Rape and the Media: Evil People Spreading Evil (Blaming the Victim Based on Agenda

You know how feminists, and supposedly the media (worst hypocrites to have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four), made a crusade out of stopping the EVIL of "attacking the victim" in the case of alleged rape? Sure you do. No, they did NOT mean it--especially if they had another agendnda (political, or somple "gossip"/ratings mentality, or both). These are eVIL people (media) spreadeing EVIL daily


Yes, I am talking about the New York City rape case against the head of the IMF. Let us be blunt: If this were a REPUBLICAN charged with rape, you would be having all of these stories investigating why he did such a thing (convvicting). However, since tis is basically a Eurpopean LEFTIST head of the IMF, AND apparently a political opponent of conservative (relatively, for France) President Sarkozy, the propaganda macine is alreadly in operation BLAMING THE VICTIM and treating "conspiracy theories" seriously. Yep. The media "journalists" are ALL Donald Trump. They are just more hypocritical about it.


No, unlike hypocritical "feminists" who put agenda ahead of everything, and automatically believe a pare complainant when the complaint is against someone whith whom thaty have no sympathy, I do NOT automatically believe a woman crying rape. Let's face it. There is a powerful incentive for a poor woman-or sometimes not so poor--to claim rape against a prominent and/or famous person, or just against a well off person or persons (Duke rape case). But what matters are the RELEVANT FACTS, and not character assassination. Yes, there has been some character assassination of the IMF head (3,000 suite at a New York hotel--how INCOMPETENT are "journlists" who need a rape case to bring up this as so important, where it has nothing to do with the rape case itself). However, now we are starting to see stories about the VICTIM, and possible "setup" (with NOT--i preat, NO--evidence).


Yes, I saw an EVIL story--I think on Fox, but I am sure it is out there is all of the efil media, meaning bascially all of them--that the maid in question lives in an apartment available only to people who suffer from AIDS, or some such strange thing. SO WHAT. Is this not the very thing that the media CONDEMNS (when they feel like it). It has NOTHING to do with RAPE, or the FACTS of the case Nope. It has NOTHING to do with the credibility of this woman, in any significant way. The very fact of making this charge against such a prominent man puts her credibility in issue. This kind of SMEAR (evil smear) tells you NOTHING about the actual facts. Remember all of those media stories about how "no means no", and about how even prostitues can be raped. Yes, while prostitutes can be raped, I think the fact a woman is a prostitute is somewhat relevant on her credibilkity (depending on the FACTS and circumstances of the particular case). But the SEXUAL HISTORY of the allegaed victim is IRRELEVANT. And I a m calling out the media on this one. Talking aoubt AIDS< or ANY part of this woman's sexual history (not involving sexual blackmail), makes you an EVIL person. Oh, but you "journalists" out there knew you were evil people already.


Then there is the "Anti-American, Desicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) and equaly despicable Yahoo "News" (boycott Yahoo).. Look at this "marvelous" AP headlie, featured on Yahoo "News" as this is being typed:


"NYC Maid's Lawyer says rape case is not a setup"


Can you get any mroe EVIL than the despicable AP, and Yahoo? When did YOU stop beating your wife. Yes, the headline attempts to give credibility to the very "charge" being denied. And WHY does the alleged victim have to DENY anything, unless there are FACTS to support such a charge? Nope. This is EViL stuff, and I will never back off on that charge of my own. It is simply obviuos I am right on this.


Let us look at the similar media performance in the Duke rape case. First, the media jumped all over the RACE angle, and encouraged the prosectuor to help the MEDIA condcut a tril of the Duke students charged of rape in the media. There were emails quoted, which were not EVIDENCE of rape. I said so at the time. Then the media turned on the alleged victim, and began character assassination of HER. I said that at the tim, as well. Obscured in all of this were the FACTS, which soon showed that no rape occurred. Had the media simply tried to report the relevant facts as they developed, wihtout trying to conductr a trial in the media (LEST apppropraite place to do so), we would have been spared the absurd backk and forth, competing evils of the absurd circus the Duke rape case became. ALL of the media have somehow gotten the idea that they have a license to conduct their own trials of criminal cases in the media. That is wrong. It is EVIL--evil being spread by evil people.


Yes, examine the EVIDENCE. Report the EVIDENCE. Report the FACTS. If there are FACTS supproting a "setup", then report them. Otherwise, do not SPECULATE. What is hard about this? It is not hard, unless you are part of an "institution" (today's media) that has gone over totally to the dark side. Darth Vader was not this obviusly evil.


Again, I have tried to read the above (bad eyesight makes it impossible for me to proofread , or even spell check, my own stuff in any reasonable amount of time--so I am really talking aoubt reviewing it in my mimnd). I am worried that I have held too many of my punches, and not conveyed to you how I really feel. My CONTEMPT for the "journalists" of today knows no bounds. The "facts" merely get in their way, and spreading evil is what they do.


Yes. I know. One of the worst things about this, and one of the reasons my reaction to this media evil is so strong, is that I have yet again been forced to come out of the closet as a FEMINIST. I really do refuse to consider the sexual history of the victim in rape cases--unless it is directly relevant (such as a pattern of crying rape falsely). I really do reject mere character assassination--in politics or criminal cases. I really do understand, as a lawyer most of my life, that there are many PREJUDICIAL "facts" that are simply irrelevant to criminal innocence or guilt--or that their very marginal "relevance" is so outweighed by the media kind of hysterical reaction (and emotional reactioni of too many people, which is why the media is doing it), that such "facts" should be REJECTED as "evidence" of a crime (as distinguished from evidence of questionable character).


Did the IMF head rape the maid? How the Hell do I know. But character assassination and evil speculation is not going to convince me one way or the other. I am willing to wait for the facts. And it should not convince you, unless you want to become a fellow traveller in evil, along with the media.