Friday, May 27, 2011

The New York City "Rape Cop" verdict

This past week, two former New York City police officers, Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, were acquitted of raping a woman while on duty. As I have not followed this case, I really cannot comment on the specifics of the charges except to say that the events the woman described and the reality of the investigation were two different things.

In other words, the "victim" lied. Of that, I have no doubt. Like the Duke Lacrosse Case in which Crystal Mangum described a 30-minute assault complete with ejaculation and being beaten with fists, the forensic evidence simply did not match the story. Despite the best efforts of the prosecutors to, frankly, suborn perjury, the jury was not buying the fantasy that the government was trying to conjure up.

Now, the cops were convicted of three counts of official misconduct for entering the woman’s apartment, and that was inevitable, given that the officers had gone to the apartment when they should have been doing their normal duties. That conviction cost them their jobs and may well result in jail time, but there was no evidence that they had raped the woman and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, keeping with the theme that made the NY Times a laughing stock during the Duke case, we see the newspaper continues with the same narrative: a woman accused them; therefore, they are guilty. The article declares:
For Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, the verdict was an unsatisfying conclusion. The decision, after a trial that lasted almost two months, also comes at a critical juncture for an office that is navigating the biggest case of Mr. Vance’s brief tenure: the sexual-assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

The jury’s decision also underscores the difficulty of obtaining favorable results for women who say they were sexually assaulted, and who often are subjected to scrutiny and skepticism that keep many of them from speaking out. In this case, defense lawyers pounced on the credibility of the woman because she was very drunk on the night in question and did not remember many details.
So, we see that this is about the politics of rape and sex, not about justice. It is about the promotion of the political career of the son of Jimmy Carter's secretary of state, and about prosecutors that decide that evidence does not matter, only politics.

What these cops did was bad and certainly a dereliction of their duties. However, what the prosecutors did was worse, for while Moreno and Mata violated their legal duties, the prosecutors suborned perjury, which is a felony and goes to the very heart of the system.

Unfortunately, the NYT and the political elites favor the felons.

11 comments:

Six said...

Simple solution - have cameras and voice recorders on cops at all times. Program them to automatically activate the moment they exit the vehicle. They have worked extremely well where they have been used thus from what I have read. Cops act differently if they know they are being recorded... so does the general public.

Doc Ellis said...

Greetings Dr Anderson,

Shared

Thank you for writing this

Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

you're full of beans;i read about two lines of this claptrap before verbally pulling the trigger on you... there was no reasonable doubt here...you're smoking crack.i don't need to hear one second of her testimony ;their story was at issue and theirs alone...there will be no follow up comment on my behalf.the jury already rolled over...any people who respond just refer back to the top of this comment,read through, and keep it moving...you would compare this to the duke lacrosse case???...you're out of your gourd...

Anonymous said...

The passage quoted from the New York Times' article mentions the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn ... for which little is really known at this time except through "leaks" that continue to stream from the authorities, all unfavorable for the defendant, yet very favorable for the accuser. Being a reader of this blog for sometime now, I attach no weight to this ... it is, quite simply, "business as usual", regardless of whatever the real truth is.

Now that having been said, I do suspect that Mr. Strauss-Kahn WILL end up having a very fair trial and just verdict ... simply because he has at his wealthy disposal an army of lawyers and private investigators that will be able to minimize the dishonest antics of the prosecutors and police.

dc

Anonymous said...

I am a staunch defender of the NYPD having had family members serving on same and a family member and multiple friends now "on the job".

I also, through professional experience, have seen nothing but expert professionalism and caring from the NYPD.

The only thing that truly troubles me in this case (and granted, I only read this in the NY Times and not from an official transcript of the proceding) is that a security camera attached to the bar below the woman's flat recorded the officiers entering the building for a total of four (4) times. The first time as they were escorting the young woman home. But the other three, why?

I do hope in my heart of hearts that these officiers are of the same high caliber of all the officiers of the NYPD of whom I have encountered and known throughout my life.

But the four visits make no sense.

Reader from NYC

liberranter said...

It's bad enough that the majority of the Amoricon Sheeple are already brainwashed into believing that "law enforcement" types can do no wrong. The moronette at the center of this case has just handed these creatures a gift-wrapped blanket defense against any future allegations of similar wrongdoing, no matter how provably true they might be.

Congratulations, "lady" (and I use that term loosely, accompanied by a heavy dollop of sarcasm). You've just set back rape victim's rights by a couple of decades. I hope you're proud of yourself, especially now that, by shredding your credibility, you've set both yourself and other innocent future victims up for REAL future rape by one of the hyper-depraved "new generation" of cops for whom "STOP RESISTING!" will be the only phrase in their vocabulary. You couldn't have done a better job if you were actually hired by the NYPD to sabotage this case!

Doc Ellis said...

liberranter-you wrote:

"You couldn't have done a better job if you were actually hired by the NYPD to sabotage this case!"

maybe she was....

Anonymous said...

all of your comments leave me very confused.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

liberranter does bring up an excellent observation in certainly one respect ...

There is a mantra being promoted by law enforcement, dutifuly parroted by the "free" press, that NO citizen under ANY circumstances has ANY right to refuse to obey ANY order by law enforcement ... no matter how unlawful that order might be, and no matter how unconstitutional the circumstances under which it is given.

The recent case of an Iraq war veteran shot and killed while defending his family from a home invasion by a SWAT team in Tucson, Arizona comes to mind ...

dc

William L. Anderson said...

To NYC,

The four-time entry definitely demonstrated misconduct, as they certainly were not "protecting" anyone. That was why they were convicted on the misdemeanor charges.

However, the rape charge had no evidence other than the word of someone who kept changing her story and who could not remember a number of things. I am not endorsing the conduct of these officers, but misconduct is much different than rape.

Most feminists believe that ALL men are rapists, and their theoreticians (like Catherine McKinnon) believe that ALL sex is rape, so that is the framework from which they are making their accusations. Feminists tend to believe that once a woman makes an accusation, we should move directly to sentencing. They are not moved by facts, since they consider themselves to be "postmoderns" in which facts also are nothing but a tool of oppressive men.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I agree about the rape issue. But still, the officers put themselves into the mix with the multiple visits.

They could have asked for back-up, an EMT crew, etc.

Still a bad spot on the NYPD which saddens me as, as I have said, I am a supporter of the NYPD. I have nothing but respect for the men and woman who serve with same.
Again, I only know what I know from reading the news reports. I will attempt to obtain the official proceedings to learn more.

Thank you for your reply.

Reader from NYC