Fight Without Honor: Rape Accuser Argues She Should Be Immune to School Honor Code

dt_common_streams_StreamServer

Nasiru Seidu, 39, of Orem, UT, went on a date with 19-year-old BYU student, Madi Barney. They went to her off-campus residence. According to the police reports, Seidu and Barney engaged in some sexual activity. At some point, she alleges that she wanted to stop, and began to put her clothes back on. It is also alleged that he pushed her back onto the bed and continued having sex with her. When she told him no, he forced her to the ground and continued having sex. After being arrested and booked into the Utah County jail, police interviewed Seidu who said the sex was completely consensual and that he stopped when she asked him to.

Pretty basic “She Said, He Said” rape case. Happens pretty frequently.

Essential Facts of the Date in Question
1. Accuser is a student at BYU. (Uncontested)
2. Accuser and Defendant go on date. (Uncontested)
3. Accuser and Defendant return to Accuser’s residence. (Uncontested)
4. Accuser and Defendant have sexual contact. (Uncontested)
5. Accuser tells Defendant to stop. (Uncontested)
6. Accuser claims Defendant forcibly continued to have sex with her. (Contested)
7. Defendant claims he stopped when Accuser said. (Contested)

Link 1
Archived Link 1

Now, here’s where the case wanders into the weeds.

Some time in November 2015, one Utah County Sheriff’s Deputy named Edwin Randolph, also a track coach at BYU, obtained discovery materials in Seidu’s case. Who he obtained them from is still a mystery, but what is known is that he handed the materials over to BYU. BYU then begins an Honor Code inquiry against Madi Barney based on those materials.

The Deputy County Attorney, Craig Johnson, filed charges of witness retaliation against Randolph and Seidu. His superior, elected County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman, dropped the charge against Randolph based on information received by him from Utah County Sheriff’s Department’s internal affairs investigation. Randolph claims that he did not intend for BYU to open an inquiry against Barney, but to investigate male students how may have committed Honor Code violations with regard to sexual conduct. This story doesn’t make sense because Seidu is not a BYU student, nor is he associated with the university in any way. Seidu, through his attorney Jeremy Jones of the law firm, Nelson Jones, stated that he and Randolph are not friends.

Link 2

Archived Link 2

Back to BYU. Brigham Young University begins an Honor Code violation inquiry into Barney once they receive the discovery materials from Randolph. An administrator contacted her and asked her to come in because it appeared that she violated the Church Educational System Honor Code.

A quick sidetrack.

BYU’s Honor Code Document

From the Honor Code Statement:

As a matter of personal commitment…students of Brigham Young University…seek to demonstrate in daily living on and off-campus those moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and will:

•Live a chaste and virtuous life

From the section labeled “Conduct”:

[A]ny other conduct or action inconsistent with the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Honor Code is not permitted.

Refer back to the Essential Facts and the police report. There is an uncontested fact that consensual sexual contact did occur between Madi Barney and Nasiru Seidu, that it occured while she was a student at BYU, and that it occured in off-campus housing. It kind of does look like she violated the Honor Code.

It appears that she knows she violated the Honor Code as well because Madi Barney started a petition (yay, a petition signed by people on the internet! How many of those supporters are 1)Students/Alumni of BYU 2)Faculty/Administrators of BYU 3) Residents of Utah County 4) Members of LDS Church). From the petition that she started:

I was raped, and I waited four days to report because I was so terrified about my standing at BYU. Brigham Young University has a strict honor code that prohibits actions such as premarital sex, alcohol or drug use, and even being in the bedroom of someone of the opposite sex. I am a survivor of rape, and now BYU has put my academic future on hold due to their allegations that I broke the Honor Code in the circumstances of my assault. I want victims of sexual violence at BYU to have an immunity clause from the Honor Code so that they don’t feel afraid to report.

Link 3
Archived Link 3

Okay, I kept a muzzle on editorializing until now. First, was Madi Barney raped? Maybe. I can see it going either way. Supposedly, Seidu “admitted” over the phone in a monitored calls between Seidu, Barney, and the police, to raping her. If they have the recording, it will probably be admissible against him because Utah is a one-party consent state to recording. If the officers were listening in, they could testify to it as a statement against interests (yay hearsay exceptions). If this recording exists, stick a fork in him, he’s done. If she gets on the stand, turns on the waterworks and boo-hoos about how this big black guy violated her sacred womanhood, the jury will probably eat it up because juries usually do.

