Yes, I’d say that’s pretty good identification evidence

A mother-of-three chopped off her brother-in-law’s genitals before handing them in as evidence at a police station in India.
The 32-year-old woman stunned officers when she entered the station in the Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh, clutching the severed organ.
The woman, who was accompanied by her three children, told officers that it was the only way to stop her brother-in-law attacking her.
The woman was staying with her brother-in-law as her husband worked more than 700 miles away, in Nashik, Maharashtra.
But he had allegedly assaulted her many times while she stayed in his house.
She told police that she faked consent when her brother-in-law attacked her, before hacking off his privates with a sickle.

Obviously, we don’t quite know what but we certainly know who.

13 thoughts on “Yes, I’d say that’s pretty good identification evidence”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    She told police that she faked consent when her brother-in-law attacked her, before hacking off his privates with a sickle.

    Obviously, we don’t quite know what but we certainly know who.

    We can be pretty sure of what a jury would say about the what too. She faked consent. Rape does not exist in her mind, it exists in his. If he had reasonable grounds for thinking she consented, it is not rape. Faking consent looks a lot like reasonable grounds to me.

  2. SMFS, she did claim he had done it numerous times before. So no, not reasonable grounds for thinking she consented. Possibly he just thought she was finally house trained.

    It’s going to be hard to tell now.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Ltw – “she did claim he had done it numerous times before. So no, not reasonable grounds for thinking she consented. Possibly he just thought she was finally house trained. It’s going to be hard to tell now.”

    It is going to be hard to tell. But of course previous sexual acts does not make rape more likely. It makes it much less. They had sex several times before and she did not complain then? Come on. You can never know what a jury is going to do, but this has reasonable doubt all over it. Would you convict if the guy was half way plausible? If he said it was a surprise to him because she consented?

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Only the remotest link but Justice Antonin Scalia has been reported dead.

    This must be the worst news for America since Obama was elected. If Hilary wins they will appoint another abortionist. If Trump wins he will probably appoint his sister. If Sanders wins, he will probably abolish the Court.

    But let’s look on the bright side, the Republicans being true to form will probably be unable to delay confirmation until Obama leaves office. So he may well appoint himself. Or only slightly worse, Michelle.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    A citation for a question?

    But he had allegedly assaulted her many times while she stayed in his house.

    She might have taken his testicles to the police after each and every sexual assault. But I doubt it. Given the story doesn’t seem to mention any prior complaints to the police, it seems reasonable to assume there were no prior reports.

  6. A citation for a question?

    It seemed like a question with an implicit claim. A plain old question would be,
    “Did she complain or resist when he tried to have sex with her before?”

    Given the story doesn’t seem to mention any prior complaints to the police, it seems reasonable to assume there were no prior reports.

    Seems unreasonable to me to assume either way, but YMMV.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Seems unreasonable to me to assume either way, but YMMV.”

    It doesn’t to me. If she had been in complaining every week for the past six months, the police might not have been so surprised.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “It might be (and again it might not be) that the police didn’t take her prior complaints seriously – that isn’t unheard of.”

    That is the point. The media only have three or four stories. They just switch between them from time to time. When it comes to rape and the police, their main story is “poor innocent girl goes to the police, the evil police ignore her”. That is the one they always go for if they can. If they have not gone there this time, it must be only because they cannot. She did not previously file a complaint. Or at least that is a reasonable assumption.

  9. It’s a 200 word report of a 200 word report in another paper, essentially saying “this woman did X and claims Y,” neither report contains any investigative work. There’s nowt in there to have an opinion either way about whether she made previous complaints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *