This Pretty Much Sums Up The Domestic Violence Climate In WA State

you know me....
I'm digging just a weeeeee bit deeper....

"Court records show a troubled history between Matczak and the woman, with whom he had a daughter."

"Matczak's record of domestic violence against the woman dates to May 2005. He pleaded guilty to felony violation of a domestic violence in 2006, admitting to beating, choking and gouging her with his fingernails repeatedly in a three-day period."
In court documents, King County Sheriff's Detective James Belford said Matczak "demonstrated a pattern of assaults ... causing injury and pain" and held her "against her will ... standing guard over her to ensure she does not leave."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/373819_issaquah07.html

I'm not sure who's describing him in your post....But an admission of guilt...and providing details as shown above...indicate to me that she has a damn good case of self defence....

You know, I realize that there is a serious miscarriage of justice for men in general when it comes to DV. But when I see you post this stuff...I'm 1/2 inclined to post the 10+ per day murders of women by men...ya know? To the degree that you want people to acknowledge the inequality...which I agree with...I also want you to understand why the focus for women is so intense and extreme.

In today's news I have already read of 3 women murdered by partners or ex's as well as a man who stabbed to death 2 children...and stabbed and wounded 10 others as well as murdering 2 women. Lets not ignore the Va. Tech beheadding of a young grad student...by a male....etc.......etc.......etc...................................................

I think it's important that we remain open or at least suspend judgement until the facts of the case are in. "By all accounts" is not a fact. However, what's entered into the court records is considered fact. He has ADMITTED to torturing this woman...and has a long history of abusingher...yet your "By all accounts" makes this guy out to be a saint.
He's not.
He was a woman beater...and from what I can see.......so far.......he got what he deserved.

You can believe what you want to Lynn, but here is what she posted on her MySpace page after killing him. She immediately took it down when I offered to interview her:

This is a picture of her holding his child and was directed at his family. Nobody deserves to die. In that deal, Tomasz pled out to trumped up charges as most men do in cases like that. She utilized her control to get the upper hand. This is called blaming the victim, which is taboo in the DV Industry. Please read the story to the end. You were on my site only 29 seconds.

As for the children's deaths. women are much more likely to kill children than men.

Besides, the message here is not about the specifics as much as it is about a system completely out of control. There would've been an arrest and jail time by now had the genders been reversed.

And, BTW, this woman is bad news.

Here are comments from the website dedicated to his death:

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/edgewood-wa/T3EMCCCEJKHLVRRM5

Tom was a very good person that had a lot going for himself in life. He was a very loving and caring father to his daughter. What the news is saying about him that he had asssaulted here numerous time is false. She has perpously injured herself numerous times to try to get him in trouble. He will be missed by me and lots of people that knew him as the good father and person he was . It is very unfortunate that this had to happen to someone that had everything going for him. His daughter is left without a father to give her the life he had planned for her. My condolences go out to his family and I hope that they will be able to get through this tragedy knowing that their son was a loving son, father, and friend. We will all miss him dearly. May God take care of him now. We love you.

Please. I encourage you to dig deeper.

1.) You are getting your info from friends...whom I do not expect to A) Say nasty things or B) Know or have experienced him in a domestic setting....

2.) You are claiming that every single admission of guilt has been a miscarriage of justice. Every single one. I do notbelieve for one solitary second that that is true in any shape or form...not in this case.

3.) You are claiming that his lengthy history which is codefied in the courts...is incorrect and nothing but lies. Again, I have good reason to doubt this. Not to mention the fact that you have provided absolutly no evidence to support your claim, you are merely posting it as your opinion.

4.) Her site shows her last visit as Jan 1/09...with the "haha fuck you".... There is a problem with your claim...and the date on the MySpace photo you posted. You claim she wrote this "right after" she killed him...and then removed it immediately. There is a discrepancy in your claim, namely 4 months.

As for the length of time I visited your site, you are correct, I closed it after I clicked on your link...which in turn gave me the link to the Pi site from which I quoted the information about his lengthy history of domestic violence, his repeated admissions of guilt, the fact that police responded and saw what they saw...the fact that shehad respoted him hitting her with a vehicle...and prosecution was still deciding if they should lay charges against her and him. I provided that link...for further info. I am more inclined to believe that link because it's not filled with a load of biased shit from family and friends etc. It's factual...only speaks of fact...and doesn't "take a side".

I've dug as deep as I'm going to. I prefer to look at the info...not the opinion.

eg. My opinion of Saddam is that he was a great man to women. Fact - History shows us that it wasnot until he became the ruler of Iraq that women were finally treated with respect and dignity. Fact - Women in Iraq enjoyed more respect than women anywhere else onthe planet while Saddam was alive.

I base my opinion on historical fact (that few people chose to actually look up) If I did not provide the info...which is fact...I would not have anything but my opinion.
While all the "evidence" Bush has presented leads one to ONLY believe he's a murderer - it seems most people are quite happy allowing others' to form their opinion based on heresay...rather than fact.

Did that make sense? lol

My point is, if I believed every opinion re: DV on here...I would have to conclude that women are nothing but evil bitches who beat men and get away with it - all the while making ONLY false claims about men abusing them.

I believe that women are evil and so are men when it comes to DV. I believe that women are killed far more often than are men in DV situations...and the numbers and history back up my statement. I believe that women are just as frequently if not more-so violent towards men...and men do not report, the system is structured to turn a blind eye to women violence against men and there is an equality issue. I believe that this man was murdered because she had enough of being beat and - by his own admission - tortured...at his hands. I believe that if what she says is true...and if all the evidence supports that - then he got what he deserved.
I will not take into account family and friends' comments because Saddams family and friends loved him too...It's biased...and rightfully so. But it's not evidence of anything except a persons' opinion...a person who was not there...did not have their eyes gouged out by him...and was not tortured over a 3 day period.

Lynn.

I am getting information directly from his family. This morning, I was also working with Steve Cozart of the Issaquah PD as he did not know of this information. Two things about that picture. What do you suppose she meant by Ha-Ha - Fuck You? And she is not from Poland. Tomasz was.

I am? Where?

You should find this information disturbing. Especially that picture, which was active until the day that I tried to contact her through her myspace e-mail link. That page was deleted within the hour. Two weeks later, this page appeared from her friend's myspace page. This information was passed on to the police this morning.

with this quip:

inna if only i could get away with murder

She admitted to killing him. What more evidence is necessary? There were no marks on her the night of the killing. That is in the police report.

Like I said. Read the article. And let me ask you this. If she was hit so often, why were there no marks on her the night of the killing? This goes to the core of this issue and what bad women can claim and do.

This is not Saddam Hussein.

MF, I know this is not saddam...I was showing you how accepting FAMILY and FRIENDS comments as FACT is a mistake.
I stand by that position.

I agree that she admitted to killing him. That is not at issue. At issue is weather she has a proper defence of Self Defence.
BECAUSE he has a lengthy history of beating this woman...and BECAUSE there is plenty of evidence to back it up ...and BECAUSE he has on MORE THAN ONE OCCASSION admitted in great detail what he has done to her in the past...and BECAUSE there are a number of convictions against him for DV...I believe she has a proper defnece........UNLESS there is something I am missing.

Please note that a person only needs to PERCEIVE that they are in imminant danger to use the BWS defence. That is to say that she need not be in the process of being beaten, she need not have recently been beaten...she need only have reasonable grounds to THINK she will be beat...to use this defence. My guess is that it's a proper defence BECAUSE of his lengthy history of abusing her...and his in depth detailed admissions of guilt.

As for your question - clearly he hadnot recently beat her...I suppose. But again, that is irrelevant to the case. If it were relevant, it would be a legal/circumstantial issue. But it is not when we are looking at DV.

Now, to be clear re: myspace. I DO find it VERY disturbing...the whole thing. But if it is true...and clearly the courts will see it as true that she was a victim...then "haha fuck you|" is something I myself would post if I killed my abuser...and got away with it.

If the genders were reversed however, I would be saying the EXACT SANE THING. That is...SHE got what she deserved. Period.

I do not see this as a gender thing. I see it as a criminal issue. I see it as a DV issue. And I see her as having a valid defence ESPECIALLY since he has an ADMITTED HISTORY of beating and torturing her.

My thoughts, Lynn are that both had a history of beating each other. And my other thought is that he was defending himself in many of those cases. She KNEW how to manipulate the system and let him know that she knew.

There's enough comments in there to raise suspicion beyond the point of self defense in my mind. Especially the part about her not having any marks on her that evening. That tends to support her family's claims, don't you think? She was trying to leave with their child and his car, even though she didn't have a driver's license. That's WHY he had to drive her everywhere. That's why he was trying to take the keys from her. For that, he was stabbed in the heart to death.

