Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Diaper/Bondage fetishist Joseph Garbarini Trial-- Your thoughts?

  1. #1

    Default Diaper/Bondage fetishist Joseph Garbarini Trial-- Your thoughts?

    So I live in Plano, TX and just found out about this trial that happened in my ISD. Get the whole story here (Jury finds former kindergarten teacher guilty of abuse | Dallas-Fort Worth Communities - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News)
    Given your knowledge of our fetish, do you think this guy's defense is relevant? Or do you think he actually was abusing children? I'm on the fence on this one because AB/DL is such a misunderstood fetish and the Jury is completely ignorant on it. So since it's so far out there and the Judge/Jury doesn't have a clue how to rationalize this guy's private life, will/should they just chalk him up as a pervert and give him a life sentence?

    Your thoughts?
    -J

  2. #2

    Red face

    Well, in a certain way, you're right, but the fact is that our fetish will always be seen as freaky, because the population does not understand it so, it'll always place miscalculated judgments. There's also the fact that, to most people, this fetish is a complete mystery. Sure it appeared here and there, but it is not part of the general knowledge of everyday people. To make our fetish understood by other people, we must make them see that it's not so strange and we are all just a bunch of normal people.

  3. #3

    Default



    “Children don’t lie,” she said. “You should listen to your kids.”
    Yeah they fucking do. They're as manipulative, sneaky and underhand as any adult and I'll never believe any different.

    This is pretty unfortunate, mind.

    Whether he's guilty of doing it or not, it's true what the defence lawyer said - nothing in his private life (or on his computer) was actually illegal. I'd bet my bottom dollar (I neeeed a dollar, dollar, dollar is what I need...) it influenced the jury, though.

    ---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by CrinkleGamer View Post
    To make our fetish understood by other people, we must make them see that it's not so strange and we are all just a bunch of normal people.
    A) That's pretty impossible when the only people whose interests in this field are discovered are people like this one and Stanley. The rest of us are too shy/unable to do such a thing. 'Standing up to the haters' is a noble idea, but in practice we all know it's unrealistic. As such, there is no real way to show them we're not all paedophiles.

    B) Are we 'a bunch of normal people', though...? I'm sure many people could find fault with the prevalence of Aspergers, autism, obesity, ADD, ADHD, unemployment, depression etc in the community, illuminate those things as evidence of it being a 'weird', debilitating fetish and cast the few heatlhy, slim, perfectly-functioning and well-respected examples into the shadows. It certainly seems to me, from this forum alone, that we're not - largely - exactly 'normal' enough to win these people over, never mind fight the endless tide of shit that the guy in this article and places like D****r bring us.

    Grr.

  4. #4

    Default

    Considering the only way people hear about our fetish through the media, and considering all the stories from the media aren't about a heroic guy saving a cat from the tree. There is no doubt to be negative feelings about our fetish. I believe this guys fetish played a factor in his involvement with those minors as children do not lie at that young age. It is a shame that because of his personal life, the community will get a couple more haters.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by iPampers View Post
    Considering the only way people hear about our fetish through the media, and considering all the stories from the media aren't about a heroic guy saving a cat from the tree. There is no doubt to be negative feelings about our fetish. I believe this guys fetish played a factor in his involvement with those minors as children do not lie at that young age. It is a shame that because of his personal life, the community will get a couple more haters.
    I agree with you there. And i must thank you for giving me a hilarious image of a man climbing a tree wearing a diaper, trying to save a cat.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by DanDanSuperman View Post
    Yeah they fucking do. They're as manipulative, sneaky and underhand as any adult and I'll never believe any different.

    This is pretty unfortunate, mind.

    Whether he's guilty of doing it or not, it's true what the defence lawyer said - nothing in his private life (or on his computer) was actually illegal. I'd bet my bottom dollar (I neeeed a dollar, dollar, dollar is what I need...) it influenced the jury, though.

    ---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------



    A) That's pretty impossible when the only people whose interests in this field are discovered are people like this one and Stanley. The rest of us are too shy/unable to do such a thing. 'Standing up to the haters' is a noble idea, but in practice we all know it's unrealistic. As such, there is no real way to show them we're not all paedophiles.

    B) Are we 'a bunch of normal people', though...? I'm sure many people could find fault with the prevalence of Aspergers, autism, obesity, ADD, ADHD, unemployment, depression etc in the community, illuminate those things as evidence of it being a 'weird', debilitating fetish and cast the few heatlhy, slim, perfectly-functioning and well-respected examples into the shadows. It certainly seems to me, from this forum alone, that we're not - largely - exactly 'normal' enough to win these people over, never mind fight the endless tide of shit that the guy in this article and places like D****r bring us.

    Grr.
    I know children lie, I've caught my kids doing it. If the jury did their job right, they only viewed the 'fetish' aspect from the aspect that it was evidence that corroborated the story the children gave. What made the items found in the home relevant was that the children knew of his sexual fetish before said items were found.

    As for whether or not what he did in his off time was legal, it is. But if and when children were brought into it, that is when it became illegal. Is the school district guilty of not doing appropriate screening? I highly doubt it, this sounds like this is the first time this person was caught doing something like this involving children. The district cannot screen based on sexual desires, it would be a violation of many anti-discrimination laws.

