Which means that the cackling hens who are Western Civilization's self-appointed court of last resort for all things gender -- women who write features pieces for the US's and the UK's leading dailies -- will commence their usual caterwauling about the misogyny in allowing a little thing like a woman's credibility to interfere with the conviction of a presumptively innocent man in a "he said/she said" sex case.
And they will wring their hands and beat their breasts about how this will keep women from coming forward to report their rapes.
I take no delight in stating the obvious: that's what happens when you insist on accepting the word of a hotel maid -- but any woman will do -- about whom you know absolutely nothing, over the word of a man who heads up the intergovernmental organization that oversees the global financial system -- but any man will do. This wasn't a rush to judgment, it was a 60-meter sprint in record time.
We will also hear from the usual newspaper columnists who are disgusted that this woman did what she did but are at least equally disgusted with DSK -- for putting himself in a situation where a woman could falsely accuse him of a vile crime. You know, "victim blaming," except nobody will call it that, because men are pigs and all that.
There's plenty of blame to spread around for this debacle.
First, there's Nafissatou Diallo. We routinely make this point and will continue to do so until we drop dead: we have handed anonymous women and children far too much power to destroy innocent men and boys, and this case only underscores that point. When it comes to rape claims, this country more closely resembles Salem, Massachusetts, 1692, than the nation of Jefferson and Lincoln.
Then there's the district attorney and the nitwits at the NYPD Special Victims Unit who didn't even know she was a prostitute (according to the New York Post), much less a world-class liar (according to the New York Times), before subjecting DSK to the most celebrated perp walk since Lee Harvey Oswald. Even if the charges are dropped, it can't be said that the system "worked" here. Not by a long shot.
And finally, the news media deserves a big share of the blame. First, we can blame the vaunted anonymity policy of our nation's newspapers that shields the names of rape accusers. As Professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, if the accuser hadn't been anonymous, people who knew her or knew her reputation could have "come forward to provide relevant information" about her. That didn't happen. So the news media proceeded to convict DSK and to beatify his accuser (beatification is one step removed from sainthood). Now we have yet another high profile rape case that looks like it was a lie.
And second, we can blame the editors who blew this case into a Circus Maximus, and the reporters and columnists who put Nafissatou Diallo's picture on holy cards. None of them could resist using the DSK case as another gender passion play where all womanhood is figuratively nailed to the cross, and all manhood is an amalgam of Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate. By accepting at face value the allegations of a woman whose allegations, by any rational measure, should not be accepted, they blithely helped destroy an innocent man. They also made everyone -- except the extremist loons allied with the sexual grievance industry -- doubt just a little more the word of every woman who cries rape. Congratulations! I am reminded of the words of a female reporter after the Hofstra debacle where the news media famously rushed to judgment and "convicted" four young minority men: “We need to move slower." Yes, you need to, but you won't.
So, let's see: we have the rape accuser, law enforcement, and the news media. The same old-same old unholy triumvirate.
You know, business as usual.
Posts
36 comments:
District attorneys need to start being held accountable for their arrogance.
I believe there needs to be something like the "Perv Walk". When perverts "Empower" themselves by persecuting the innocent, then truth shines into their sick perverted mess, the "Perverts who Empowered themselves" from the pain of the innocent should have to do a "Perv walk" of shame.
It's happening again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8616545/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-facing-second-sex-charge.html
Tristane Banon has come forward, right after the first political assassination attempt on Kahn backfired, and is claiming he unhooked her bra and tried to pull off her jeans.
So now there is another case, from another woman, this one apparently has absolutely no evidence.
It is not possible to have irrefutable evidence that someone tried to rip off your clothing after eight years.
"when you insist on accepting the word of a hotel maid -- but any woman will do -- about whom you know absolutely nothing"
In the Duke lacrosse case, the police officer answered the first 911 call (about a drunk woman who wouldn't get out of a car--not about a woman who had supposedly been raped)
knew Crystal Mangum's name, home address, and that she likely had two children left at home alone, before she had spoken a word.
Should I believe the officer didn't also know she was a prostitute?
Nevertheless, she was canonized; and not even negative DNA results were allowed to prove the innocence of the accused.
The story was simply too useful for too many agendas to be let go...