He says it was consensual and it appears it was, at least at first. This could just as easily be a buyer’s remorse false accusation. If there is a rape kit, it could hurt him or help him, depending on if any physical trauma happened (bruises, tears, etc.). If he can marshal witnesses who will testify that she was all over him, or that she picked him up, or that she initiated the sexual contact, it helps him.

But, there are plenty of smartypants lawyers to work all of that out.

With respect to the honor code violation. It doesn’t appear that Barney has cooperated with the investigation, hence the hold on registration.

BYU Honor Code Office’s investigation policy:

The HCO will normally investigate a reported Honor Code violation if there is sufficient, reasonable, and credible information that an Honor Code violation has occurred. After a violation report is received, the HCO will:
(i) analyze the violation report and relevant evidence,
(ii) conduct an investigation and interview the student and any witnesses or other persons having information about the student and/or the allegations as the HCO deems appropriate,
(iii) notify the student in writing of the alleged violation(s) of the Honor Code if it appears that an Honor Code violation has occurred,
(iv) encourage the student to respond, preferably in writing, to the allegations and relevant evidence,
(v) assess the credibility of the witnesses and strength of the evidence, and
(vi) prepare a decision and recommended course of action.

I haven’t seen an information yet that indicates that she (ii) was interviewed by the HCO, or (iv)has responded to the allegations against her.

cont’d

In cases involving sexual violence or harassment, the university will conduct its own investigation regardless of the pendency or timing of other civil, criminal, or ecclesiastical proceedings. In all cases, the university retains the right to conduct its own independent investigation and to reach a determination which may or may not be consistent with the outcome of civil, criminal, or ecclesiastical proceedings.

cont’d

Interim Action

The university may take action on an interim basis pending completion of its investigation when in its discretion such action is reasonably justified. For example, in certain circumstances the university may place an immediate hold on the student’s registration and/or graduation pending further investigation and/or resolution.…The university may discontinue or amend such interim action at any time upon resolution of the issues and/or the subsequent findings of the university’s investigation. If the student disagrees with the interim action, he/she may request an expedited review by the Dean of Students’ Office consistent with the principles and procedure outlined in the Expedited Administrative Review below.

Expedited Administrative Review

If a student disagrees with an interim action taken by the university…an expedited Review may be requested under the following guidelines:
(1) when notified of the interim action or the Decision, the student promptly responds with a request for an expedited process to the Dean of Students’ Office;
(2) the Review application form is completed and delivered without delay to the Dean of Students’ Office;
(3) there is no new or additional information to be introduced; and
(4) the student agrees to participate in the Review when scheduled.

If the conditions for an expedited Review are met, the Dean of Students’ Office will attempt in good faith to schedule the Review within three to five business days of receipt of the Administrative Review Application.

By requesting an expedited Review the student should be aware that the Review process is accelerated. His or her preparation time will be much more limited and the scheduling of the Review will be accomplished as soon as is practicable. The student cannot publicly perform or play during the expedited Review process. The expedited Review process is not generally recommended but is available to a student as an option in unusual circumstances where the student believes it to be in his/ her best interests to complete the Review process as soon as is practicable.

Starting an online petition and waving signs on campus doesn’t look like it falls under any part of the Expedited Administrative Review process.

Barney is not arguing that Honor Code is unreasonable, or that it is unjust, or that she did not agree to it by attending BYU, or that she was confused by it. Refer to the facts. She brought the man back to her residence, and had sex with him. Full stop. That’s all the BYU Honor Code requires for a violation. She just wants a free pass for violating it because, in the course of violating it, something went wrong for her. The Honor Code was violated BEFORE the crime happened. Not during and not after.

The law doesn’t make exceptions for burglars who fall out of windows and break their legs, or for drug dealers who get shot in the course of selling drugs. If you’re going to break the rules, break them and ask for mercy when you get caught. Don’t break them and then say, “I should be exempt because I got a bad outcome as a result of breaking the rules.”

