I’ve just had an interesting conversation with New Zealander Peter Joyce, the author of Dry Ice, which documents the seven-month ordeal which followed a false allegation of historical rape. Peter, a retired English teacher, first heard about the allegation when a detective turned up at the door and announced Peter had been accused a rape by a daughter of a friend – whom he had never met. It turned out that she had accused her father of repeatedly and systematically raping her in her childhood and recruiting his friends, including Peter, to do the same.
The discourse by Peter between 8:50 and 11:00 minutes resonated the most with me; over the past 6 years of Hague and FC hell, my ex's story has constantly changed to suit the audience, with many of the more recent allegations and assertions now contradicting not just themselves but the physical evidence. Yet the bench maintained /maintains a high degree of cognitive dissonance so as to be able to concurrently use mutually exclusive evidence to substantiate orders that enable and privilege the mother.... the facts in the matter that were proved "beyond reasonable doubt" were deemed irrelevant by the trial judge, while her contradictory lies were deemed to be true "based on the balance of probability".
Another fascinating interview. Thanks.
The discourse by Peter between 8:50 and 11:00 minutes resonated the most with me; over the past 6 years of Hague and FC hell, my ex's story has constantly changed to suit the audience, with many of the more recent allegations and assertions now contradicting not just themselves but the physical evidence. Yet the bench maintained /maintains a high degree of cognitive dissonance so as to be able to concurrently use mutually exclusive evidence to substantiate orders that enable and privilege the mother.... the facts in the matter that were proved "beyond reasonable doubt" were deemed irrelevant by the trial judge, while her contradictory lies were deemed to be true "based on the balance of probability".