(Or, "some cases are too important for innocence to be allowed as a defense")
Judge Horton overturned the Scottsboro verdicts with the following words (imagine a judge trying to say this today) :
"History, sacred and profane, and the common experience of mankind teach us that women of the character shown in this case are prone for selfish reasons to make false accusations both of rape and of insult upon the slightest provocation for ulterior purposes. . .
As heretofore stated the law declares that a defendant should not be convicted without corroboration where the testimony of the prosecutrix [accuser] bears on its face indications of improbability or unreliability and particularly when it is contradicted by other evidence.
The testimony of the prosecutrix [accuser] in this case is not only uncorroborated, but it also bears on its face indications of improbability and is contradicted by other evidence, and in addition thereto the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of the defendant. It therefore becomes the duty of the Court under the law to grant the motion made in this case."
I find it a baffling piece of female behavior, that "they all pile on guys at once"
Copycat rape accusations are now the norm rather than the exception. What ever happened to the copycat rape accusation with the 70 year old Egyptian banker that supposedly raped another hotel maid??
The Greeks had a tale of "The Sirens", and how they would seductively cry for help (Sirens cry), and anyone that answered their cries would get pummeled by the Sirens, as they would all pile on you at once.
Every false rape accusation, that the media spins as true, further "Empowers" gender-feminists.
"we have handed anonymous women and children far too much power to destroy innocent men and boys"
These false-rape accusations seem so much like the false accusations brought on by hysterical girls against innocent people during the era of the Pilgrims in Salem.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Atlas
Quasimodo - "Should I believe the officer didn't also know she was a prostitute?"
I believe that it is fairly well-known that the police in the Duke hoax never believed Mangum, and would have not even filed the case with the DA (Nifong, who sensed a political opportunity, grab the case from police right away). Through out the pendency of that case, numerous blogs kept pointing out the statements made by police officers as indications that there were serious issues with the case.
Yes, the police knew quite well that she was a prostitute [you might recall the police interview with her boyfriend/pimp, who told them about all the locations he had taken her that weekend for her “dates”?]. But, that information was quashed by the (Main Steam) press, who tried up until the bitter end to keep the exculpatory information away from the public.
We don’t know if the cops on the beat had any idea about Nafissatou Diallo prostitution activities. They may well have not known, as she wasn’t a typical “street walker”, but rather enjoyed an exclusive clientele in a luxury hotel (catering to foreign dignitaries), wherein her prostitution might well have been not only actively encouraged by the hotel, but also kept hidden by the hotel as well.
It seems her prostituting wasn’t readily apparent until her (usual) clientele had to be taken to the hotel in which the DA’s Office had placed her (for her protection, no less!). The Sofitel allowed her to engage in her “other profession” more discretely than did the procession of men in and out of the hotel which was being closely watched by officers.
What I’m getting at is that it isn’t fair to blame the police officers who may or may not have been familiar with her. Their “opinions” would not have been asked for, nor even considered. Recall the case of Valdik Filer. Police KNEW Ligia Filer was a complete nut-case – who had threaten to kill them on an audio recording. Yet, Mary Kellet certainly never gave one minutes consideration to what they might have had to say in regards to the case she was building against an innocent man.
On the Law enforcement side, you have four distinct levels to consider: the officers who may be the first responders (as with Mangum), the detectives who will next investigate, the investigators with the DA’s office (who will take over the case after it is filed with the DA), and the DA (deputy or assistant DA, actually) who will make the final determination about how to proceed (or not). These four “entities” need not collaborate nor share information at all. They typically would, but there is no requirement that they do so.
Thus, investigators from Nifong’s Office could ignore what the responding officers and other “beat cops” had to say, and Nifong could ignore and potentially exculpatory evidence his investigators turned up. That’s certainly what Mary Kellet had to do. We know that the police had a much different take of that case – we’ve all heard the recording of Ligia Filer “going off”.
I was watching "The Intruder" last night starring William Shatner. It was chillingly familiar when the young black protagonist was set up to be lynched, and how easy it was for the white girl to convince those people willingly predisposed to believe he had raped her. (I realize the danger faced by black men in the 50's was far worse then that of men in general today, even though some may disagree with me on that)
The colors might have changed, but the method is alive and well...
Eric J Schlegel - ”…how easy it was for the white girl to convince those people willingly predisposed to believe he had raped her.”
This, in a nutshell, is the very essence of the FRA issue – how easily people (be they police, prosecutors, members of the press, or even ordinary citizens) believe a rape lie.