Advertisements

Fordham University: Less Than 1% Chance of Being Sexually Assaulted

Fordham University conducted a survey through its Department of Public Safety, Title IX coordinator, and Student Affairs. That survey, consisting of 2,008 respondents, indicated that 92% of the undergraduate respondents and 97% of graduate student respondents respectively had not been subject to forced or coerced sexual contact.

According to Fordham’s VP of Public Safety, Fordham had six “sexual assaults” in 2015 out of a student body of 15,000.

At Fordham University, based on actual investigated incidents, you have a .04% chance of being “sexually assaulted.”

Sounds pretty safe to me. But what do I know? I don’t see the invisible tendrils of the “Rape Culture” everywhere.

Link

Archived Link

Andy Kopsa: Get Rid of Statutes of Limitations To Protect Accusers’ Feelings

This appeared in the Guardian today.

After this month, victims of pedophile priests in the Catholic church will no longer be able to find justice – at least, not in Hawaii or Minnesota, two states that extended the statute of limitations (SOL) after a renewed wave of allegations came to light in 2013. This is yet another perfect example of our country’s willful ignorance about rape and sexual abuse.

Why are there SOLs in these cases at all? There shouldn’t be.

Removing statutes of limitations (protection for defendants)? Surely Andy Kopsa will explain why this should be with reason and evidence. I’ll just wait for you to finish laughing because this is the Guardian and rational discourse is not what the Guardian specializes in.

It’s already impossible in most other states for victims of rape and sexual assault within or beyond the bounds of the church to gain justice, since SOLs vary wildly from state to state but are often impossibly short. Alabama, to offer just one example, gives victims above aged 16 three years to file a criminal complaint in the case of felony sexual abuse. (Civil SOLs are comparatively longer and easier to pursue; criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil suits hinge on the lower bar of providing a preponderance of evidence.)

Some states allow cases to be filed beyond the SOL deadline if definitive DNA evidence is found. It should be noted Alabama isn’t one of them, but they aren’t alone. States have similar windows, and stratify abuse into categories like “forcible” rape or rape with the “threat of harm”. Threat of harm? Rape is itself harm.

In criminal cases, a defendant is at hazard for their freedom or life. In a civil case, the most you will lose is property/money. Oh, and Alabama is so unenlightened when it comes to rape they used to execute people for rape until 1959. Andy’s ignorance of legal distinctions is also pretty comical. He sees “forcible” rape and “rape with the threat of harm” and proceeds to assume the the former implies that rape is not harmful. Well, Andy, the former does not imply such and the latter “threat of harm” typically means that “you coerced this person into unlawful sexual contact” instead of putting a gun to their head or beating them or wrestling them down and raping them. Of course, Andy, being the idiot propagandist, can’t resist the opportunity to get his little soapbox and declare “rape is itself harm.” No shit, Sherlock.

Meanwhile, there is a staggeringly unacceptable backlog of untested rape kits in America, as well as loads of research showing that it can take years for victims to feel ready to come forward with their stories.

I had a conversation with Marci Hamilton, a professor at Cardozo School of Law, last year about this very issue. I asked her what on earth keeps SOLs in cases of sexual assault from being expanded or abolished. Victim-blaming, essentially.

“The only argument lofted against liberalizing the statute of limitations against child sexual abuse offenders,” according to Hamilton, is that, “it will increase the likelihood of false claims.” While false claims are concerning, Hamilton notes, that argument doesn’t hold water. “There are very few false claims as an empirical matter,” she told me.

The same can be said for adult victims of rape – especially women. While there have been a couple of high-profile rape allegations in recent months that fell apart upon scrutiny – the Rolling Stone story, and the Duke Lacrosse scandal – generalizing that women lie about rape all the time is a canard that’s easily debunked. Only 2–8% of rape or sexual assault claims are false. To be crystal clear: that 2–8% comprise claims when the accuser knew for certain that the accused was innocent, and assaults are often much less clearcut.

Except nobody is saying that women lie about rape all the time. People opposing the cult of “Believe Her”-ism are asking for this little thing called evidence sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt. And it’s pretty damn amusing every time a member of the Cult of “Believe Her”-ism repeats the holy cant of “only 2%-8%” (a statement that is deceptive, but deserves deeper treatment) is essentially telling the men who have done five, ten, twenty, thirty years for rapes they didn’t commit “FUCK YOU, you are collateral damage in our holy crusade against ‘rape culture’ and ‘patriarchy.'” “Kill them all (rape defendants). God will know His own” is his mentality while flagellating the Catholic Church for pedophile priests. Okay, Andy.

