I believe Vanessa Tyson for a couple of reasons. One of which is...

[LexVegas]

I see how those that don't believe her characterize her....elsewhere and especially here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. #MeToo

[Bleacher Creature]

2. Agree.

And the pattern is especially troubling.

[uponit7771]

3. #metoo doesn't mean guilt by accusation, #NoFranken2.0 !!!

[EffieBlack]

4. So, you believe that Justin Fairfax is a rapist because people you don't know and who don't know

either Dr. Tyson nor Fairfax said things about Dr. Tyson you don't like?

Yeah. That makes sense.

[LexVegas]

10. Because "why didn't they press charges" sounds like victim blaming to me

[EffieBlack]

15. Asking why a woman who has come forward to publicly accuse a man of rape but refuses to

press charges against him even though she still can is NOT victim blaming.

Now if I had reason to think that, right now, she is afraid or unwilling to press charges because she doesn't want to be exposed or isn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation and I criticized her for not pressing charges, THAT might be "victim blaming.""

But when a woman publicly comes forward, hires a law firm and public affairs consultant and then issues a public statement that she puts out to the entire world, providing intricate details of a sexual assault she says was committed by a man she names publicly, the normal reasons for not pressing charges don't hold water and asking if she plans to formally charge him with a crime so that she can get justice or he can clear his name is NOT "victim blaming."

[58Sunliner]

47. Are you a rape survivor? Because I think you are disingenuous to not acknowledge the reality-

of what rape victims can go through when they report and what it entails, and how damaging the whole process can be.
"the normal reasons for not pressing charges". Just what are those "normal" reasons btw.

The fact is, it is now several years past the incident. She has no physical proof and she knows that. She understood from day 1 that it would be he/she said. Rape victims are in shock and making decisions that would further expose you or put you at risk are hard to cope with.
I guess women who hire a lawyer to protect themselves, issue a public statement about what they have already reported to the press, must be suspect. You sure do load it up.I know what doesn't hold water.

[EffieBlack]

53. I fully understand that

But I assume that if she is not too in shock to come forward, accuse a man of raping her, name the accused, and share her story in excruciating detail with a national audience, she should be able also to tell her story to the police and let them do an investigation.

Just as #MeToo doesn't mean we must believe every woman simply because she made an allegation, it also doesn't mean that women can make public accusations and then refuse to use the tools that society provides her to actually follow through - including the criminal justice system which is set up to seek justice for the victims - especially when that means that the man must stand accused in the court of public opinion and, in this case, possibly lose his career, while the accuser takes no steps to have law enforcement do its job.

#MeToo is more than treating women with respect and assuming their credibility. It also means creating an environment conducive to them obtaining justice, extending statutes of limitations beyond most other crimes in recognition that women may not be emotionally able to come forward immediately or even within a few years. That's why Massachusetts has a 15 year statute of limitations.

It also means changing the way the police and courts handle rape allegations. It doesn't mean that women can or should make public accusations but refuse to go to the authorities with the same allegations they made in a public statement to the world.

In such a case, it could appear the point of coming forward was to seek revenge against the man for whatever reason - whether it's because he actually did assault her or for another reason - not to actually seek justice.

Sexual assault survivors deserve and are entitled to extraordinary deference. But they are not entitled to unlimited, unilateral rights to be believed while the person they accuse are left with no ability to defend themselves.

So, yes, you can accuse me of all manner of anti-woman bias or insensitivity toward sexual assault survivors as you seem to be doing because I don't think women should be treated as completely helpless beings in this situation. Although by all accounts, Dr. Tyson seems to be a brave, stable, strong woman, if she was so traumatized by this incident, I can understand why she wouldn't want to relive it by talking about it with strangers. But that doesn't seem to be the case. She posted about it online and has shared with millions of people the details of the alleged assault. Given that, after she came out and publicly accused a man of raping her, then walks away without taking advantage of the criminal justice tools made available to her, leaving the accused with a ruined reputation and no way to defend himself, I will very likely question her story and her motives. Because that's not how any of this is supposed to work.