This is why this site is so very important. It is building a “critical mass” of evidence pointing to the reality that woman most certainly DO lie about rape, to the alarming frequency with which they do so, and the often frivolous (but, always self-serving) reasons for which they do so.
The best way to change the way in which people (LE, Press, and everyone else) respond to rape allegations is to make it impossible to ignore how often those allegations are bound to be false.
Since the inception of this site, there has been a noticeable “shift” in the accounts of FRA’s. Early on, most stories included the account of men being arrested, “perp-walked”, named and humiliated prior to the determination that no rape hade occurred. That used to be the norm. Now, it’s more the exception (Strauss-Kahn being notable in that he was still handled that way). Many of the stories featured here now involve no arrest, and only the police independently breaking-down the accuser, and getting her to confess. Others detail how the accused was brought in and questioned, but his remarks were apparently taken seriously, and the investigation was turned back upon the accuser. These are evidence of a marked improvement, which I )for one) believe is in no small part to the mounting evidence complied and highlighted by this site.
”(I realize the danger faced by black men in the 50's was far worse then that of men in general today, even though some may disagree with me on that)”
Since their fate was typically at the hands of a mob, rather than law enforcement (corrupt and/or incompetent as LE might be/have been), you’ll get no argument from me.
”The colors might have changed, but the method is alive and well...:”
Exactly true. What was easily observed as an effective way to turn whites on blacks was simply transformed into a method to be used against men in general. Where white women could either cover for their adulterous affairs with them, get revenge on a black man who ignored them, or simply get loads of public attention at the (ultimate) expense of a black man; it was readily apparent that the cry of rape was quite effective at achieving any of those ends.
It seems to me to have been entirely predictable that women would continue to use the same tactic (now improved, with enhanced backing in law, thanks to the SGI).
The response needs to be a frank acceptance of the reality that some are lying, a uniform policy of investigating before arresting, and proper punishments legislatively enacted for those who are found to have been lying.
When it comes to rape claims, this country more closely resembles Salem, Massachusetts, 1692
////////////////////////
That’s exactly what it is.
"None of them could resist using the DSK case as another gender passion play "
and nary a peep when his replacement derides men with her "too much testosterone" line.
Dear District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. I am writing to you to please make an example out of Nafissatou Diallo, this woman should receive no less than life in prison for her fraud. Nafissatou Diallo needs to be given the same punishment that Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn would have received if convicted of all the charges. It’s called deterrence and it will take a noble District Attorney to do the right thing. You have a list of charges you could bring against this woman from money laundering to obstruction of justice. I hope that you will do right, in the name of justice.
"The colors might have changed, but the method is alive and well..."
the link between WKKK and modern feminism
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2005/usher042105.htm
"Should I believe the officer didn't also know she was a prostitute?"
I don't know, but he was none-the-less incredulous. Also, afaik, she did not have a record of prostitution. So that information would not have come up on their system...
Although, just because he didn't believe her did not mean her claim should not have been investigated. However, what did seem suspicious is that the Durham police did not keep the recording of that incident, contrary to their own policy.
"It seems her prostituting wasn’t readily apparent until her (usual) clientele had to be taken to the hotel in which the DA’s Office had placed her (for her protection, no less!). The Sofitel allowed her to engage in her “other profession” more discretely than did the procession of men in and out of the hotel which was being closely watched by officers."
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source on that? I think many people would be shocked to learn that she was working as a prostitute while under police protection.
"However, what did seem suspicious is that the Durham police did not keep the recording of that incident, contrary to their own policy."
They erased it AFTER the defense attorneys asked for it in court.
Also in the news: serial false accuser and child murder Casey Anthony has been acquitted, in spite of overwhelming evidence!
Apparently, she's innocent by reason of having a cunt. (Sure hope she doesn't kill again!)
In unrelated, but shocking news, a jury of 7 women and 5 manginas has issued Casey Anthony a pussy-pass for killing her then 2 year-old daughter in 2008.
Despite volumes of evidence that seemed to over-whelming point to Casey Anthony’s guilt – from her not reporting her daughter missing, to her partying while her daughter was missing (and prior to authorities being notified), to her lies about a fictitious baby-sitter, to the DNA found in the stinking (of decaying flesh) trunk of her car – the jury seems to have bought into the story of her having been so emotionally damaged by the (alleged) sexual abuse of her father, that her seemingly irrational behavior was simply the outcome of that severe abuse.