  7. #7

    Default

    In my opinion, the judge should have barred any evidence of the defendant's private life from the case. The rules of evidence are pretty clear: evidence that is used only to shock the jury but doesn't actually prove any of the elements of the crime aren't supposed to be used at trial. That's exactly what went on here, and I think that the man accused actually has a pretty good shot at having his conviction overturned on appeal and getting a new trial. What he did behind closed doors wasn't relavent to what was happening in the classroom, as they were totaly seperate things.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Smonjith View Post
    In my opinion, the judge should have barred any evidence of the defendant's private life from the case. The rules of evidence are pretty clear: evidence that is used only to shock the jury but doesn't actually prove any of the elements of the crime aren't supposed to be used at trial. That's exactly what went on here, and I think that the man accused actually has a pretty good shot at having his conviction overturned on appeal and getting a new trial. What he did behind closed doors wasn't relavent to what was happening in the classroom, as they were totaly seperate things.
    It could have been used to prove part of it, however. If one or more kids in his classroom knew about his diaper fetish (which would be vastly inappropriate) and they were playing a game that involved aspects of that fetish (again, vastly inappropriate), they should be able to use at least a portion of the evidence found in his house to be able to show that the fetish existed and that there was sexual motivation. From the article, it sounds like they went a little over the top and used more evidence than was necessary (sex videos of the guy?!?!) which should probably have been suppressed but you can't argue that nothing in this guys home was relevant to the case if indeed there was good evidence that he was performing sexually abusive acts. Unfortunately, the media is focusing on the diaper aspect way too much and isn't giving us the details about what actually happened in the classroom. It could be that there are 20 kids that can back up the story that there was sexual abuse but the article doesn't really give that kind of detail because they want to shock people with what was found in the guy's house.

    Whether or not he is actually guilty, this guy was just asking to get in trouble. As someone who likes diapers, I would never engage in games with children involving diapers even if the games were purely innocent. ESPECIALLY other people's children. If my kids came to me and asked me to put a diaper on their teddy bear, I would do it but that's where it would end.

  9. #9

    Default

    If he actually committed the alleged abuse on the abuse then he should be found guilty for the crimes, but I'm not so sure this is the case. It's impossible to say for sure, but I don't see any decisive proof that he has actually committed those crimes. Other than 2 children saying he did.

    I think them stepping into his personal life was out of bounds. Although they have every right to investigate his computer; once they found nothing to do with child abuse they should have left him alone.

    I think the way this court case was held out, and some of the statements made by parents and the prosecuting side work offensive and uncalled for. They are making these accusations based on other accusations made by children.

    I feel bad for the guy, whether he did it or not I don't see any proof. But maybe that's just me. I still think the way they treated him in the court was unfair.

    Also, “Children don’t lie,” she said. “You should listen to your kids.”.

    Really lady? I'm just going to say I was an extremely manipulative child. I lied all the time and fabricated all kinds of stories. I'm certainly not the only one. This argument is fallacious and has pointless bearing on the case.

    I think the only reason he was found guilty was the following.

    "Kids said he faked putting diapers on them...

    They found ABDL related material in his home."

    Oh he must have done it then! There is no such thing as a coincidence.


  10. #10

    Default

    Not only do children lie (ask any parent), but they're also very susceptible to false memory, such as described here. The child can have a vendetta against a teacher (no, children are not universally innocent, and yes they can collaborate stories to "punish that mean teacher") or basically say whatever the prosecutor wants said child to say, and if the jury buys it then the case is pretty much closed.

    As to this particular case, it's been said already but I tend to think that the children knowing about things in the defendant's house before they were presented indicates boundaries were likely crossed, although it may not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and so should probably not be used as evidence. Prosecutors often do this because emotion is an easy way to persuade a jury, and even if evidence can be dismissed the jury is already a bit biased. If you consider that it's the prosecutor's job to not care whether or not the defendant is guilty and get a conviction no matter what (leaving innocence to come out through the defense fighting back), then you can't blame him too much either - except stepping out of line to pervert the justice system, but that happens all the time. Hey, weren't we arguing the merits of the justice system over a higher profile case a few months ago didn't involve an AB/DL? Just sayin...

    What we've got going on here looks like a repeat of the Salem witch trials: society sees a particular offense (as was the case with witchcraft) as far more unspeakable than anything else, and lowers the standards of proof (children's testimony some years after the offense) while upping the punishment severity (ex post facto sex offender list) in the hopes of catching those evil sons of bitches and making them pay. To be clear, I'm not defending pedophiles, but logic sort of goes out the window in the name of nabbing them all, and things that could be seen as similar or related (other fetishes) get used as evidence (e.g. this person doesn't always go to church, so she must be consorting with the devil). Incidentally, the Salem witch trials were also based on testimonies of children.

Similar Threads

  1. thoughts on a daytime diaper
    By lilbro309 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19-Jul-2011, 05:13
  2. Joseph Conrad
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23-May-2009, 03:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.