With respect to rape kits, what is a rape kit and what is its purpose? A rape kit contains vials, swabs, plastic bags, combs, slides, envelopes. The purpose is to collect and preserve evidence in order to identify the suspect in a sexual assault case. A rape kit is for evidence and identification. So why is the cult of “Believe Her”-ism making rape kits an issue? Because they cite a naked number of rape kits without discussing WHY they aren’t tested. According to the State of Florida, it’s 13,400 rape kits are untested because 41% of those people refuse to pursue the charges.  That’s right, you can get a rape kit, and then refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and the prosecution. In other cases, rape kits are sitting on the shelves because the prosecutor declined to prosecute, or the person didn’t want to file a police report, or, and this is the big one, the accused party pled guilty. So there is more nuance to the matter of criminal justice than “END THE BACKLOG” and “#TESTTHEKITS.” But Feminists and Progressives don’t deal in nuance. Or facts. Or reason. They deal in slogans, deceptions, and sophistry.

Also notice that no one in the Cult of Believe Her-ism is passing the hat around to collect money to test these kits. But Anita Sarkeesian can get $200,000 donated to her to peddle bullshit about video game characters.

We need statute of limitation reform of both criminal and civil SOLs. Expanding SOLs will not solve the rape crisis, but they can be a vital part of a societal and systemic overhaul of how we talk about rape, treat victims of rape and mete out punishment to the abusers. I have cautious optimism that there are better days ahead: Pennsylvania is trying to reopen a window for its victims, and more states are likely to follow suit.

Andy offers no proof as to what eliminating the Statutes of Limitations will do, but makes a speculative claim that it will help with “talking,” and “treatment” and “punishment.” Well Andy, let’s break this down: One of the reasons that society via the government implemented statutes of limitations are to motivate a plaintiff of complainant to pursue their claims with all haste for the good of the defendant and society. When claims are fresh, the defendant can more easily gather fresh evidence to rebut the plaintiff/complainant’s claims against them. Society benefits because if the defendant is a bad actor, then they can be identified and punished before they subject another member of society to their bad acts. But we can’t protect society or the defendant’s rights if the plaintiff/complainant sits on their tongues for 30 years until they are finally comfortable and the stars are in proper alignment for them to pursue their claim.

Statute of limitation reform could be a tangible and relatively immediate start – with strong legislative leadership at the state and federal level – as part of a broader strategy to encourage reporting, promote understanding of rape in a real way, and hold rapists and pedophiles to account. Hawaii and Minnesota ending their SOL extensions goes in the wrong direction.

“Could be,” huh? This is the utopian progressive’s mentality. Shred the defendant’s rights to defend themselves properly, make false accusations easier, allow bad actors to continue to plague society when the plaintiff/complainant could have opened a case against them, and maybe, MAYBE, we’ll get some nebulous “understanding of rape in a real way.”

Link

Federal District Judge In UVA Defamation Case Orders Jackie Coakley to Turn Over Texts and Emails

Judge Glen Conrad stated that he would grant UVA dean Nicole Eramo’s request for discovery of texts and emails between Jackie Coakley, the source of Rolling Stone’s fabricated story that she was gangraped by members of Phi Kappa Psi, and officials at UVA and employees of Rolling Stone magazine. Judge Conrad has yet to rule on discovery texts and emails from Jackie to her friends and relatives during the relevant time period. Jackie is not a party to Eramo’s defamation suit.

This is getting interesting. I’m not sure why Rolling Stone isn’t on their knees begging for settlement of this thing.

Link

Archived Link

Students Expelled For Sexual Assault Sue University of Findlay

Two former students of the University of Findlay are suing the school. Findlay officials expelled Alphonso Baity and Justin Browning in 2014 on the accusation that they raped a white female student in September of the same year. Baity and Brown are co-plaintiffs in federal court for the northern district of Ohio. Among the allegations of the Baity and Brown are that M.K. lied about consensual sex, leading to their expulsion, that Findlay violated their civil rights, that the university did not follow its own procedures with respect to sexual assault allegations, and that the investigation in the allegations against them violated Title IX’s guarantee to a prompt, fair, and impartial investigation and resolution of allegations.

