Monday, May 09, 2016

The Dana Stubblefield Case: When Unscrupulous Prosecutors Play the “Crazy Card” to Get False Convictions

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

This whole situation was set up by feminists. They got “rape shield” laws passed, forbidding defense lawyers from asking rape accusers to testify about their sexual histories, and they came up with completely dishonest, twisted rationalizations for women who had obviously made false rape accusations, and who couldn’t keep their lies straight. Feminists have left no doubt that they seek to railroad innocent men. Indeed, back in 1990, feminist "law" professor Catherine MacKinnon argued that it was necessary to railroad countless innocent men on false rape charges, in order to compensate for every male who had ever gotten away with rape, since the beginning of time.

What Happens When Prosecutors Get into Bed with Crazy?

The risk that an innocent man is indicted increases exponentially.
By Barney Greenwald
May 5, 2016
Community of the Wrongly Accused

Victim Advocates have bemoaned criminal defense attorney's ability to gather the mental health records of complaining witnesses who have accused a man of sexual assault. They say that the release of those records are an invasion of privacy. They say that if criminal defendants are able to access those records, then those who are in need of mental health treatment might not seek it out of fear that it will be disclosed.

However, prosecutors have no qualms about employing forensic psychologists to explain why a complaining witness might act in such a way that seems crazy, or "counterintuitive." Dr. Veronique Valliere has been employed by the district attorneys in Pennsylvania, as well as Special Victim Prosecutors in the Army, to do just that. Even Dr. Valliere, a prosecution witness, admitted under oath at a Court-martial resulting in a full acquittal that studies have shown that women who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorders have a higher risk of making false allegations in a child custody situation during a divorce. (52:17)

So, when Congress passes laws that prohibit defense attorneys from accessing mental health records, then one has to ask, "Why?" The simple answer is that prosecutors can more easily obtain convictions if defense attorneys cannot show that the complaining witness has a borderline personality disorder or mental illness. Over the past 10 years of defending those who have been falsely accused of sexual and physical abuse crimes and following the news regarding the plight of those unfortunate men, I have noticed an absence of any legislator standing up for the rights of the falsely accused, except most recently by a Georgia Legislator.

For instance, the most famous case of a false allegation where the accused had a mental illness was the Duke Lacrosse case. Thankfully, at least one of the accused players had a solid alibi, and none of the players' DNA matched the DNA from the accuser's rape kit, so charges were dismissed and the DA was disbarred.

Some recent cases have been reported that should make one raise an eyebrow and wonder, "Why is the prosecution pursuing this case?" Take for instance, the case of ex-49'r Dana Stubblefield. He was taken down and arrested in front of his children's school, which has to be the worst place to conduct a perp walk. Two months ago, he was questioned and cooperated fully with the police, which makes his arrest at his children's school seem overly aggressive. The DA indicated that the complaining witness was developmentally delayed, but she has been arrested and convicted for crimes in the past and has sued people, acting as her own attorney. Stubblefield alleges that he took a polygraph test showing no deception when stating that the acts between he and the complaining witness were consensual.  Is the DA getting into bed with crazy?

Take the curious case of Major Kit Martin. His assumed "wife" told her oldest son that his father was decapitated in a logging accident. Turns out that the man is alive and still is in possession of his head. She then married another man, did not obtain a divorce, then married MAJ Martin. She pleaded guilty to felony bigamy, but entered a pretrial diversion program where the charges will be dismissed if she stays clean. She made no allegation that she was physically or sexually abused by Martin, initially, but rather she concocted a story with her alleged lover that MAJ Martin was a spy. When MAJ Martin was cleared by Army counterintelligence after a 3 hour polygraph, she then stated that Martin physically and sexually abused her. When her alleged lover, her alleged lover's wife, and their neighbor were found murdered in Pembroke, Kentucky, she told the news that MAJ Martin murdered them. Considering her criminal record and her chaotic lifestyle filled with lies that she has lived, one might wonder why the Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) at Ft. Campbell would feel that she was credible enough to have MAJ Martin charged with the most heinous crime short of murder. Is the SVP getting into bed with crazy?

The results of these cases will be quite interesting, indeed.

barney greenwald
3:04 PM

No comments: