In an interview with former NSW police prosecutor Richard McDonald, BETTINA ARNDT hears about “a system captured by ideology, where police are discouraged from properly investigating sexual assault and domestic violence claims.”
“Let the court decide” is the adopted philosophy, as even the most dubious allegations end up before overworked magistrates, judges and juries who often aren’t presented with the evidence they need to properly assess the validity of these very serious complaints.”
Adds Arndt: “…sexual assault claims and domestic violence allegations – the two crimes now dominating our criminal justice system, largely due to feminist tinkering with our laws to try to ensure more male convictions.”
Bettina Arndt & Richard McDonald
“His revelations blew out of the water some myths being promoted about these crimes – such as the notion that false allegations are rare. In his initial letter to me, Richard explained that, in his role as a legal consultant to the sex crimes squad, he analysed hundreds of sexual assault matters to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction. His startling conclusion: “I provided advice in the range of over 90% not to commence proceedings because of the complicity of women involved in sexual relationships with men and their motives to lie.”
Arndt’s interview with McDonald on Fabricating Rape : McDonald spent 22 years in the police, mainly working as a legal consultant in the sex crimes squad. He’s now a lawyer in private practice in Sydney.
In the same article, Arndt is critical of the fact that the assumption of innocence has been ignored by police and the media, using the example of the recent charges against veteran broadcaster Alan Jones.
“For the #MeToo mob, Jones is the biggest scalp of all. “The left has long despised Jones for his contempt for progressive politics, uncompromising social attitudes and influence over national and state politics,” wrote Aaron Patrick in The Nightly.
Reports Arndt: “The Get Jones campaign is nothing new in my life,” commented Jones last year, as he emphatically denied the allegations when they first surfaced.
“The presumption of Innocence? What a joke. This week we saw the media alerted in advance of Jones’ arrest and public shaming, which allowed the feral journalists and photographers to go on the rampage, staking out his apartment and police station where he was ultimately charged with 24 charges of indecent assault and sexual touching. There have been press conferences, with the Assistant Police Commissioner commenting the bravery of the “victims” and the Commissioner Karen Webb keen to encourage more: “There is no better time to come forward.” Even The Australian descended into the gutter, leading their news with a tragic video of Alan Jones pursued by the media scrum. And now he is out on bail – but under house arrest, which is a most unusual, draconian move, my legal friends inform me.
“We are being shown that no one is safe in a system where accusers are celebrated as victims and allegations suffice for evidence.”
So, what about the Dawson case? Who got away with murder for 40+ years. We all knew he was guilty BUT we had to presume he was innocent. Ppft. We can presume guilty when it’s obvious. The ‘justice ‘ system does NOT always get it right.
Andrew – WCR readers can probably remember the police person who said without shame – “I’ve been in the police for 30 years – I know when someone is guilty !” Was referring to Sue Neill-Fraser. That explains the removal of the DNA blue cloth evidence –
Jones may be 100% guilty or 100% innocent my objection to this story is the standard police tactic used to make it seem worse than it is by inference.
In this case 8 people came forward and 24 charges laid fair enough, HOWEVER then one more person comes forward and “NEW CHARGES” are laid. That is just bullshit of the highest order, police had interviewed all involved and laid charges holding a charge/person back to charge shortly after is just for media hype.
I do not defend Jones, nor do I condemn him without a trial/appeal. My point is that the media has been used with this new charge for no other purpose than to contaminate the jury pool.