[theboss]

66. That's quite a catch 22

You agree that she doesn't have to report it in 2004 if she was traumatized. But reporting it in 2019 proves she wasn't traumatized in the first place. So she should have reported it.

What process should a woman follow to reveal something like this years after the fact if she didn't report it?

[EffieBlack]

69. No, dear, that's not what I said

The process a woman should follow to reveal something like this if she didn't report it before but wants to tell the world about it now, as Dr. Tyson has done, is to report it now to the police, pursuant to the process victims use for reporting a crime.

And while it is perfectly understandable that she didn't report it at the time because she may have been too traumatized or embarrassed or confused, that is no longer the case, as demonstrated by her willingness to report the allegation to millions of people this week. If she was not too traumatized to share her allegation with the Washington Post, to share it again on her Facebook page, and then share it again with her lawyers, and share it again, in minute detail with the general public, suggests that trauma, embarrassment or confusion are no longer an issue keeping her from telling her story and, as such, are not a valid reason for not sharing the same allegation with the Boston police and prosecutors.

If she simply makes the allegation to the world but does nothing to actually prosecute it although she now has the opportunity to do so, her only purpose was to smear and destroy Fairfax, not to seek justice.

[theboss]

75. So you have to report the crime first - Even 30 years later?

Dr Ford did not do this.

[EffieBlack]

76. The statute of limitations had run by the time Dr. Ford came forward, so she couldn't "report" it

The statute of limitations is still running here, so Dr. Tyson can still press charges.

Shouldn't Tyson want Fairfax to be held criminally responsible for raping her? Even if a conviction isn't secured, she can at least press charges and trigger an official police investigation. Even if the investigation doesn't reveal enough evidence to prove Fairfax guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a likelihood that they can uncover enough evidence (or shake Fairfax's denial) to provide additional support for her allegation, thereby allowing her to be vindicated in the "court of public opinion."

[theboss]

78. I can email her if you want. (Seriously, I have this ability)

That seems like a relatively tough question though. Can you help me edit?

---------------------
Dear Dr. Tyson.

Though we shared time on campus together, I don't believe I had the pleasure of meeting you. Our shared friend - N.... P...…. - speaks very highly of you. He and I have reconnected in recent years through another classmate in Houston.

Upfront, I truly admire your bravery. I do not think I would have the fortitude to withstand the kind of scrutiny you now face over such a dreadful experience.

Havin said that, do you want this dude to attack other women? Why are you being a chickenshit and not pressing charges like people on the internet are demanding?

Most sincerely,

S...… P...…. '96

--------------------------

It kinda goes off the rails at the end.

---------

[Empowerer]

82. Is everything ok?

I'm serious.

[ehrnst]

89. Ok....

That's an odd post.

[Demsrule86]

117. Press charges? 15 years ago...he said /she said. There will be no evidence.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

84. The statute of limitations is not up on the Kavanaugh case.

So there goes that bs talking point

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-digital-age-could-make-the-statute-of-limitations-for-sex-crimes-a-relic-of-the-past-2018-09-18

Statute of limitation laws establish the window of time to prosecute an alleged perpetrator of a crime and they vary by state. In Maryland, for example, where Kavanaugh is accused, there is no statute of limitations on cases of rape and sexual violence in criminal cases. (Kavanaugh has not been charged with any crime.)

[pnwmom]

94. This AP report says that the charges that would have applied to Kavanaugh

are beyond the statute of limitations there.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-paid-legal-fees-firm-representing-jared/story?id=60912887

The allegations Ford detailed to The Washington Post appear to be misdemeanors that would be beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.

The allegations could be interpreted as second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, Rice said. But both charges are misdemeanors and would be far beyond the statute of limitations, which is typically one or three years, depending on the offense.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

100. The AP are a bunch of right wing stooges who farmed a random attorney with an opinion.

Lawrence Tribe and the previous Deputy Attorney General in Maryland have a different opinion.

But here we go. If she didn’t file charges the assault didn’t occur - victim blaming 101. And digging up random opinions farmed by the AP on top of it.



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11794730

[pnwmom]

109. But what matters is what the statute of limitations was at the time of the crime.

And when the assault on Ford occurred, it was only one year.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/kavanaugh-says-he-wont-let-false-accusations-push-him-out

Statute of limitations:

Based on Blasey Ford's account, prosecutors could have theoretically charged Kavanaugh with a crime like attempted rape or unwanted sexual touching over clothing. However, in 1982, those crimes had a one-year statute of limitations. In other words, Blasey Ford would have had to report the allegations to law enforcement by 1983. She did not.

It is worth noting, Maryland has done away with statute of limitations on most sexual offense charges, including rape, attempted rape and sex abuse of a minor, however, Kavanaugh is grandfathered in, so to speak.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

111. You are looking only at the misdemeanor offense.

Basically the least of any charges possible.

What he did was assault with intent to rape and kidnapping. Even you thought so at one point.

No statute of limitations

[theboss]

114. Was that the case in 1984 or whatever year this was?

I remember be versed in during the hearing which took place 55 years ago, it seems.

[pnwmom]

122. The legal situation seems murky and no conclusion was ever reached because Ford didn't pursue it.

I certainly would have supported her if she had.

But her claim, with multiple corroborating witnesses, seems very different than the current one.

As you say, her claim involved kidnapping. She was jumped from behind as she headed to or from a bathroom -- by two guys. At one point two guys were on top of her. In no sense did this even begin as a consensual encounter, with a man and a woman who had chosen to go alone into a room and to begin kissing.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

106. I'm not the only person who thought Kavanaugh might have faced a kidnapping charge

Whic, btw, doesn’t have a Statute of Limitations in Maryland

[EffieBlack]

95. You are incorrect.

In 1982, when the incident occurred, attempted rape and attempted sexual assault were misdemeanors in Maryland for which the statute of limitations was between one and three years depending on the degree of the defense charged.

Therefore, any right that Dr. Ford had to file criminal charges expired by 1985.

https://www.apnews.com/61a3e6e55ca044688e7d93a89eb26a23

[Hassin Bin Sober]

99. I'll stick with the opinion of the previous Maryland Deputy Attorney General and Lawrence Tribe

Not some rando opinion farmed by the right wing AP.

Calling that a misdemeanor is putting the best possible spin on the assault with intent to rape - which is and was a FELONY. That charge doesn’t have a SL.


You’ll have to excuse my link to Palmer repot but I can’t access my Washington Post subscription on this computer. The WAPO piece is linked.
https://www.palmerreport.com/factcheck/statute-limitations-maryland-brett-kavanaugh/13135/

Back on September 19th, the Washington Post ran an article written by Thiru Vignarajah, the former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland. You can’t be much more of an expert on Maryland state law than this guy is. Here’s part of what he wrote:

Attempting a sexual assault with the aid of another person counts as attempted first-degree rape, just as restricting a victim’s breathing to stop her from shouting for help could fairly qualify as first-degree assault. Both are felonies with no statute of limitations in Maryland. Likewise, under Maryland law, using force to move a victim a short distance, even from one room to another, can amount to kidnapping, a crime that similarly has no limitations period. There are examples across the country where convictions for kidnapping have been upheld in cases where rapists took the victim just to a separate room to commit the crime.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Good point. Maryland has no statute of limitations for rape or for assault, so it seems that both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge remain potentially criminally liable for what Christine Blasey Ford alleges they did to her in high school. Nobody seems to be taking that into account <a href="https://t.co/b3Zf1IGXD4">https://t.co/b3Zf1IGXD4</a></p>— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[EffieBlack]

128. They're both correct that Maryland HAS no statute of limitations for rape and felony assault

But what neither of them seem to have taken into account is the fact that the unlimited statute of limitations was only put into place AFTER the incident Dr. Ford alleged. The current law doesn't apply since the law in effect at the time of the crime determines the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for the assault Dr. Ford described was one year in 1982.


https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7nd at the time of the incident attempted assault

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. Again:

Thiru. Vignarajah. the. former. Deputy. Attorney. General. of. Maryland.