It’s All Fun And Games….

Baity and Browning were housemates at 438 Howard Street with two other student-athletes, identified in the complaint as Q.J. and Z.W. The accuser, M.K. befriended Q.J. and had sex with him. As an example, the plaintiffs allege that they on one occasion witnessed M.K. having oral sex with Q.J. in the common living area and continue despite the plaintiffs’ presence. She frequently socialized with all of the housemates, including the plaintiffs.

On September 20, 2014, M.K. approached Browning in the school dining hall and tried to give him her phone number. Browning refused due to the team rules. (Just say no to jersey chasers!) The next day, Browning, M.K., R.J., Q.J., and K.A. gathered at the students’ house. R.J. and K.A. made a Taco Bell run. Q.J. observed M.K. consent to enter Browning and Baity’s shared room. Witnesses Z.W., A.D. and Q.J. later witnessed sounds of voluntary consent, including use of the word “yes.” (Daniel Bryan will not be called as a witness). Browning asserts that M.K. undressed herself and sucked his dick, then they had sex in what the complaint alleges “multiple positions” including M.K. riding Browning. No force or coercion was ever used against M.K. Baity returned and entered the room he shared with Browning. He heard M.K. and Browing mid-coitus. When it sounded like they stopped, Baity entered the room to retrieve his phone charger. M.K. invited Baity to have sex with her. She sucked his dick and then had sex with him. Plaintiffs’ witnesses claim that M.K., once she was finished, strolled around the house naked in full view of the residents and several other female houseguests. She returned to the bedroom for another round with Browning before going to sleep with him.

The following day, around 11 a.m. M.K. after searching for her keys and a conversation with the plaintiffs, returned to her dorm at Deming Hall. Plaintiffs’ witness H.S., observed M.K. bragging about the previous evening’s sexual encounter. At no point did she make any claims of involuntary or forced sexual contact. She also recounted the story to witness J.F., including roaming through the Plaintiffs’ house nude.

Until She Accuses You Of Rape

October 1, 2014, ten days after sexy-fun-time, M.K. filed a report with Findlay administrators claiming the Plaintiffs sexually assaulted her on September 20, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that the subsequent investigation in M.K.’s claim violated the university’s Title IX investigation procedures. The investigator did not interview M.K. beyond her initial report, not even with regard to the existence of a video recording of the night’s sexual activities. Of the three Black witnesses present during the sexual activity, the university only interviewed Q.J., who stated that all of the sex that night had been voluntary. One of the two other White women present, K.A. testified that she observed the sex with the Plaintiffs to have been completely voluntary. The other, A.D., corroborated K.A.’s statements. The Plaintiffs allege that the university administration retaliated against both; that K.A. was removed from a more desirable work-study position in campus security dispatch and forced to take a less desirable job; A.D. was threatened with expulsion.

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiffs were interviewed separately by university administration. At no point before or during the interview were they informed of the specific allegations against them, they were not advised of their rights, and they did not receive the benefit of advice or counsel. Plaintiff Browning claimed that a video tape of that night, including the sex with M.K. existed. The university investigators made no effort to locate or secure the recording. The amount of time spent on the total investigation was less than 24 hours. On Friday, October 3, 2014, the university issued expulsion letter to the Plaintiffs. The letters stated that, based on the university’s investigation, the Plaintiffs had sexually assaulted M.K. and as a result, the Plaintiffs were required to leave the premises by noon the next day. Additionally, they were banned from any university-affiliated events on or off-campus. Subsequent appeals of their expulsions were denied without explanation. At no point did the university or M.K. contact the Findlay Police Department or the Hancock County Prosecutor.

What Does It All Mean?

My pure speculation on this matter: “M.K.” was a blue ribbon jersey-chaser, trying to fuck her way into being girlfriend, but none of these uppity negroes would play ball with her (she had no problem with playing with their balls) and make her an honest girlfriend. In the alternative, maybe video evidence of her having a Brazzers session with Browning and Baity and they were unwilling to erase or give her the video. M.K.’s report to the school mentions her belief that the Browning and Baity had a video of her. In either scenario, she pulled the trump card, cried rape, and here we are.