As for gender bias, I invite you to interview the KC prosecutor in this case. She has treated his family rudely as if they have no right to question why she isn't pursuing this further. Issaquah is not so sold on her claims that it was self defense.

This is how hard it is for men in situations like this. Even you don't believe that gender bias has anything to do with this. He had applied for a restraining order himself and that wasn't even served to her. The story did point out what happened to a similiar situation where a man stabbed a woman and was sentenced for over twenty years. Trust me. I've done my homework here.

Now we're getting somewhere...closer to common ground.

My thoughts, Lynn are that both had a history of beating each other. And my other thought is that he was defending himself in many of those cases. She KNEW how to manipulate the system and let him know that she knew.

AGREED 100%
This issue is about the system itself being broke...biased...unwilling to prosecute women but right on the heals of any man accused.

Your second para touches on a few things....
I agree that comments can raise doubt...But you and I both know that will NOT wash in a court of law...the court will rely on the evidence...and the history and place more weight on this than family and friends. I am sure she can present a slew of family and friends who will come to her defence saying they took her to hospital x number of times...that she called them scares shitless etc. x number of times. So, do we rely on comments and opinion? I'm thinking it's not a smart idea. She will waste his family and friends in court on this end.

I agree thats he was trying to leave. But you make it sound as though because she didn't have a license she was unable to drive. The fact is this is what the court will hear and believe...
She was trying to "flee" him with their child because of his lengthy history of abuse. He took the keys from her preventing her departure. She then believed that both her and the child were in imminent danger. She killed him. Solid defence. BECAUSE..............CLEARLY she was ABLE TO DRIVE~! SHE DROVE HIS DEAD BODY TO THE HOSPITAL AFTER SHE KILLED HIM!!!!!

Right or wrong, MF- this is likely what went through the prosecutors mind when she chose not to proceed. She is NOT at liberty to go on family and friends' opinions. She MUST base her case on FACT. When we review ALL the facts............the bottom line is she killed him in self defence.
I agree without a doubt that she also had a history of abusing him. There is no argument from me there. BUT...and here's a problem....it was not as extensive...and she likely played every fucking assault as "self defence" and the cops likely bought her bullshit. Thus there really is no history that's comparable for her.

Now, re the gender bias. I have said over and over again that the system IS gender biased when it comes to DV. I don't know why you keep saying that I do not believe that. I know it! Domestic violence and family court have ALWAYS been gender biased... I do say many are moving more toward equality...at least in areas of custody and access. I do NOT feel they are changing their tune about DV...and I have stated why I think this is the case...many times in the past.

Oh yes there is. She was a defendant four times in the last three years.

You are quick to judge here. Type in : Buraya, Yelizaveta

Actually, he had asked for and received a restraining order against her. It was never served. Why is that?

The KC case number for this was 08-2-18418-8.

MF, you're being rather combative with me here. Remember we're on the same page.

In my defence, I chose my words carefully...and used the term COMPARABLE.

I clicked on your link and typed in what you write...and it comes up no records found. Can you help me with that? Also, you mentioned she was a defendant 4x but you did not tell me howmany times she was convicted and for what. (That's why I went to your link - but to no avail) Oops I went back and still there is no info. I suspect these are not DV convictions???

So, no I'm not quick to judge. I am however, quick to evaluate the facts. You still have not provided me with evidence to show she was an abuser (even though I truly believe she was). My point was she does not have a history that is comparable to his..................................

I already know about the restraining order(s)....you fail to mention that she too had one...several times....
Also, all the information I am posting here came from the article I originally referenced.

To be perfectly honest, I took offense to your "he deserved to die" comment from above. Those are fighting words, Lynn. You lost me right there.

I feel that I've brought a relatively strong case here and your assumptions have already put me through the hoops.

When you type in that information, please pay attention to the "Last Name" and "First Name" fields. The information that you will see if that she was a plaintiff twice and a defendant 4 times. The specifics are not available.

This will show you the hell he went through before his no-contact order was vacated.

After she put through this hell, he (Tomasz) filed for his own protection order and I don't blame him. .

In other words, two weeks after she had her way with him in the system, he filed for protection of his own

That's how this game works.