Disagrees with you.

And it’s a big fat red herring. No one here discounted Dr. Ford’s story because she didn’t make a police report then, 5 years later, ten years later, or last year.


Anyway, it looks like this discussion is moot.

[EffieBlack]

139. He. Doesn't. Disagree. With. Me. About. Current. Maryland. Law.

We agree. The Maryland Statute of Limitations for assault is unlimited.

BUT IT WASN'T UNLIMITED IN 1982. That's the law that applies.

As a law professor who teaches, among other things, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, I know very well that statutes of limitations only apply to crimes committed after the statute went into effect. If a crime was committed before the new statute went into effect, the previous statute that was in effect at the time the crime was committed applies.

I'm sure that Virgnarajah knows that, too, so I don't know why he didn't consider that possibility when discussing how the Maryland statute of limitations could affect Dr. Ford's allegations. I'll just chalk it up to a mistake, since even really smart, accomplished people, including lawyers, miss things sometimes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

142. Yes he does disagree with you about the applicable law.

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2019, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Clearly. In black and white. On several occasions.

You can’t seem to grasp the idea he believes the potential charges are greater than third degree sexual assault - attempt to rape.

He discusses the differences between charges AND the lack of statute of limitations “back then”

Felony kidnapping and felony assault with intent to rape did not then, nor do they now, have a statute of limitations.

[EffieBlack]

146. If he disagrees with me and thinks a statute of limitations passed after 1982 applies to a 1982 case

he is, indeed wrong.

You can take as many screenshots as you like and mark them up to your heart's content, but that doesn't change anything. Both you and Vignarajah are wrong in stating that Kavanaugh's assault on Ford is not barred by the statute of limitations. Interestingly, Vignarajah cited 1982 law to DEFINE sexual assault (attempted rape) but he does NOT cite the statute of limitations that applied to attempted rape in 1982 - instead, he keeps citing the current law, which is inapplicable to a sexual assault that took place in 1982 before the current law went into effect.

No wonder you're so confused. That happens when you rely on a source who engages in a legal shellgame.

But since you are so interested in sources, here's another source, who is surely at least as knowledgeable about about how criminal prosecutions for sexual assault work in Maryland as the former Deputy Attorney General (whose office doesn't oversee or prosecute sexual assault cases).

At the time, attempted rape was a misdemeanor in Maryland, which meant it had a 1-year statute of limitations, according to Lisae Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Maryland law changed in 1996, making attempted rape a felony with an unlimited statute of limitations. But a crime that occurred in 1982 would be prosecuted under the law as it existed in 1982.
https://wamu.org/story/18/09/28/fact-check-local-laws-bear-allegations-kavanaugh-hearing/

Or the Maryland State's Attorney and Chief of Police, whose offices, unlike the AG's office actually DO regularly charge and prosecute sexual assault cases:

Furthermore, the law at the time the offense occurred is the law that must be applied to any charges that might be brought. For example, in 1982, assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
http://www.mymcpnews.com/2018/09/28/police-and-states-attorney-response-to-montgomery-county-house-delgations-delegations-request-to-open-criminal-investigation-against-judge-brett-kavanaugh/

The bottom line is that any prosecution of the crimes Kavanaugh is alleged to have committed ran decades ago.

And with that, this discussion is over since I don't intend to waste any more of my time arguing with a non-lawyer about what the law in my area of expertise says. (I can't believe I spent this much time already - I guess the teacher in me wants to help people learn. But that only works on people who actually DO want to learn and don't just want to argue and deflect).

Have a good evening.

[Empowerer]

147. Why do you even bother trying to reason with these people, sister girl?

[EffieBlack]

150. I ask myself that all the time

[Hassin Bin Sober]

148. Attempted rape is not the same as assault with intent to rape.

You keep referring back to the misdemeanor offense of attempted rape.