The Cult of “Believe Her-ism” has run amok. The Plaintiffs allege that the University of Findlay’s Title IX investigation was a sham, which, based on their complaint, it sounds like it was. The only evidence the school required was the spectral evidence of “Believe Her” and no witnesses to the contrary were sufficient to overcome it. These Title IX “investigations” are a joke, a sham, show trials that would have made the Soviet Politburo envious. Its procedures are a farce and offer the accused no protection. But this is the world that feminists and college administrators want, a retelling of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, where every woman gets to play Abigail Williams.

This last part goes out to college men in general, and black men in particular. When you are in college in this “progressive” day and age, you are Daniel in the lions’ den. A rape charge is a surefire way to derail a young black man’s future. In the best case scenario, you are Jameis Winston, beat all of the charges, win the Heisman, and get drafted as the first pick in the first round. Worst case scenario, you are Brian Banks and do six years for a rape you never committed and the people who put you there, including the woman, don’t offer you so much as an apology. This case lands somewhere in the middle. Browning and Baity didn’t go to prison, but their reputations have pretty much been ruined.

Stick with the townies. Dipping your pen in school ink is more dangerous than it has ever been.

Complaint: Browning et al. v. University of Findlay et al.

 

Emma Gray: Questioning Accusations Is Victim-Blaming! Now, Hang Bill Cosby!

In a 52-minute interview on July 31, Bill Cosby’s lawyer Monique Pressley continuously dismissed the more than 40 women who have come forward with allegations against 78-year-old.  “Either you get your day in court or you move on,” Pressley told HuffPost Live host Marc Lamont-Hill.
Pressley is media-trained; she’s poised and she deftly side-stepped Lamont-Hill’s most damning questions. But her (sanitized, well-planned) comments offered chilling insight into the way rape culture works. They also brought into sharp relief our collective desire to assume the worst of women who “tarnish” the image of our cultural heroes.

Emma Gray, senior Feminist propagandist for the Huffingpaint Post is shocked and aghast that Bill Cosby’s lawyer (a woman) would betray the sisterhood of the vagina and actually defend her client to the best of her abilities. Naturally, a lawyer defending a client is to be taken as spectral evidence of the existence of the Devil, I mean, RAPE CULTURE. Emma ignores the fact that the Bill Cosby situation is exactly why statutes of limitation were passed into law in the first place: So attention-starved bitches couldn’t come back around 40 years later and use the power of the government against a man.

In light of her comments, here are five things we need to clear up:
The court of law is not the same as the court of public opinion.
“I believe that people are innocent until they’re proven guilty. And if you can’t prove them guilty in court through prosecution, then you don’t get the option of persecution instead,” said Pressley.
Bill Cosby will most likely never see the inside of a jail cell — and the public has no power to circumvent his liberty with opinions. But we, the public, get to make judgments based on the plethora of information we have at our disposal.

So the court of law is not the court of public opinion. True, but it is duplicitous on Emma’s part to pretend that the one does not affect the other. Any good lawyer in jury selection will question the venire pool about how much they know about the case at hand, if they have any preconceived notions about the defendant, and if they believe that the state’s accusation is itself sufficient to infer guilt (some people really do think the state always accuses the right people). If the court of public opinion has already convicted a defendant in one jurisdiction, that defendant has the right to ask for a change of venue to somewhere where he can be judged by impartial (sort of) jurors. Conversely, people have had their reputations destroyed simply by being accused of a heinous crime, even after they were found not guilty.
Emma wants to ignore both of these points and conduct a public lynching of Cosby. White woman demanding that a black man be lynched. Hmmmm…

When more than 40 women come forward with stories that are consistent, in a society that systematically shames victims of sexual abuse, it is our right as private citizens to operate on the assumption that their words do have credibility — at least as much credibility as his.
The New Inquiry’s Aaron Bady wrote about the refrain of “innocent until proven guilty” as it relates to sexual assault cases and the court of public opinion. His words, pegged to accusations made against Woody Allen, hold true for Cosby as well: “His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility.” Saying Cosby isn’t a liar implies that all of the women who have made accusations against him are.