I've been checking this out and I agree with Lynn. Not near enough information is out there to make the claims you are making, Rep. You have stated that "By all accounts, Tomas was a gentle soul." That is blatantly untrue because he has a record in the courts that shows a history of DV. The very site you linked to has many posts that say he was an asshole. Some even mention "When he wasn't drinking" that would lead me to think he had a drinking problem. You post her record (none of which we know what the charges are for except the protection case, because they can't be opened) but fail to mention his. He has been the defendant 12 times in the past 4 years. The petitioner only once. It doesn't sound like he wanted to restraining order to be served. The link you posted claims they were going on vacation and having parties just weeks before the incident. Those are not things you do with someone you have a restraining order against. Further, reports claim she had restraining orders against him.
Other claims do not appear to jive with the facts either;

Not according to the news report.

I understand, Boan.

He was essentially dead when dropped off at that hospital. They tried to revive him at Harborview after efforts at Swedish had failed. Their daughter was the witness. And what came out of her mouth did not paint a pretty picture. "Daddy walked down the staircase", was what she said. I tried to leave her out of it, but if you must know, there you have it.

As for his record, you have no idea how the system piles on once it has its clutches into you. He actually covered for his father who beat his child, in one of those cases. In another, it was alleged that she had cut herself to get attention. He was charged. He was stabbed 3 times prior to that evening, and never complained. Then there's that picture.

I agree that it was a bad relationship. There's no question about that. But when it comes to the system, they always get their "man", don't they?

This is exactly how people try and convict others before they have all of the knowledge. Now, please answer me this. What do you suppose would've happened had the genders been reversed here?

He was nowhere near as bad as people project here either. This is character assassination. He can no longer stand up for himself, can he?

Boan.

I have a history of domestic violence and am anything but. And I also have a lot more information than you here. So much so, that the Issaquah PD is working with me. What part of that don't you understand?

Taking statements from the families of those involved is not anonymous, is it? I also offered to take statements from the "victim" in this case as well. She immediately removed that web page when I did. It was a simple request for her to tell her side of the story.

Are you telling me he is/was at fault here and deserved to die?

How many of her family and friends have you taken statements from?

5

and they claim she is abusive?

My comment re: he deserved to die...was qualified when I clearly said that I would say the same about a woman if she was the abuser and he the victim. If that pisses in your soup - so be it. I mean no disrespect to anyone...I am just being fair and equal.

Re: Defendant 4x. Like I said, you have nothing to show that she was a defendant of a DV charge. You have absolutly nothing to show she was convicted of a DV offence...
There is PLENTY t show that he was a defendant AND convicted.........and sentenced. So, it is my opinion, based on ALL the information I have read that she has not been convicted...nor charged with a DV offence. Granted there were restraining orders in place for BOTH PARTIES on more than one occassion...but a conviction is not necessary to get a restraining order...

Nobody deserves to die, Lynn. Especially over false allegations and car keys which she had no right to. Are you telling me that he had no right to take back his own car keys under the threat of being accused, or worse yet, being legally murdered?

This is why this article is important. It is tantamount to how DV laws add fuel to the fire and do no good for the real victims out there. If these laws dealt with both parties involved in a cooler environment. better things may have happened. But, all they do is allow children to be played as pawns and one side to gain the upper hand, typically the woman. For a man to sit there and take it is rediculous and often winds up in confusion.

There are six dings on my record. One for the initial "assault", one for breaking the "no-contact order" when she called me. One for breaking the terms of my plea deal, one for "harrassment" for that phone call and two for not showing up in court. What would you think of me if you knew me as well as Mr. Matczak and seeing my "record". This is a fucking joke and you guys need to get a little more serious about what really goes on in these courts.

This is what happens when a gentleman tries to get his name cleared from false charges:

Look at how the courts delay, take in more false accusations, stall, and do everything but the right thing. This is what men are up against. Any court can pin the tail on the donkey and make it stick. Any "court record" can be manufactured by a police officer who takes in a "complaint".

MF,
Like Boan - I am speaking of this case only. My posts have been in response to this case only.
When you say, "You guys need to get a little more serious" is an indication that you aren't paying attention to the responses you are being given here. We are responding to your posts...on this case...and you are all over the shop in responding to us. It seems that unless one agrees with you 100% you feel the need to drive home points that are not directly related to this case. A clear example of this is your above comment with the link about a guy changing his friggin name! Absolutly NObearing on THIS CASE whatsoever MF.

You said:

Nobody deserves to die, Lynn. Especially over false allegations and car keys which she had no right to. Are you telling me that he had no right to take back his own car keys under the threat of being accused, or worse yet, being legally murdered?

You and I depart in agreement on this point.
1.) I do not agree that "nobody deserves to die" I personally believe that MANY people deserve to die. I am aware that you do not agree with this...and I'm ok with your dissent. You will NOT convince me otherwise as I have heald this view for more than 30 years. I have explored all aspects of this and prefer to keep my opinion as opposed to the "nobody deserves to die" opinion.

