Philosophical 11

Your unanswerable question does not need to be answered..... beating my wife. If I had been beating her she would have filled Physical violence...a more serious offence.. She did not. So you can put that one to bed. By mentioning beating my wife shows that you have little understanding of the case against me.

As far as her claim of Economic and Phycological Violence.... she has no evidence. The lies and half truths can be disproved with the evidence I have.

Philosophical 11

Your last sentence... deceptive was felt necessary. I hardly think that deception...or let's get it right...lies will help her case.

Philosophical 11

I cannot see what other accusations can be brought forth. Any accusations she has against me have already been made. Further undisclosed accusations would look suspicious in that they should have been laid bare in her original affidavit. Details of her original accusations... maybe. But she has no proof...and she has no proof because she is lying...

Regards

Gazza-d

Are you considering the cultural aspect here, will any court call her out for lying that would result in her losing face.

Philosophical 11

I really doubt that a court will care if she loses face or not.

Regards

moneypenny20

You're misunderstanding me. The 'beat your wife' question is a common question quoted when discussing unanswerable questions. If you (general not particular) have to answer the question with a yes or no, you (general not particular) can't because whichever answer you (general not particular) give makes you guilty. This is not accusing you, it's an example of proving a negative.

My question was how on earth do you have proof that you haven't abused this woman? You can have evidence of being in a different place when she states you abused her, you can have proof that she's a liar, or that you've been kind and generous over the years etc etc but those things, along with her lack of evidence, don't prove you're innocent of abuse.

BEVS

It is all open to interpretation I suppose. It could be counter claimed that deception or omission was felt necessary because of concern , fear , abuse. Bigamy was not known to be so and that pressure was brought to marry rather than live together.
Now, I am not saying I feel this to be correct or right or proper however anything can be stated when there is no actually evidence. That works both ways for the ( hopefully and supposed) neutral person(s) looking on. It is more usually viewed that somewhere in the middle lays a truth. The balance of doubt.

You have misunderstood Moneypenny P11. She does make a good point . You can say you have not done this however how do you prove you have not.

Someone up thread stated this will be a tit for tat / she said - he said . In which case where will a court's sympathy lay . Someone else wrote it will come to credibility. In which case it likely just comes down to personality and empathic connection on the day.

Philosophical 11

I fail to understand your first paragraph. The beat your wife aspect is neither here nor there and how can it be related to the case against me?

Your second paragraph I have already answered. She has no proof or evidence of anything to prove her case. Guilt is when there is proof. I cannot be convicted of a charge without proof.

old.sparkles

There is not always solid proof - particularly with psychological abuse. It will likely be who spins the most believable version.

She could say you controlled the money, who she could see, kept her from friends / family, you spied on her phone / social media, etc etc. She might even have witnesses to corroborate some of this.

It's a lot harder to prove you didn't do something. So have you stopped psychologically abusing your wife? yes or no?

Philosophical 11

Agree entirely with your last para. However there will be no she said...I said on my part. She has made false accusations...I have proof to show that she is lying.

Going to your second paragraph re MP. The salient point is I can prove I have done nothing wrong with evidence. It is not her word against mine. She has NO evidence of any wrong doing on my part. I suspect her attorney has been led astray by her with her lies.

Regards

Philosophical 11

She has not said anything of the sort that you have described in her affidavit. I The psychological abuse she has alleged is very easily disproved as lies. That will be seen when I lay her case out and my defence with proof on this forum.

Regards

​​​​​

Raffin

I don't think these family courts expect defendants to prove negatives, a difficult thing to do generally and particularly in domestic cases. It's not the court of public opinion where failure to do that can often be seen as guilt. They're dealing a lot of the time with allegations about conduct at home between two people with no witnesses.so they will look at the prosecution's claims and evidence in the light of what they make generally of the person claiming the abuse. If a defendant can easily disprove or cast strong doubt on any of them that will help, as you say being in a different place. etc If a defendant can do that 2 or 3 times that might cast doubt on all the claims. The court will also assess the defendant. Does he look like the type of chap that would do such things?

A couple of days ago I posted a link to an appeal case of policeman Ricky Dinamling. A bit long but worth reading.
He said he wasn't there, but the police station where he worked was only a short distance away. They also distrusted his alibi. But the main reason the court gave for dismissing his appeal was the clear testimony of the live in partner.... " the denial of the accused is a negative assertion that is weaker than the affirmatory testimony of the victim".
This was only one case, but at the appeals level. So I think if the ex's attorney puts forward a clear, strong looking case P11 and his lawyer must cast convincing doubt on it as there seems to be a presumption here, following other countries, that women have to be protected now as they weren't in the past. To do that they must disprove as much as they can of her evidence and also cast doubt on her character, especially her credibility. If they can also prove a negative or two even better.

Philosophical 11

Thanks Raffin.

​​​​​​Going back to the argument about me having to prove otherwise put forward by others let me put forward this scenario......I put a claim that my next door neighbour owes me 100k. I have no proof. My next door neighbour has proof that this is not the case. Why then should my next door neighbour have to prove again that he is not guilty?

Regards

old.sparkles

Debts repaid are easy to prove. That a debt never existed not so easy - particularly if you happened to withdraw the 100k, when your neighbour deposited a similar amount from a source that cannot be declared.

ETA - but this is all by-the-by. As we do not know what claims your 'wife' made, or your defence, it's all speculation. And in my part, it's to hopefully make you wary of being overconfident so that you stay safe and cautious. No one wants to see you lose, given the possible outcomes.

Philosophical 11

Thanks.

But anything can be proved with evidence. But it is principle that is the definitive point.

I have actually shown the allegations against me some time ago with my defence. But I am happy to do that again.

Overconfident....!? Absolutely no chance of that. This is the Philippines!!

Regards