Ah, so when 40 women say something, it must be true. And three men make a tiger. The sort of demented mind that believes in truth by consensus opposes anything remotely resembling objectivity.
Emma, like the good feminist she is, attacks the presumption of innocence, because feminists don’t see the risk in marshaling the formidable powers of the state against a single person based on one accusation, or multiple accusations, in the absence of physical evidence of a crime. And no, the presumption of innocence does not assume the complainant or accuser is a liar. Everything in a complaint is, for the sake of argument, assumed to be truthful, if not factual. The presumption of innocence is wall the accuser has to get over before the state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. But feminists see due process as an evil Patriarchy trick.

There are real reasons that women come forward decades after a sexual assault occurs.
Fear of retribution, fear of not being believed, fear of having to continuously relive a trauma, to name a few.
Pressley took issue that Cosby’s alleged victims were coming forward “10, 20, 30, 40 years later.” She also expressed skepticism about why, if their claims were real, they wouldn’t speak out right after the incidents occurred: “There’s not any testimony or any accusation from any of these women that Mr. Cosby bound them, gagged them, prevented them from coming forward and saying whatever their truth was at the time,” she told Lamont-Hill.

Here is where Emma proves that feminists are not only are they self-centered narcissists, but they lack any sense of civic duty. If Bill Cosby were this evil raper of 40+ women, why are these women so comfortable with leaving him on the streets to continue raping? If their (alleged) rapes were so awful and terrible, why  wouldn’t they protect their fellow women and bring charges against Cosby? They feared “retribution”? Is Bill Cosby out here breaking legs and killing off witnesses? Fear of not being believed? That shows how unjust and cowardly women are when they would rather hide under a lie than stand on the truth. Having to continuously relive trauma? Again, cowardice and in being cowards, they allow other women to be traumatized. Way to go, ladies. Just to answer a few of these bullshit excuses.

But when you consider the emotional trauma and scrutiny women often face when they come forward and the difficulty of proving definitively that an assault took place, is it really all that surprising these women stayed silent until their voices reached a critical mass? Plus, as Cosby accuser Therese Serignese told me in November, in the ’60s and ’70s, date rape “wasn’t even a word,”
There are no “benefits” to making up a false allegation of assault.
“They earn themselves a seat in a chair on the front of a magazine. They get interviewed over and over,” said Pressley — as though the promise of “fame” could explain why dozens of women came forward to recall painful, violating memories in a public forum. When people dream of “fame,” does anyone really think that being  (in)famous as a victim of sexual assault is the goal?

So a woman would rather leave a rapist on the street than have her accusation be scrutinized. Isn’t that just wonderful? And yes, rape, in the absence of physical evidence, is difficult to prove. Why? Because it boils down to the word of the accuser against the word of the accused. The presumption of innocence tilts the scale in favor of the accused.
Most laughably, Emma believes there are no benefits to making up a false allegation of rape. Except for the instances I’ve documented just in the last few months in which rape accusers have either admitted to seeking some benefit from their accusation, or receiving some benefit for their accusation. Emma waves off the rational reason that some women, even dozens of women, might crave public validation to the point that they would jump on the Bill Cosby hatewagon. And yes, some people are so desperate for their 15 minutes of fame (or in the case of that shrieking harpy Janice Dickenson, extending  them), being a known as a victim of America’s dad is better than being anonymous.

Spoiler alert: Going public with a sexual assault accusation isn’t super fun! For the vast majority of victims who come forward, the only real incentive is the vague promise of potential “justice.” And when you are accusing a powerful public figure of sexual assault — especially one who has served as a cultural “father figure” for millions of Americans — you can bet that you’ll also be facing online harassment and the disbelief of people who can’t conceive that their hero could also being a rapist.
Sometimes, victims maintain cordial — or even friendly — relationships with the person who has sexually assaulted them. That does not act as evidence that the assault didn’t occur.

This is a lot of words to say “nuh-uh.” That’s all Emma is doing here: putting her fingers in her ears and shouting down any alternative explanation as to why Bill Cosby may not be guilty by virtue of the consensus.
And what sort of goofy bitch is friends with her rapist? She must have gotten over that whole “took my vagina” thing to stay in Mr. Cosby’s good graces. Amazing how having access to Bill Cosby’s power and connections heals those emotional traumas pretty quickly.