2.)False allegations: MF, you have NOT proven (in fact NON ONE HAS) that THESE allegations in THIS CASE are false. Therefore this part of your sentenceis irrelevant to this topic.

3.) I did not say he hadno right to take back his car keys...you are putting words in my mouth there.
4.) Why are you calling this Legal Murder? Is there such a thing? Murder itself refers to an illegal act. Are you referring to justifiable homicide? If so, then...um...if it's justified...it's justified no?

If charges are not laid, prosecutors believe she had a better defence than they had a case against her. With the info provided, I believe she has a viable and legitimate defence.
You do NOT need to pound home all the inequalities within the legal system where men are concerned. They are simply of no cosequence with THIS CASE because she has a viable defence...unless the prosecutor deems otherwise.......as a RESULT of the EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE....NOT.............OPINION.

I am already aware of the inequalities...and I continue to read posts from you that do provide me with additional information that I was otherwise unaware of. HOWEVER, it is my opinion, based on all the EVIDENCE I have read, that this case does not warrant the chest beating you are currently doing.

So, please do not think I am trying to piss you off. I'm not. I'm simply saying that your "casue" is misplaced in this particular case.

"Evidence" is easily manufactured and backed up by these courts. Most guys, including myself, have no idea initially what the system can do to you over a plea deal. You admit that the system is skewed but refuse to believe that there might be some skewing going on here. Why is that? Because you believe that the "skewed" court's "evidence" might actually not be skewed?

This is my whole point here. There is NO WAY to verify hearsay in the civil courts.

My apologies on that link. Here is the correct link.

I ask you, if this is what it takes to take on a false allegation and nothing happens, what good is it? What good is it when no perjury charges are filed? What good is it when courts issue TRO's without notifying the respondent, then arrest them later and charging them with a felony? What good is system that is setup to do this without any recourse?

ANY woman can file a false claim to a police officer and have it entered as "evidence". This is how it works TODAY. Until this changes, my attitude will remain the same.

The other side has rights as well. The man should have as much leeway to defend himself as the woman has to make these accusations, don't you think?

You make a case agains "false allegations" yet fail to prove in any way shape or form, that THIS CASE is rooted in false allegations!

I simply cannot discuss this further MF because you aren't getting the gist of my posts...despite respeating the same thing over and over...using different terms in the hopes that you'll get it.

I have run out of "ways" of explaining this to ya. I'm going to have to suggest that you re-read my posts to understand why I am so rigid about this case...in this thread.

I understand your point completely, Lynn. But what we have here is a "he said", "she said" scenario where only the "she said" is accounted for in "court records". My story concerns what HE SAID, from the point of his family.

I can't do any better because dead men can't speak.

I am saying he may have been at fault here. It's not the clear cut "gender bias in the system" that you represent it to be. If any two people have a history of violence toward each other, when one ends up dead at the hand of the other how can it be determined self defense or not? RE: "Deserved to Die" I don't know about that, those are your words, but she definitely deserves to be able to defend herself and her child. My main point here is the inaccuracy of how you report this case.

The fact remains that if the genders had been reversed, there would already have been a conviction, Boan. Therein lies the dilemma. I know from friends of both that that picture AND the subsequent picture had been posted after the murder.

That simply isn't true. There are cases that I agree with where there are marks on the body and witness to corroborate the evidence. When "evidence" is simply a police report with no investigation, I do have a problem. When only one side of the equation is taken into account, I have a problem.

Dead men cannot defend themselves. He had been stabbed by her three times prior to that night. It is YOU that continue to not address that FACT.

Further, Since a history of DV exists, a person should be able to see that she could have been in fear of her life without getting beat. Had he threatened to hit hit her and has before, it could be preemptive and self defense at the same time.

Boan,

The reason I'm more inclined to believe him here is the fabrication of the information within the Domestic Vioence Industry as a whole. RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) is coming out with a report within the next couple of days. I have had it in my hands since Thursday and will be publishing it on my website as well. It has done a nationwide survey and found that 1 in 10 women in domestic abuse shelters are actually vitims of domestic abuse. That means 90% of these actions are bullshit. I, myself have looked at women's shelters tax returns and found most of their money goes to those who run these "shelters". Of of the money that IS spent on victims, most goes to homeless women.

You may want to ask yourself, how can that differ that drastically from known clinical studies that quote to the contrary concerning women and domestic violence? You see, DV is not as widespread or as much of a problem that is reported and manufactured on a daily basis.

Until that changes, I am entitled to my opinion and the word of others who quote to the contrary, for I find more truth with them than I do from those who "represent" this Industry.

There are already assault laws on the books that should cover these issues. All these laws have done is to enable hearsay under the guise of "wife-beating" and given men a hard dose of gender-biased bullshit to pour more salt into their wounds.

One known fact is that men don't complain. That is why she was able to stab him 3 times before killing him that night. She held all of the cards and threatened him on a daily basis with these "cards".

She was no victim.

Here are the FACTS:
1. The police report said there were no marks on her that evening.
2. She filed for no-contact orders against him, then continuously showed up on his doorstep threatening to call the police and report HIM for breaking it.
3. If she was so afraid and "threatened" by him, why was she showing up on his doorstep after filing for a no-contact order?

So would you like to address the misrepresentation of the facts on your website and here? And why if it's such a clear cut case you feel the need to do that?

What misrepresentation?

You said clear cut, not me. I'm simply explaining WHY I'm thinking the way I do.

That's why the Issaquah PD is still investigating this matter. He can't speak for himself, can he?

That's also why he filed for his own protection order.

Oh, and BTW, if she was that "threatened" by him, she could've easily extended her ORIGINAL order. She did not.

Put two and two together, bud.

Note MF...

Just because 1 in 10 women in DV shelters are victims....DOES NOT mean by ANY streatch of the immagination that NINETY PERCENT of all allegations are bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT???????????????????????

SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you HONESTLY THINK FOR A SECOND that 100% of ALL women REPORT dv???????????? And do you SERIOUSLY THINK that 100% of ALL WOMEN ABUSED GO TO A FUCKING SHELTER? If that were even remotely true WHICH IS IT ABSOLUTLY FUCKING NOT....there would be a LOT more shelters....and a LOT more reports...and a LOT fewer DV deaths of women!!!!!!

It's this kind of BULLSHIT REASONING and SKEWING of FACTS that pisses me right the fuck off...and lends suspicion to your so-called "cause" MF!
You are NOT doing ANYONE any favors by doing this....and in fact you are doing MEN a fucking disservice!!!!

You REALLY need to focus LESS on making women out to be such vile beings amd MORE on creating equality for men in the system as well as services provided to men. You also need to work on sensitivity training in the police depts. when taking DV statements from men as well as programs and awareness campaigns for men to encourage them to report.

As I have ALWAYS said...the way you are going about demonizing women isn't and will never ever help your cause. WTF can your bullshitting about facts POSSIBLY do to help Men?????????????? How is demonizing women and trivializing something like DV when it comes to women....HELPING MEN?
IT'S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a fucking thing.

Just released this morning.

Read it. It shows what a sham the DV Industry is. Most of it is fabrication, just like these news stories about men who kill women. It NEVER gives their side of the story and why they might've felt threatened.

MORE food for thought:

How many reasons are given in the media when women are murdered? NONE! It's called blaming the victim. According to domestic violence "experts", there is no excuse for domestic violence. Period. All you get is Man Kills Woman, Self Defense.

When you see an Amber Alert, you do not see the part about the father who hasn't seen his child in three years and was willing to risk breaking the law to do so. Look up Mark Supanich.

When a woman is murdered, you don't see the part about where she has abused him for years verbally, and embezzled money prior to killing him. Not to mention the cheating part and the abduction of his child. Instead, it simlpy read "Man Kills Woman".

When a woman is murdered, you don't get to read the part about her holding himm at bay with the system until he broke. Instead, it simlpy read "Man Kills Woman".

When a man commits suicide, It's "Man Commits Suicide". Reason not clear. Even Lynn wondered aloud last week how she could understand why this could drive men crazy.

Instead, what we have here is a classic case of "blaming the victim."

In this story, there is an excuse. It's called "self-defense". Nobody DARE asks the question of what was she doing there iF she was so afraid of him. Nobody DARE ask her why she had no marks on her. Nobody DARE involve the child. Instead, the child is awarded to the killer.

We'll see what happens here.

OH! LOOK!!!!
THE EVIL WHORE OF A LYING BITCH WAS CHARGED!
WHO'DA THUNK?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482730,00.html

That blows the shit out of your claim that if the roles were reversed blah blah blah....Here the roles are THE SAME...and she's getting what she fucking deserves!
Looks to me like the system worked for this guy!