He even posts the case law where the threshold for the felony “assault with intent to rape” is met. There was clearly an assault. Not to mention a kidnapping.

You can appeal to your unverified authority all you want. Me, I’ll believe the actual Deputy AG from Maryland who not only spells it out, but goes back to refute the assertions the statute of limitations is expired. He posts actual caselaw. Not just some unqualified opinion

Misdemeanor versus Felony. That’s where you are mistaken. Repeatedly.

[Empowerer]

103. You still haven't learned you don't come for the Queen unless she sends for you?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. You might want to read a little further.

Back on September 19th, the Washington Post ran an article written by Thiru Vignarajah, the former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland. You can’t be much more of an expert on Maryland state law than this guy is. Here’s part of what he wrote:

Attempting a sexual assault with the aid of another person counts as attempted first-degree rape, just as restricting a victim’s breathing to stop her from shouting for help could fairly qualify as first-degree assault. Both are felonies with no statute of limitations in Maryland. Likewise, under Maryland law, using force to move a victim a short distance, even from one room to another, can amount to kidnapping, a crime that similarly has no limitations period. There are examples across the country where convictions for kidnapping have been upheld in cases where rapists took the victim just to a separate room to commit the crime.


Ask OJ Simpson how restraining a person, even briefly, resulted in a kidnapping charge.

Just about every legal expert I’ve read, except some expert the AP found, was of the opinion charges could still be filed.

But that’s a red herring. Women don’t have to have filed charges to be credible.

You might want to read a little further. Otherwise...

[Empowerer]

143. No, I don't need to

I know Effie's right.

[Ms. Toad]

74. The facts on which you premise Tyson's "obligation" to press charges

are incorrect.

She shared the information privately with friends in Virginia when it appeared he might become Lt Governor, so that her friends could make an informed decision about voting for someone who had abused her.

Years later, in October of 2017, I saw a picture of Mr. Fairfax accompanying an article in The Root about his campaign for Lt. Governor in Virginia. The image hit me like a ton of bricks, triggering buried traumatic memories and the feelings of humiliation I’d felt so intensely back in 2004. Prior to reading the article, I had not followed Mr. Fairfax’s career and did not know that he was seeking public office. Unsure of what to do, I felt it was crucial to tell close friends of mine in Virginia, who were voters, about the assault.

When it appeared he might be elevated to governor, she shared information - again - with friends.

That night I vented my frustration on Facebook in a message that I wrote as a private post. I did not identify Lt. Governor Fairfax by name but stated that it seemed inevitable that the campaign staffer who assaulted me during the Democratic Convention in 2004 was about to get a big promotion. It was not my intention in that moment to inject myself into what has become a much larger political battle.

(At least) one of her friends outed her before she had made the decision to go public.

Over the weekend, I was undecided about whether to speak out publicly. I knew that if I did so, I would immediately face accusations about my motives and be branded a liar, as is routinely the case when women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against prominent men.

On Sunday night, before I had time to decide on a course of action, an online publication published a screenshot of my Facebook post, identified me by name, and posted pictures of me.

Once outed (i.e. control as to whether to go public taken from her), and facing lies by Fairfax about why the Post did not publish the story, she responded with a single statement that she says will be her sole statement on the matter.

In response, at 2:55 a.m. on February 4, 2019, Mr. Fairfax issued a statement further escalating this matter by calling me a liar and falsely characterizing the reasons The Washington Post decided not to run a story about my allegations. The Post was forced to repudiate Mr. Fairfax’s statement that there were “significant red flags and inconsistencies with the allegations” which led it to decide not to publish a story about my account. Rather, as is often the case in situations where sexual assault by an acquaintance occurs behind closed doors years earlier, it is difficult to corroborate either the victim’s allegations or the accuser’s denials.

. . .

My only motive in speaking now is to refute Mr. Fairfax’s falsehoods and aspersions of my character, and to provide what I believe is important information for Virginians to have as they make critical decisions that involve Mr. Fairfax.