During the HuffPost Live interview, Pressley reminded Lamont-Hill that Beverly Johnson’s former manager claimed that the model fabricated her claims against Cosby. “That’s a prime example of a situation where a longtime manager of Ms. Johnson came forward to various media outlets and said, ‘Hmm, I was around during the time of this action and Ms. Johnson had nothing but positive things to say about Bill and Camille Cosby,'” she said.
But the truth is that victims react to sexual assault in a variety of ways, and health professionals stress that there is no “correct” reaction. We often look for “perfect victims” to bolster narratives of assault — women who react in the “right” way, do the “right” thing afterwards, have the “right” evidence. In reality, “perfect victims” don’t exist.

Sounds like somebody refused to engage in “Believe Her-ism” and actually told a truth that contradicted a holy and blameless victim of “Rape Culture.” The nerve of some people. Emma has also stuffed a nice straw man together. In her narrow feminist brain, heretics of “Believe Her-ism” are looking for “perfect victims” or “people with evidence” ignoring the instances in America alone where people have been unjustly accused and convicted on nothing but the accuser’s word (see Sara Ylen).

Victim-blaming is alive and well.
Pressley said the term victim-blaming is just “a hashtag” that exemplifies “the prevailing way that we label things.” Her comments prove just how easy it is to craft a narrative where victims are at fault for what happened to them.
“Women have responsibility. We have responsibility for our bodies, we have responsibility for our decisions. We have responsibility for the way we conduct ourselves,” said Pressley.
Later, she asked: “How many women and men have been willing to offer up their bodies on a casting couch? Have been willing to exchange sex for favors? Have had remorse after doing so and then accused someone who they believed they could get monetary gain out of and sell a story?”

Oh Aqua Buddha save us all. Someone actually believes that women should be responsible for their actions. Damn “victim-blamers.” To support that statement,  Monique Pressley offers up the example of the Hollywood casting couch (I’d put down good money that there’s a Disney kids casting couch, but I digress) in which young, fresh-faced whoevers trade sexual favors to advance their careers.

These “many women and men” Pressley references seem more like figments of imagination created by a culture that tries its very hardest not to believe the stories of victims of sexual assault, than archetypes rooted in truth.
Here is the truth: Rape is severely underreported in the United States, which means that victims are far, far, far more likely to bury an incident and suffer silently than they are to speak out about it. Hollywood has a long, storied history of “male scumbags,” who have used their privileged positions to exploit less powerful women.
“What I am doing is asking people to focus on facts,” said Pressley. Looking at the facts, I’m inclined to think that Cosby isn’t some miraculous exception — he’s the rule.
Head over to HuffPost Live to watch the full interview with Pressley.

Emma waves her magic feminist hand and *POOF* the casting couch is no more. No woman would EVER trade sexual favors for career advancement. And nevermind what actual denizens of that cesspool on the Pacific have to say. That’s just a lie perpetrated by the invisible spirits of the air, a.k.a. The Patriarchy.

Emma wraps this nonsense up with some empty blather about “underreported” rapes (I can do about as much with “underreported” rapes as I can with any other non-reported crime: NOTHING). She also blames women screwing their way to the top on “male scumbags,” but no mention of “female scumbags” who will trade pussy for a speaking role, rather than flip burgers for a living, because, as you know, women have no moral agency in the face of “male scumbags.” They are just objects who float on every errant gust of male breath.

Archived Source

Domestic Abuser Claims She Was Raped At Universal Studios

24-year-old Clermont woman Theresa Marie Gaitan, already charged with domestic abuse, added false rape to her list of legal problems. Gaitan lied to the police about being raped at Universal Studios, claiming that “a man with black teeth” threw her to the ground in the parking garage and raped her.

Rather than just believing her, the police actually investigated her claim. Based on review of the surveillance tapes in the garage (not a rape in sight) and her phone calls (never mentioned being raped), the police did what any rape culture-loving patriarchs would do: they questioned her claim. Sexist bastards. When faced with physical evidence of her false claim, Gaitan admitted that she lied.

She was already jailed for domestic violence for attacking her ex-boyfriend because he wouldn’t speak to her. Gaitan is currently held without bail for domestic violence, filing a false police report, perjury, and probation violation.

Believe her. Oh, and the county spent $1000 for a sexual assault nurse and a rape kit on a rape that didn’t actually happen. Nice. Very nice.

 

Source

Archived Source