This happens a lot, Lynn. And you know what the saddest part of this will be? It WILL NOT be counted as a domestic violence statistic. It will be counted as "Aggravated Battery". This data will not go through a woman's shelter which spoon feeds this to the government for grant money. In their eyes, women are not violent. If you truly cared, you would forward this to the VAWA folks and ask them WHY they don't count these.

Read this link

Lynn.

What was she doing at this guy's house if she was so afraid and threatened by him? And, I'm speaking of the flagship story here.

Why were there no marks on her that evening?

Why the evil picture?

Put two and two together.

In addition there's the preacher's wife, who shot her husband while he slept, only to later use the "abuse excuse" after the fact. In fact, they even awarded her child back to her, over the strong objection of her husband's family.

I'm actually surprised this woman who shot her boyfriend last night didn't claim abuse. Who knows.... Maybe she will. Its not to late. As of this point, she's only been charged.

After all,

Just like the Duke LaCrosse case, Judges will just about believe anything these days as long as they cover their own ass.

Nope. Most of them obtain no-contact orders and the upper hand. Then they have their significant other thrown out of the house, go to anger management, pay for all of this plus child support.

The DV shelters are just window dressing, to prop up a ficticious VAWA program.

What is DOES mean is that 90% are counted as DV victims, even though they just need a place to crash, be it homelessness or drugs or the economy. Is this OK in your mind?

Be careful for what you wish for here, Lynn. ANY industry that munufacters "victims" and has proven itself to do so, will repeat their mistakes. This would be a BOON for the courts, judges, lawyers, "treament" providers and "experts" out there. Again, the victim would not be served until the original system is corrected.

Clearly you are unaware of the BWS defence, how it works, why it's there etc.

If you were...or understood it...or were able to see it objectively....you would not ask questions for which I have already provided answers MF. In fact you would be able to answer them yourself.

I don't think it is worth my while to participate in this thread any longer. We're at a stalemate...and this is going nowhere except to frusterate the shit out of both of us.

Make that 3 of us.

Now we're getting to the heart of this BEEEEE-ESSSSSS.

Between BWS and "blaming the victim", women have an airtight case, NO MATTER WHAT, in which to circumvent personal and basic rights for men. If it's not one, its the other.

There is no excuse for Domestic Violence, is there?

That's what all advocates say! Therein, this dychotomy exists.

Battered woman syndrome (BWS) was first proposed in the 1970's and was essentially based on the clinical observations of a single researcher. (Lenore Walker coined the term "Battered Woman Syndrome" in the late 1970's). Nevertheless, the concept quickly caught on and became a popular way to justify behavior in some courts. However, while it initially enjoyed success in portions of the legal arena, BWS has not been established nor accepted in the field of psychology by serious and rigorous empirical researchers.

To be sure, clinical syndromes do exist, and BWS may indeed exist, but to date there is insufficient empirical evidence to show this syndrome meets the rigorous diagnostic criteria of psychology or the law. If BWS does exist, there is no reliable means to identify those who suffer from it from those who merely claim it as a legal defense.

BWS appears to be the product of legal advocacy and not science. BWS seems to owe its existence to the needs of legal advocates to support and justify claims by battered women who have killed. Given the lack of an established, empirical, scientific basis and its failure to achieve specific political and social policy goals for women, BWS may not be long for this world.

BWS has been employed in a wide assortment of cases, ranging from the prototypical self-defense case to the more novel prosecutorial use of the syndrome. In the former set of cases, courts define the syndrome's relevance variously, from supporting the honesty of the woman's belief in the need to use deadly force to her mental incapacity to form the requisite mental intent. In the latter set of cases, in which prosecutors use the evidence, the evidence's relevance is ostensibly offered to explain why a battered woman might change her testimony (i.e., commit perjury) and testify that she was not a victim of battering; in fact, BWS is probably used to buttress the prosecution's case by showing prior violent acts by the defendant that would otherwise be excluded by the rules of evidence.

