Thursday, July 7, 2011

7/7 - Prudecutorial Misconduct

Concerning the Monday LW with the friend having an affair with a married man, there was an obvious course of action available.  Top it.  Have an affair with the friend's brother.  Or sister.  Or mother.  Or all three at once.  That would show her and how.

Quick Thoughts for a week with much improved letters:

L2:  An intervention?  Oh, good grief.  I am fine with LW2 and H2 always being present when the G2s see C2, but what a way to overreact.  Not that I'd have a problem in theory with the prospect of no alcoholic ever getting behind the wheel of a car again if it could be implemented in a reasonable and proper manner, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

L3:  Smarmy?  I would like to get BF3 on the witness stand and cross-examine him about that very possibility, but it's a bit thin just to assert it and hope it flies.  I would not, for instance, care to try the tactic of not bringing it up in cross-examination and then mentioning it in my closing remarks to the jury.  One does get a sense that perhaps BF3 enjoysn keeping LW3 in a state of pain that he has caused, or that perhaps LW3 enjoys giving that impression.  LW3 has ample cause to leave if she feels so inclined - does she really want to or does she prefer being in the position of having people tell her to leave?  As for what she might do, murder is always an excellent way to get rid of these horrible feelings.  Murder him and frame her for it, and that's killing two birds with one stone.

L4:  Well, if it would be a new paradigm one would have to present to 3YO4, does not the fault lie in LW4's lack of foresight in the presentation of the old paradigm?  After all, marriage equality did not suddenly spring into being in New York without precedent.  Before 3YO4 was even NB4, there was Massachusetts.  And there have been other neighbouring states besides - assuming LW4 is a New Yorker (and probably one of that insular sort who thinks that baseball begins at Yankee Stadium and ends at Shea, or, far importantly, that tennis is played only on hard courts at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Centre and never anywhere else now that the grass courts at Forest Hills are no longer in use).  It's like the episode of Cheers when Carla joins a dating service and the men invent a hunk and send his response to her ad, only to be brought up short when she rejects a real man interested in her for not measuring up to the hunk.  The men wonder why they never saw it coming, only to be reminded by Diane that each year they never saw winter coming.  I would like to cross-excamine LW4 on the depth of support for marriage equality.  It would not surprise me if LW4 knew the right PC jargon to spout, but secretly would always vote against equality in order not to have to explain it to 3YO4.  One knows so many of that ilk.

And now:

L1:  Nice Prudecutorial way to shame/blame/disbelieve the victim.  Making a particular point of mentioning that she is going to assume he is speaking the truth [NB:  This would be a fascinating letter for August, as LW1 could actually be a woman, but I suppose the odds are sufficiently overwhelming that we can reasonably apply the M label.] was rather artistic for her.  And a nice way to tell him that she knows better whether or not he's over the experience than he does.  "Justice working swiftly for him"?  Puh-lease.  He was jailed and treated like a rapist for a day - not a long time, but simply because they realized that a charge couldn't possibly succeed does not mean that Justice Worked Swiftly.  Did they even apologize to LW1 or was he let go with the sort of attitude that he "got away with something" that time?  As for therapy, it presumably couldn't hurt, although the wrong therapist could really put his head into a very bad place, but one sees letters all the time to advice columnists from women who have been sexually assaulted, and those who urge therapy on them rather than merely suggesting it if they feel it will help are fried up one side and down the other with the full wrath of those accusing them of victim-blaming.  Why not here?

As far as the question of "when to reveal" goes, I have nothing in particular about LW1 using his own judgement, although I think there could be a case made for leading with it before the first date.  LW1 might tell prospective dates that, if they are wise, they will conduct a background check on him, and that such a background check will or might reveal the accusation.  Some women probably will jump ship at once, but it may work out better that way than have the weight hanging over him of When to Tell for however long things go on beforehand.

X1 reminds me of Lucy Steele.  Knowing her fiance Edward is in love with Elinor, and having abandoned Edward for his brother Robert (armed with Edward's inheritance transferred by their irate mother), Lucy sees Elinor's servant and makes a point of sending "Mrs Ferrars'" best wishes to the Dashwoods, just to cause Elinor what pain she will feel before she learns that Edward is free after all.  LW1 himself reminds me of Linnet Doyle.  Just as she finds Jacqueline de Bellefort following the newlyweds around on their wedding trip intolerable, which Poirot ascribes to her own sense of guilt, I am prepared to cross-examine LW1, however kindly, with the intent to unearth whatever it is about which he feels some morsel of guilt.  It need not be anything to do with the purported rape.  On some level, he may well think that X1 has a legitimate grievance against him.  If so, bring it out and deal with it, or the wheels will just be spinning.

Moral:  "No, it is not beside the point.  I am explaining to you just why the unexpected appearences of Mademoiselle de Bellefort have upset you so much.  It is because, though she may be unwomanly and undignified in what she is doing, you have the inner conviction that she has right on her side."

No comments:

Post a Comment