No survivor, ever, is obligated to subject herself to torment of the the court system. That applies even when she chooses to speak out publicly against her abuser - and especially when she speaks out publicly only after third parties publish her story without her consent, and in response to public assertions she is a liar.

To insist otherwise is insensitive to rape survivors, and antithetical to the principles of the #metoo movement.

(Note: She did approach the Post earlier with her story, which it declined to publish. That approach did not result in a public statement against Fairfax. The recent publication of the accusation was, ultimately, without her consent; her first public statement was a direct response to Fairfax's response to the third party (unauthorized) publication, and to his announcement about the earlier non-publication by the Post)

[EffieBlack]

77. So, you're saying that a woman who has publicly made an accusation, an accusation that she put out

there in great detail to millions of people can't press charges because she is too frightened and weak to "subject herself to the torment of the court system"?

I'm sorry but that doesn't work for me. And it shouldn't work for anyone who is truly interested in justice.

I am extraordinarily sensitive and deferential to any woman who feels so traumatized by her experience that she feels she can't or doesn't want to relive it by going to court, since doing so, will expose her experience to the world.

But if someone, on her own volition, exposes her experience to the world, she relinquishes that as an excuse for not pressing charges. And I think it is dangerous to manipulate the #MeToo movement to the point it encourages women to skirt the very judicial system that the #MeToo movement has fought for women to have the right to access.

The #MeToo movement is intended to make the system more sympathetic and accommodating for assault victims. It is NOT designed to REPLACE the system or to create a new, extra-judicial parallel universe for addressing allegations of sexual assault.

[Ms. Toad]

130. No. I'm saying it is entirely her choice as to whether she presses charges.

And you are still pushing the trope that she chose to publicized the matter. She did not. Please review her statement, or at least the excerpts I posted regarding her publication of the attack. She responded to assertions that she was a liar.

She is entitled to repond to those assertions if she chooses - or not if she choose not to. Just as she is entitled to choose to pursue legal charges - or not. She is entitled to control her reaction/response to the act that deprived her of control over her body. Period. How she chooses to respond, who she chooses to tell, when she chooses to disclose, etc. is entirely up to her - and the choices she makes do nothing to diminish the reality of her experience - and - frankly - she is the only one who can determine whether she consented or not, and she says she did not.

[EffieBlack]

133. Of course, it's her choice

But if people decide she must be telling the truth solely because she made a public allegation, but then insist that her refusal to press charges AFTER she put the entire thing out there - when she can no longer claim that she's avoiding pressing charges because she doesn't want to have her pain and humiliation exposed because she already exposed it when she made the public allegation - can't be considered in weighing her credibility, I don't buy it.

#MeToo doesn't mean "Me only."

[Ms. Toad]

136. You're still twisting the truth

Her first public statemen was in response to Fairfax calling her a liar, and making false allegations about why the Post chose not to publish an article during the election.

You seem to repeatedly suggest that because she chose to speak up after Fairfax called her a liar that she has an obligation to also file criminal charges against him, or she is presumptively a liar. That is offensive.

[EffieBlack]

138. No. Her first public statement was her Facebook post that she allowed to be shared to the public

That's what prompted Fairfax's denial.

And if you really want to break it down, she first went public with her story when she went to the Washington Post. The only reason it didn't receive any attention at the time was that the Post declined to run the story.

Do you wonder why, if she thought it important to warn people about Fairfax after he was elected, and felt comfortable talking about the case and even having her allegations looked into she went to a newspaper instead of law enforcement? I do.

It doesn't make me think she's lying. But it does raise a question for me. And unlike some people, I don't think #MeToo means "believe all women" or "don't ever question anything a woman ever says or does after she says she was sexually assaulted or it means you hate women and think they're all liars."

[progressoid]

126. "tools that society provides her to actually follow through - including the criminal justice system"

Seriously? You think the criminal justice system is a viable tool for her?

Because that has worked out so well for other rape victims...

