Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Media just can't figure out why professional dad would rape daughter (Canberra, Australia)

If you start with the wrong assumptions, you ask the wrong questions. The research is clear and unequivocal on this, but "experts" continue to be in denial, and act clueless and stupid. They assume--without evidence--that all child molester daddies are low-class, uneducated, drunks, or druggies. So they're just mystified, they have "no idea" why a clean-cut professional type with "no criminal history and no history of substance abuse" would do such a thing. They're all sitting around scratching their heads and pontificating as if we hadn't been down this road before.

And this is what molester daddies like UNNAMED DAD count on. Because they don't fit the stereotype, nobody believes the victim. Nobody believes the protective mother. More times than not, THEY are no ones who are labeled delusional, mentally ill, or "alienating." So the abuse just goes on and on....And notice that this @$$hole pulls the oldest abuser trick in the book, which is claiming the victim "wanted it." Same old sh**, whether you're an unemployed alcoholic layabout or an IT professional....


'No idea' why man raped daughter

Louis Andrews
March 14, 2012

Exactly what led an IT professional with no criminal record and no history of substance abuse to repeatedly rape his daughter remains unclear even to him, a court has heard.

But the 46-year-old man, who cannot be named to protect his victim, told a psychiatrist he regretted his crimes and hoped his victim would one day be able to forgive him.

The father is being sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court after admitting repeatedly molesting his teenage child between late 2005 and early 2007.

 He has pleaded guilty to five charges: two counts of incest, two counts of committing acts of indecency and one charge of using the internet to provide pornography to a child.

Prosecutor Kylie Weston-Scheuber yesterday told the court some of the charges were representative of ongoing molestation.

The crimes came to light after the man confided in a counsellor last year, and the matter was reported to child protection authorities.

A clinical psychiatrist told Justice Hilary Penfold the man was unable to explain what caused his criminal behaviour, despite several attempts to broach the subject.

''He would only be able to say that he had no idea - he didn't know what happened,'' the witness said.

The prosecutor said his inability to elaborate was concerning, ''particularly in relation to his [likelihood of] reoffending''.

The man had no previous convictions, no history of drug or alcohol abuse, a good employment record and, until the abuse was revealed, an apparently stable family life.

A report has suggested he now experiences stress and anxiety stemming exclusively from the court proceedings but no mental illness has been detected.

The court heard that the defendant had expressed a hope his daughter could one day forgive him for the abuse.

The psychiatrist said his patient would make comments like, ''I've made a stupid, horrible mistake and I want to make it right and move on''.

But the defendant told the author of an adult sex offender assessment: ''I know I'm the father, and in control of the situation, I don't know if it's wrong for me to say but she was curious too''.

Ms Weston-Scheuber suggested the expression, and others, were indicative of an attempt to shift the blame to the victim.

The psychiatrist who assessed the defendant at the behest of his legal team, however, said later he appeared to accept full responsibility for his crimes.

The man's barrister urged Justice Penfold to consider his client's pleas of guilty, his expressed remorse and the financial strain his inevitable incarceration would impose.

But the prosecutor argued the community abhorred incest, particularly because of the ''growing awareness'' of the lasting damage on victims.

Justice Penfold will sentence the man next week.

The defendant remains in strict protective custody.