[QUOTE=Huerta88]
I said I would post on why LWCM’s background should have informed any reasonable investigator as to the plausibility of her claims.
-
Her criminal record (which included auto theft). Theft is a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which is generally regarded as a basis for impeaching witness credibility. Theft is a crime that implicitly involves lying, as driving around in a car you do not own amounts to a false representation that you have a right to own it.
-
Her history of making unprovable gang-rape accusations.
-
Her evident habitiual (and on the night of the party, acute) abuse of alcohol and/or other substances notorious for clouding recall.
-
Her involvement in the sex trade.
“But wait! It’s unfair to say polyamorous women are whores!”
(a) Crystal is not a whore because she played vassal to both Thor and Chronos at the RenFair. She is a whore because she sold her body, in one form or another, for money. Whatever **catsix** defended in the realm of female sexual adventurousness, I doubt it was turning tricks at the Holiday Inn Express.
(b) I was the one who said strippers and hookers were disingenuous by trade, and I stick by it -- they feign affection and stimulation to lonely desperate men. That's fake. Liars are also fake.
(c) Most sex trade workers are paid largely in cash. That must cause the biggest accounting headaches when tax time comes! Crystal must really be sweating that 1040 right about now!
In reality, as with most borderline economies, the sex trade is rife with tax evaders and other criminal liars. People rarely violate one law, or one social norm. It's usually none, or many.
(d) Strippers, whores, et al., are statistical outliers -- most women (statistically) don't show their wares to all sund sundry. At the first level, that just tells us they're build different.
But it turns out the precepts of legal evidence are based on the mainstream, not on the outliers. Excited utterances and dying declarations are allowed into evidence even when the utterer or declarer isn't around, because we assume that "most" excited or dying people won't have the craft to lie.
Similarly, eyewitness testimony is generally granted some (not conclusive) value. This is because of a rough-cut assumption that "most" people will have fairly accurate perceptions of what happened, and will fairly-accuratley and truthfully report them. It's an estimate, but it works, for "most" witnesses.
But given that "most" people (just numerically) are not promiscuous strippers/whores, and "most" don't get trashed out of their minds, I have no problem with putting aside a presumptive belief in "eyewitness only" testimony when the testifying witness is significantly different in kind from the "most" of us on which the model was built.
It’s not that difficult to see why.
[/QUOTE]
Georgina Beyer was a transexual stripper/prostitute. Her life changed forever when, working as a prostitute in Sydney’s King Cross, she was raped by four men in the back of a car.
Georgina didn’t go to the police: back in those days prostitutes weren’t commonly believed in cases of rape, because of the sort of beliefs that you are espousing. Fortunately for the world, Georgina didin’t let values such as yours govern her life. In 1995, she became the worlds first transexual Mayor, and in the year 2000, she became the world’s first transexual Member of Parliament. In 2003 Tim Barnett MP introduced the Prostitution Law Reform Bill, and Georgina gave the following speech in support or that bill:
[QUOTE=Originally Posted by GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa)]
: I rise to make my contribution to the third reading of this bill, which I support. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the members of this Parliament for a considered and varied debate from both sides and both points of view. Along with that, I congratulate supporters of both sides of the argument for their contribution, which expresses a fair view from both sides of the nation. I particularly congratulate and pay great credit to Tim Barnett, who has had the courage and commitment to see this bill through to this most important point.
I support the bill, because, as everybody knows, I have had experience in the sex industry—and I am the only member of this Parliament to have had it. If I had had a law like this to protect me and give me some teeth for redress when I was 16 and 17 years old—even on entering into the sex industry—then I might have been spared the 5 or so years I spent in that industry. Barriers would have been created against people who would coerce those under 18 to enter the sex industry in the first place. I support this bill for all the prostitutes I have ever known who have died before the age of 20 because of the inhumanity and hypocrisy of a society that would not ever give them the chance to redeem whatever circumstances made them arrive in that industry.
This bill provides some of that protection. It provides people like me at that time with some form of redress for the brutalisation that might happen when a client pulls a knife. The horror of that situation is that it could be a life and death one—one does not know—but it would have been nice to know that instead of having to deal out justice afterwards to that person myself, I might have been able to approach the authorities—the police in this case—and say: “I was raped, and, yes, I’m a prostitute, and, no, it was not right that I should have been raped, because I said no, and it was not paid attention to.”
I think of all the people I have known in that area who have suffered because of the hypocrisy of our society, which, on the one hand, can accept prostitution, while, on the other hand, wants to push it under the carpet and keep it in the twilight world that it exists in. We are bringing prostitution reform into the light with some of what is proposed in this bill, and the criminal element does not necessarily like to be standing in the glare of greater public influence over how an industry like this might be conducted within our society. It is about accepting that that occurs, and it is about accepting the fact that the people who work in this industry deserve some human rights. I plead with those members in this House who are wavering right up to the wire, to think, for heaven’s sake, of the people of whom I have just spoken, including myself, who might be spared some of the hideous nature of the way society treats prostitutes—because that is here with us.
But if one does have fears, this legislation will be reviewed in 5 years to see how it is operating and whether it is effective. If this bill passes tonight, in 5 years we will be able to reassess its worth. That is something that those who are wavering should be comforted by. But to do nothing now would be irresponsible of this Parliament, because the status quo would remain, and that is unacceptable. This is our one chance in perhaps 20 years to do something. Whatever side of the argument we take, I know we all come from a humanitarian point of view, but I beg members to consider the side I am on, and the side many others in this House are on also. It is the side I consider to be right. It does not diminish, in my opinion, the opinions of those who are against this bill, because some valid points have been made, but not to address this issue now, with this possibility, is not right.
I will conclude by saying that right now we have a sex industry, and we have legislation based on an outmoded double standard. Let us change, please, the part we can.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2003_06_25.htm#_Toc67114307
above quotation from hansard at New Zealand Parliament, reprinted under Section 27 of the copyright act.
…prostitution is now legal in New Zealand, and while there is still a way to go, attitudes have and are changing in the NZ Police force.
This case has nothing to do with prostitution or race or criminal history. It has everything to do with a prosecutor who decided to make a name for himself, a women who has made a false allegation, and the evidence. There absolutely should be outrage over this case: but slagging off prostitutes? You have made a great attempt to make prostitutes sound like bad people, not only are they liars who prey on “lonely desperate men,” but they are also evil tax evaders too! I’ve known prostitutes who were liars, and prostitutes who were true ladies: oddly enough they fit the demographic norms of most everybody else I know.
Georgina is one of the most amazing ladies I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, she was also a former prostitute, or as you would call it, “a whore.” I do know who I hold her in complete respect: you, not so much. And I’m sure thats not difficult to see why…