So according to a police brigade, my statements are incredible, implausible... They therefore refused to accept my testimony.
I say I was put in cages with dogs around.
Here is an article that relates the fact that a two-year-old child was found in a cage:
Other cases:
I say I underwent an exorcism session.
Here are some articles that talk about exorcised children:
Exorcism is a common practice in many religions including Catholicism:
I say I was raped when I was two years and two months old.
Un soldat russe arrêté après le viol d'un bébé : l'escalade de l'horreur en Ukraine (yahoo.com)
I speak in my testimony of a woman with three breasts, one of which is tiny under her arm, of an African albino and of a man with six fingers.
Having a supernumerary breast exists: Troisieme sein, troisieme mamelon ou troisième teton : c'est quoi ? (chirurgiedusein.net)
Having more than 5 fingers on the hand exists:Polydactylie (info-radiologie.ch)
And African albinos also exist: Afrique : les albinos persécutés - AlloDocteurs
But are they so incredible and implausible????
I know other cases don't show for me!
But it would be good for society in general to stop refusing to hear testimonies on the pretext that it is too far removed from their own reality, their education or their own childhood. That instead of instinctively governing by refusal and negation, allegations of "induced memories", the police and the justice system at least listen to the testimonies before decreeing that an investigation is not necessary...
Normally this is not their role. The role of the police is to look for evidence. The role of the forensic psychiatrist is to say whether the victim and the accused have psychiatric disorders, whether their speech holds up or not and advise the judge on his verdict and the sentence to be imposed or not and whether the complaint seems coherent in relation to to the interviews he conducted. But the psychiatrist cannot do it by reading in a crystal ball, normally he should meet the people and it is after a long interview that he can write his conclusions. In a human and normal world, it should be like this.
And unfortunately this is not the case.
No. Instead we have brigades that select complaints for lack of time and resources. Psychiatrists who give diagnoses and assert "truths" or rather personal beliefs without even seeing the complainants or talking to them.
Justice. Is this word still valid?
“Justice is a fundamental philosophical, legal and moral principle: according to this principle, human actions must be approved or rejected according to their merit in terms of morality (the good), right, virtue or any other standard for judging behavior Justice, a principle of universal scope, varies according to culture Justice is an ideal often considered fundamental to social life and civilisation.
Within a State, justice is a set of institutions (police, courts, prisons, etc.) which impose the rule of law, without any necessary link to the philosophical principle. It is considered fundamental to enforce the laws of the authority in place, legitimate or not. Justice is supposed to punish anyone who does not respect the law with a sanction intended to teach him the law and sometimes to contribute to the repair of harm done to others, to private or common heritage or to the environment." (Source Justice — Wikipedia (wikipedia.org))
What if the victims' right to say is violated? If their testimony is conditioned?
Is this still "fair"?