BWS offers broad interpretations of conduct for which there is no empirical support. As courts begin to apply Daubert styled tests of admissibility that query the scientific basis for BWS testimony, they will discover the serious lack of scientific support for BWS. There are numerous non-specific signs that a clinician favorably biased towards BWS will "see" in the reports of a woman relating a history of battering. Such clinicians are quick to then label the clinical history as causing BWS, and the BWS as justifying or explaining the woman's subsequent unlawful conduct. The clinical error or trap lies in the fact that these signs are commonly seen in a variety of conditions, and none are specifically tied to BWS. Further, the patient can simply lie about or exaggerate their abusive history with a host of non-specific signs. There is a human tendency to accept ready explanations and BWS offers just that. This unreliable manner leads to inaccurate diagnosis. A principal tenant of science is there must first be reliability, and absent this, there can be no validity, that is, no trustworthy diagnosis. So, how can anyone determine who does and who does not suffer with BWS? The simple answer is, we cannot.

Advocates for battered women with a social agenda should begin in the near future to doubt the political value of BWS testimony. Although so elastic that it can be shaped to fit any legal case, the syndrome per se has caused certain unintended consequences. In particular, BWS evidence is interpreted by many courts as an indication that battered women suffer from mental deficiencies. Judges may doubt the veracity or accuracy of a defendant claiming the syndrome. For instance, courts are increasingly ordering women claiming the defense to undergo psychological evaluations. Originally proposed as a theory entirely sympathetic to feminist ideals, the syndrome now reinforces some of the most archaic and destructive stereotypes historically attached to women.

Lawyers and judges are obliged to become better consumers of science. Too much is at stake for them to fail in this. BWS originally tapped into a reservoir of disenchantment, frustration, and sometimes outrage over domestic violence. Domestic violence in our country is very real, and according to some reports, it is of epidemic proportions. Keying on this information and widespread sentiments, BWS in the guise of science accomplished a small revolution in the way battered women cases were seen by courts and the public. Using the cloak of science to avoid the difficult jurisprudential questions raised when battered women kill, advocates of BWS found initial success and notoriety. However, today and in the future, these advocates may likely find themselves in the same old world, possibly worse off than before. In fact, there may have been harm done to the reputation of the science of psychology because of the well intended but poorly grounded efforts of just a handful of clinicians.

The syndrome has become a psychological-styled diagnosis in which the woman's "illness," induced by a battering husband, has become the focus. The focus might better remain on the woman herself with traditional legal defenses proffered, such as self-defense. The creation of a syndrome per se is of little help in stemming the tide of battering and domestic violence. The BWS defense now revolves around the woman's mental deficiency and, paradoxically, her purported helplessness. Learned helplessness can be induced in laboratory animals, but with laboratory animals we do not observe a sudden rousing of rage and aggression at any point in the course of their condition. Thus, BWS does not follow the known course of experimentally induced helplessness syndromes. BWS is an anomaly. It does not exist in the laboratory, and it may well not exist in the real world.

History reveals several examples of well meaning clinicians incorrectly applying scientific research to explaining the clinical suffering observed in their patients. BWS is of course one such example. As a point of comparison, another such syndrome is repressed memory syndrome (RMS). This syndrome alleges that young women who were sexually abused as children by their fathers repress the memory of these traumatic events, but they later suffer depression and other psychological disorders. Again, scientific research disputes RMS, because what empirical studies find is that traumatic events, such as being raped, are highlighted and magnified in the memories of victims, not repressed. In fact, these victims obsess and dwell upon these memories and it is the constant recall, not suppression, of these events which lead to depression, anxiety, and other psychological symptoms.

As courts begin to realize that BWS expert testimony lacks a scientific, or even a reliable technical basis, and women advocates realize that this testimony is inimical to their cause, the battered woman syndrome should begin to fall into disuse. As it leaves the legal and clinical scene, advocates of battered women and proponents of good science should join efforts to discover solutions to the domestic battering that occurs in our country. Women who kill should be treated by the courts with the existing laws that have served us well for so long.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/domestic_violence/battered_women.html

Nowadays, we can never deny the fact that lots are suffering abusive treatments from their partners, bosses, and even their own families and relatives. Most of today's cases involves domestic violence and in fact, considering its countless and unstoppable cases, this month is flagged as Domestic Violence Awareness Month but despite this awareness campaign, lots of individuals are still helpless in their fight against unlawful treatments by some. One specific case is the one in Topeka, Kansas. Topeka, Kansas, too broke to prosecute domestic abuse cases, wherein sufferers of the offense are being left out in the cold. This is since the city has discovered that it no longer has the budget in place to prosecute misdemeanor household abuse cases, as reported by the Topeka Capital-Journal. As the Shawnee County District Lawyer has already decreed that the office will prosecute no Topeka misdemeanors due to spending budget cuts, abusers might just be left free as birds in the sky and that's the saddest truth that we have to face and be acted upon by the government.