That’s right, a new reason to make an FRA – to justify your strange behaviors after killing your child, and to beat the murder “rap”.
If a woman gets caught having murdered her child, after acting as if nothing was wrong with the mysterious absence of her child, she can simply accuse any convenient man (say, her father and her brother) of molesting and sexually abusing her – instant justification for any seemingly “guilty” behaviors, for obvious and misdirecting lies; and, most importantly, a “reasonable theory” for juries to hang their hats upon while issuing a pussy-pass.
”Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source on that? I think many people would be shocked to learn that she was working as a prostitute while under police protection.”
I’ll have to dig out the article in which I read that. I came across it following links from story to story. I believe it was in the story detailing how the DA’s investigators had learned of her phone call to her boyfriend in jail. The indication was, as I recall, that they were also alerted to her possible prostitution activities due to men showing up at the hotel where she was staying.
Until I can find that source again, feel free to consider it (someone’s) speculation. It sounded as if it where a likely scenario as to how they learned about her “other profession”, but even if I can find it, it was a apparently report on what someone had told the reporter, thus, it may or may not be accurate.
I’m sure that details will continue to emerge, and if that account was true, it should be repeated in other forthcoming accounts.
[follow-up]
Anonymous - ”Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source on that?”
This article points to a New York Post article, which I can no longer locate:
”Over the weekend, the Post ran an article claiming that the maid accusing Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault claiming that the woman was not only paid for sexual services from Sofitel guests but continued to “work as a prostitute in a Brooklyn hotel where she was stashed by prosecutors” after the initial DSK allegations.”
Perhaps the recently filed lawsuit against them has caused the Post to take down the article about her continuing prostitution while under the watchful eye of the police, and while on the DA’s dime.
[More follow-up]
Anonymous - ”Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source on that?”
Finally!
”She was turning tricks on the taxpayers' dime!
The Sofitel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of a sex attack in his suite wasn't just a hotel hooker -- she continued to work as a prostitute in a Brooklyn hotel where she was stashed by prosecutors, The Post has learned.
The so-called victim, whose web of lies has crippled the Manhattan DA's case against the former International Monetary Fund boss, played host to a parade of paying male visitors in the weeks after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, a prosecution source said.
"While she was under our supervision, there were multiple 'dates' and encounters at the hotel on the DA's dime," the source said of her paid hotel room. "That's a great deal for her. She doesn't have to cover her expenses."
The woman has a regular fleet of gentlemen callers who range from wealthy clients she met at the Sofitel to counterfeit-merchandise hawkers and livery-cab drivers, said sources close to the defense investigation.”
Slwerner: one of the alternate jurors (also a mangina) says that he also would have acquitted the bitch.
Basically, they all bought the bullshit about her father. Unbelievable.
Hey wait a minute, didn't the new york times say this women was a struggling working single mother, who was also a practicing muslim who would never lie?
Why The New York Times gets away with publishing lie after lie after lie of faulty and inflammatory prejudicial misinformation is beyond me. Does a ??free press??? also mean free from responsibility for what they publish??
Yeap. The second I saw that on cnn 2-3 days ago, I knew she would be acquitted.
It is eerie. Absolutely eerie. From now on, I doubt any woman with competent lawyers will serve any time for murder.
But the backlash, and it's a lot from women, is astounding. They are very mad that a child murderer is walking.
Yes, this isn't a case of women being united in support of this monster. Many women celebrities have condemned this terrible, terrible verdict.
It's astonishing that anyone could believe that any mother -- even a nutjob like Casey -- would duct tape her child's mouth and then dump her in the swamp after she accidentally drowned. She was so obviously guilty it's ridiculous.
"Finally!"
Thanks, SLW.
"It's astonishing that anyone could believe that any mother -- even a nutjob like Casey -- would duct tape her child's mouth and then dump her in the swamp after she accidentally drowned."
While I haven't been following the case, it also doesn't make sense that someone would need duct tape or chloroform to either commit murder or transport their own child, living or dead. Prima facie, it seems possible that the child died due to some cause other than murder, such as accident or neglect, and then she tried to make it look like an abduction to try to cover it up.
There is no reason to "cover up" the accidental death of your child.
Anonymous - ”one of the alternate jurors (also a mangina) says that he also would have acquitted the bitch.
Basically, they all bought the bullshit about her father.”
