Yup, a historic judgement indeed--right up there with the Calcutta High Court’s ingenuous order declaring that “Water is Not Dry”.
Actually, if you read the piece, it does explain things in a fairly coherent manner. The wife claims that her ex-husband had “forceful intercourse” with her, which the court did not believe and hence did not uphold her accusation of rape.
However, somewhere in the need for a Headline, common sense did get raped.
6 comments:
You are obviously behind the times.
All sex is rape
And while I am at it,
All rape is love
Har har, smuggity smug!
Seriously though, I am having trouble following the court's "argument" here. How does "I went there to see my son" >obviously translate into "I went there to have sex with my ex-husband and later implicate him like a law-savvy black widow spider"?
Yeah, the very same thought occurred to me too, but maybe they couldn't capture all the details in such a small space or maybe in cases where it's one persons's word against the other's, this sort of nebulous shit needs to be considered or mabe the Judge is a plain old idiot.
Still laughing my guts out!!! OMG this is priceless
Hahaha... LMAO!
Sounds like one person's word against another's. Such cases must be tough for the courts.
In words of Hamilton Burger (the much abused character in Perry Mason novels),"Your Honor,I very much believe the conclusion of this case is based solely on hearsay"
Post a Comment