Democratic Underground - It's hard to believe that there is another side to this story

Adem denied he had excised his daughter's clitoris or asked anyone else to do it. His defense lawyer conceded that the girl had in fact had her clitoris removed, but implied that Fortunate Adem's family--immigrants from South Africa--might have been responsible.<4>
Adem's lawyer argued that Fortunate's accusations were the result of the acrimonious divorce and custody battle the couple went through in 2003, during which Fortunate received sole custody of the girl.<3> The fact that the crime had occurred in 2001 and yet was not reported by Fortunate until 2003 was used to suggest the accusation was spurious and vindictive.
Fortunate claimed she did not discover her daughter's amateur clitoridectomy until an argument with her husband in 2003 about the practice of female genital cutting, during which, according to Fortunate, Khalid Adem implied it had already occurred to their daughter. The two were divorced several months afterwards, and Fortunate was awarded sole custody of the girl.<3>
Khalid claimed the reverse, that it was Fortunate who had revealed to him that their daughter had had her clitoris removed, and that she was falsely accusing him to obtain leverage for the custody battle.<6>
The defense also tried to cast doubt on the veracity of the testimony of Adem's daughter, who was two years old at the time of the incident, but was seven by the time she testified before the court. Defense attorney W. Mark Hill brought in psychologist Jack Farrar to raise the question of false memory.<7> Again, the fact of the mutilation was not disputed by the defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Adem

Obviously the jury believed the prosecution, despite the practice most often being a maternal ritual.

Reply #12: It's hard to believe that there is another side to this story [View All]