While the jury takes a break this weekend from deliberations, no verdict yet, I thought I would take advantage of the quiet period to collect my thoughts in a stream of consciousness video posted at the bottom of this journal. While there are more points I wish I could have added or elaborated on, my goal was to focus on the root problem of quality of evidence in the Harvey Weinstein case. I've also posted links to some of the trial transcripts so you can see for yourself how lacking in quality the prosecution's case is. I was relying on CourtTV's repository of daily transcript uploads until they recently removed the links from their page.  The transcripts I did download stayed in my browser history so I was able to recollect those, however the transcripts I never did download are missing from the list below.

What is the penile plethysmograph, or PPG testing? In this introduction to my new series, "Sex Offender Treatment and Maintaining Innocence" I explain what penile plethysmograph testing is (a.k.a phallometric testing or PPG testing).

I was recently invited for an interview by Honey Badger Radio's Doge in Charge, Brian Martinez. We had an in depth conversation about feminism in the legal system, false accusations and the MeToo movement. The full interview is in the video below. Watch all the way through to learn what shocked viewers the most.

Any criminal defense lawyer will tell you that a majority of sex crime cases that run through the courts are 'she said/he said' cases. What that means is that there is no proof a crime occurred. Or no corroborating evidence that a crime occurred. Only the word of the accuser and the denial of the accused. In essence these are what a reasonably minded person would consider weak cases that should never make it into a courtroom. In the video below I discuss why and how some prosecutors will take weak cases, prosecutorial ethics and discretion, reasonable prospect of conviction, feminism influence and how it can all lead to wrongful convictions of the innocent accused.

Both the accused and the complainant admitted to consensual heavy petting while on a cot, high on drugs  inside of a tent after having met at an outdoor music festival. The woman claimed she said 'no' to penetration, but that when he positioned himself on top of her he did not stop and briefly penetrated her before stopping. The man's defense was that he did not penetrate her at all and did indeed stop when she said 'no'. His conviction was overturned on the basis that the trial judge did not properly apply the credibility assessment when using the W(D) test to the plausibility of both claims. My discussion on this case is in the video below.

Case Study #1: Judge Ignores Major Inconsistencies
A man was accused of historical sexual abuse against a child while he was a minor and was tried in a youth court as a result. The complainant was an adult at the time of the complaint and her evidence mainly relied on the inference that she had a bed wetting problem as a result of ongoing sexual abuse. It was a judge-only trial. The appeal panel found the trial judge failed to resolve major inconsistencies when accepting the account of the complainant as true. My discussion on this case is in the video below.

As we are seeing more and more in the media (mainstream and social), many sex crime claims based solely on uncorroborated verbal testimony actually find their way into courtrooms. These types of claims seem to proceed through the legal system as believed to be true, unless proven otherwise. The removal of the corroboration requirement in the 1980s is mainly what paved the way to allow such flimsy claims to waste government resources and livelihoods of the innocent accused in Canadian courtrooms. When an innocent man (or woman) is accused of such a crime with no supporting evidence, it becomes a classic game of clue for the innocent accused to first figure why the accuser (male or female) would make such a claim. Although the general belief is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof to prove their case

The hypocrisy of Canadian media publishing an American Associated Press article entitled “Trump claims Obama had his phones wiretapped, no proof cited” astounds me. It is an astonishing example of the selectiveness of what type of claim demands proof. In this case, any chance the media gets to corner President Trump into admitting he may be making a false claim is an acceptable opportunity to demand proof. All the while, the same media outlets will generously, and without question, publish claims of sexual assault or historical sexual abuse without demanding proof. Claims of sexual assaults and abuse are published daily with the tone that the allegation is true. For example, “there may be more victims” or “the suspect has been charged and the investigation is ongoing” or “it is unclear where the sexual assault took

It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the Canadian judicial system be impugned. I adapt this quote from the same quote referring to English law by the English lawyer, Lord Denning. Lord Denning, out of concern for a discourse within the English justice system, adapted this from Benjamin Franklin’s original and proper quote, “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. As typical with today’s Social Justice Warrior complaints, there were comments or words taken out of context in the case at the heart of the Judge Robin Camp controversy. This controversy revolves around bringing the Canadian justice system into disrepute. However it is the feminist social justice warriors of the ‘scholarly’ kind that are worried about their ideology not convicting enough men.

Most people never expect to have cops show up at their door or workplace unannounced to arrest them for a sex crime they know they did not commit. Most people don’t understand what legal procedures are set in motion once an arrest is made. Most people also assume that if they are arrested for a sex crime they didn’t commit, a lawyer will magically swoop in and save you from ridiculous charges before the situation gets out of hand. Well, this might happen for a person that is already armed with a highly proficient and available lawyer. But what ends up happening in reality is that you find yourself not getting any helpful information or guidance from anybody while you sit in an interrogation room across from a police officer who believes you’re guilty while you know you’re innocent.