There’s a lot of “justifying” going on about how the prosecution failed to make their case. This may be a part of what happened, as this was basically an entirely a circumstantial case.
Still, the one thing going for the prosecution was Casey Anthony’s behavior – not reporting her daughter missing for weeks, lying about a fictitious babysitter who MUST have taken her, out partying after her daughter was “missing” [This one, to me, is HUGE! What parent, not knowing where their child is (for days) goes out to have a good time as if nothings wrong?], has a car trunk that smells like a decomposing body, and who’s own mother calls police to report her granddaughter is missing [Makes zero sense to report your daughter if you know the child drowned in your pool, eh?]. [Wikipedia has a good, brief synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony]
So, how does the defense tackle the huge obstacle of Casey Anthony’s behaviors? Well, the need to portray her as too mentally incapacitated to respond in a “correct’ and logical manner to her daughters disappearance. Enter that “thing” that the pundits seem to all be trying to carefully step around in discussing the surprise outcome of the case – the allegation of systematic, long-term molestation and sexual abuse by her father and brother.
My suspicion is that the reason that no one seems to be mentioning it as a probable “game changer” for the defense is that they know, in their hearts, that it IS the thing which gave the jury their “reasonable doubt” about Casey Anthony’s otherwise “guilt-suggesting” bizarre behaviors. Suddenly, the jury had something they could use to explain to themselves why she would act as she did.
Pierce has made the point time-and-time-again that the SGI has long been selling the notion that any behavior can be seen as consistent with be the victim of rape and sexual abuse. So, if they could convince themselves that she WAS the victim of her father and brother, then those jurors could “understand” how her daughters disappearance could make Casey seem uncaring and prone to tell elaborate lies.
The Talking heads can go on all they like about the weaknesses of the prosecutions case, but, from the time I heard that the defense was playing the “sexual abuse victim” card, I’d had a very uncomfortable sense that the case had gone from a “slam-dunk” for conviction to a likely acquittal. I tried to convince myself that the jury would surely see through that obvious “hail Mary”; but, alas, clearly I was wrong.
Anonymous - ”Slwerner: one of the alternate jurors (also a mangina) says that he also would have acquitted the bitch.
Basically, they all bought the bullshit about her father.”
Here’s the pertinent info from that story:
Huekler said the "$64,000 question" was why Anthony failed to report her daughter's disappearance and told lies to police.
But he said it was important to remember that "the lies just didn't start with the death of Caylee" but several years before that. "I personally think this family was dysfunctional," he said.
And, just WHY did he thing the Anthony family was dysfunctional?
During the case, the defense accused the defendant's father, George, of molesting her.
And, of course, that lead to this theory that the jury could cling to:
Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool and that Anthony panicked and hid the body because of the traumatic effects of being sexually abused by her father.
Okay, I have to give myself a rebuke here:
Yesterday, I was postulating that the MSM and Feminists would be looking for the "next big news story" as a means of burying the revelations about the DSK case.
[own horn tooting]Seems I was right.[/horn]
But, still, here I am playing right into it, and derailing the thread with a discussion about Casey Anthony's pussy-pass.
As Homer would say, "D-oh!"
And that's the problem: our society has been brainwashed and Oprah-fied into believing that THE ONLY cause of a woman misbehaving is because she was "abused."
The truth is probably that she should have been taken to the woodshed while growing up, but instead had a weak father who failed to discipline her properly.
Anonymous - And that's the problem: our society has been brainwashed and Oprah-fied into believing that THE ONLY cause of a woman misbehaving is because she was "abused."
No that a court has acted upon Jessica Valenti’s call for all men accused of rape to be presumed guilty, perhaps she can turn her man-hating attention to demanding that anytime a woman commits a crime, her father should be presumed guilty of having molested her. [/snark]
"There is no reason to "cover up" the accidental death of your child."
There is if there was negligence or endangerment. Regardless, crazy people don't need reasons. Just like there isn't a good reason to kill your own child.
If you follow this blog, you will regularly read about false rape accusations with motives that would be generously described as "frivolous". If a behavior has almost no punishment, there will be those who will try it out of nothing more than boredom and curiosity.
Jul 6, 2011 5:12:00 PM
SLW, that link doesn't work.
Regardless, we don't excuse male rapists because they were abused, and many studies have shown that most of them were. And before some feminist troll tries to twist my words around, I'm not suggesting that we should excuse them, but that we shouldn't excuse women either.
Post a Comment