourage and reward people with sickness for admitting and getting help instead of stigmatizing it.

I think all people should work together and address this openly and honestly.
where all the people get help and find healing and closure, especially anyone
who is sick, whether Cosby or Clinton or whoever.

Carrie Fisher came out and talks openly about her manic depression although her addictive behavior
was kept hush hush for the sake of the image of Star Wars.

Why can't Cosby Clinton or whoever come out and be first to de-stigmatize whatever
addictions or sickness they might have and encourage others to get help and not hide it while causing harm to more victims?

 

[Pop23]

Folks, Cosby can and very well might be charged with rape.

New York (where most of the allegations stem) has no limitations on rape.

Witness testimony is a valid form of evidence to consider.

The DA will have to make that judgement based on evidence, let's hope it's not made because of public pressure. To do so wastes time and resources.

 

[Pop23]

Cool article (no really, I mean that)

Where do those that have been found to falsely accuse fall on that scale?

They don't fall anywhere Pop, they're just plain ole victims.

Wouldn't a false accusser HAVE a victim, not be a victim?

You may think you are the one to solve this all by yourself but so many women with the same story? Seems just a little questionable, imo.

No , I'm playing devil advocate. You are part of the lynch mob. I need more before putting the noose around the mans neck

Dear Pop23 i think the mistake being made is forcing people to take one side over the other.
Nobody on either side has to be demonized.

If the man has a sickness, then he needs to get help. that is not a bad thing to come out and get it resolved.
Gee whiz, if people are applauded as heroes for coming out gay, or for using their disabilities to encourage others to get help,
when are we going to encourage and reward people with sickness for admitting and getting help instead of stigmatizing it.

I think all people should work together and address this openly and honestly.
where all the people get help and find healing and closure, especially anyone
who is sick, whether Cosby or Clinton or whoever.

Carrie Fisher came out and talks openly about her manic depression although her addictive behavior
was kept hush hush for the sake of the image of Star Wars.

Why can't Cosby Clinton or whoever come out and be first to de-stigmatize whatever
addictions or sickness they might have and encourage others to get help and not hide it while causing harm to more victims?

I am playing devils advocate only.

I do not know if he is or is not as he is accused, yet the thought that he MUST be guilty over a couple of news reports is odd.

If that were the case, who needs courts?

 

[Pop23]

Folks, Cosby can and very well might be charged with rape.

New York (where most of the allegations stem) has no limitations on rape.

Witness testimony is a valid form of evidence to consider.

Explain that to all of the pretend lawyers we have in this thread. Good grief, Cosby is afraid of something, he isn't even allowed to speak.

You understand that the wise man listens to his attorney.

You get that? Right?

 

[Pop23]

I agree with your last statement, but I strongly, completely, believe that only a 'shit house' lawyer would believe it is acceptable to try, convict and sentence someone based on media stories. If there is anything to this, it should be adjudicated in court, not in the media.

What exactly is a 'shit house' lawyer? I'm just curious because I've never heard that term here in the US. Do you have lawyers who practice out of toilets where you live? If so, perhaps that explains your misunderstanding of so much in the law.

For the record, we have 'jailhouse' lawyers here, many of whom are actually pretty darn good in that they've had years to study the law without the demands of an active practice. For the record, this process which is called 'reading' the law, is still an option in lieu of law school in certain states in the US - admittedly, however, very few Bar applicants who skipped law school are able to pass the Bar exam.

Perhaps by now you've read my other post and understand that I'm not advocating trying, convicting or sentencing Cosby the serial rapist based on evidence before the court of public opinion - but I believe we are all capable of making a judgment based on the evidence presented thus far that he is a scumbag who no longer deserves our admiration in any form.

As to your underlying insinuation that I just suck and haven't a clue: I earned my JD at one of the most prestigious US law schools; I learned the criminal law specifically from a professor there named Samuel Dash, who was a lion in American criminal jurisprudence - he prosecuted President Richard Nixon in the Senate Watergate proceedings, but also founded the Harvard Defenders when he was a law student. He also for many years was affiliated with the American Criminal Law Review, a publication of my alma mater and the definitive resource for scholarship in US criminal law.

Please don't waste your energy questioning my credentials; if I cared about your opinion I would happily provide you with the info necessary to 'prove' who I am. I'm not ashamed about anything I've said here, especially not about calling you a ****, because there are certain women in this world whose mindset is so destructive to their sisters that they fully deserve such a designation, IMHO.

Oh, I'm a jailhouse lawyer aye?

Now that only attorneys are allowed comment, those wanting to hang the darn vermin, I'll sign out.

Sky, if you come into another thread and want it all to yourself, just say so, don't just beat around the bush

Adios amigos

 

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with your last statement, but I strongly, completely, believe that only a 'shit house' lawyer would believe it is acceptable to try, convict and sentence someone based on media stories. If there is anything to this, it should be adjudicated in court, not in the media.

What exactly is a 'shit house' lawyer? I'm just curious because I've never heard that term here in the US. Do you have lawyers who practice out of toilets where you live? If so, perhaps that explains your misunderstanding of so much in the law.

For the record, we have 'jailhouse' lawyers here, many of whom are actually pretty darn good in that they've had years to study the law without the demands of an active practice. For the record, this process which is called 'reading' the law, is still an option in lieu of law school in certain states in the US - admittedly, however, very few Bar applicants who skipped law school are able to pass the Bar exam.

Perhaps by now you've read my other post and understand that I'm not advocating trying, convicting or sentencing Cosby the serial rapist based on evidence before the court of public opinion - but I believe we are all capable of making a judgment based on the evidence presented thus far that he is a scumbag who no longer deserves our admiration in any form.

As to your underlying insinuation that I just suck and haven't a clue: I earned my JD at one of the most prestigious US law schools; I learned the criminal law specifically from a professor there named Samuel Dash, who was a lion in American criminal jurisprudence - he prosecuted President Richard Nixon in the Senate Watergate proceedings, but also founded the Harvard Defenders when he was a law student. He also for many years was affiliated with the American Criminal Law Review, a publication of my alma mater and the definitive resource for scholarship in US criminal law.

Please don't waste your energy questioning my credentials; if I cared about your opinion I would happily provide you with the info necessary to 'prove' who I am. I'm not ashamed about anything I've said here, especially not about calling you a ****, because there are certain women in this world whose mindset is so destructive to their sisters that they fully deserve such a designation, IMHO.

Oh, I'm a jailhouse lawyer aye?

Now that only attorneys are allowed comment, those wanting to hang the darn vermin, I'll sign out.

Sky, if you come into another thread and want it all to yourself, just say so, don't just beat around the bush

Adios amigos

Drama Queen much?

Piss off if you like, stay if you like. Don't blame it on me that I defended myself to that idiot Esmerelda.

I'm perfectly happy to hear your position on the statute of limitations, and perfectly happy to continue trying to educate folks in this thread, because I think the misconceptions about our system and about rape are truly in need of a counter-weight from someone who works it the actual trenches of the US criminal injustice system every single day.

If you don't agree, simply place me on ignore. No need to drama queen a huffy exit with a finger pointed at me.