Based on Department of Justice and FBI data from 2010-2014, RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) calculates that for every 1,000 rapes, 384 are reported to police, 57 result in an arrest, 11 are referred for prosecution, 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration.

[EffieBlack]

129. Yes.

[progressoid]

132. Now a 2nd woman has come forward when she should've followed your advice & gone to the cops instead.

[EffieBlack]

135. You seem to be having trouble following my point, so I will break it down for you.

I have no problem with Dr. Tyson not filing charges in the past. That was purely her choice and it in no way calls her credibility into question. If, as she said - and I have no reason to disbelieve her - she was too traumatized and humiliated to want to come forward and put herself share such an intimate situation, that makes perfect sense.

And if the statute of limitations had run out and then she thereafter decided to come forward, I would never question her decision not to press charges.

HOWEVER, that is not what happened here.

In this case, she decided, on her own, not only to publicly accuse Fairfax, but to offer the most intimate and humiliating details of the assault she alleges. Her decision to do that suggests that she no longer is too afraid or traumatized to publicly discuss the incident. And now that she IS willing to publicly discuss it, she has the good fortunate to still be within the statute of limitations and, thus, can actually press charges and make it likely that her alleged assailant can be held criminally liable for the assault she says he committed. She is in a much better position than many assault victims who would give anything to be able to press charges but found their voices too late to do so.

Now, the second woman who came forward may be one of those people. I don't know what the statute of limitations for rape was in North Carolina in 2000 when she alleges her incident occurred, so I don't know if she can still press charges. If she hasn't felt comfortable or safe speaking about this until now, it's understandable why she hasn't pressed charges previously.

[progressoid]

140. That's an interesting tactic.

One assumes you feel the same way about Weinstein's accusers. And Cosby's. And Spacey's. And Lauer's. And ...

[EffieBlack]

141. Yes, I do

If they are publicly alleging that a crime was committed and the statute of limitations has not run, they should file a criminal complaint. If they are willing to talk publicly to a newspaper or put out a detailed written statement to the general public, they should be willing to talk to and give a statement to the police if a criminal avenue is still available to them. At least if they are actually seeking justice, rather than revenge.

And, in fact Cosby is in jail because someone did just that. She was the ONLY one of his many victims who had a claim on which the statute of limitations had not run. And several of Weinstein's accusers and at least one of Spacey's accusers have also filed a criminal complaints against them.

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

[progressoid]

145. I've read Dr. Tyson's statement.

Not sure I'm seeing any revenge in there.


https://www.scribd.com/document/399054978/Statement-of-Dr-Vanessa-Tyson#fullscreen&from_embed

[pnwmom]

97. That would be comparable to asking someone if they had ever been subject to

false criminal allegations. You don't have to have been in the same position yourself to know how disturbing and damaging such a process could be.

[theboss]

11. Now that I've revealed my background in my brillaint Kavanaugh essay, I'll do you one better

The Princeton classmate I contacted about the child from Texas being detained in Chicago during Trump's Muslim ban is friend's with Miss Tyson. She was class of 98. We were class of 96. I didn't know her, but I'm a misanthrope.

Anyway, he swears by her personal integrity and promises me she is telling the truth.

So, take that as you will.

[OilemFirchen]

18. "So, take that as you will."

Speaking unofficially on behalf of the bulk of Democratic Underground, be assured that we are weighing this blockbuster information with all of the merit it deserves.

BTW, do you like pumpkins? Just in case, here's a pumpkin:

[theboss]

21. I'm guessing I'm the only poster here who could, like, send her an email if I really wanted to

I'm just sharing that I know people who know her, and she's not a mentally ill loon being used by Roger Fucking Stone or whatever the theory is.

[OilemFirchen]

24. You do that, big guy.

Or don't.

I'm on pins and needles, I tell ya.

[ehrnst]

57. Who said that she's "a mentally ill loon being used by Roger Fucking Stone?"

Link please?

[ehrnst]

93. I'll guess that's a "No, I don't have any links."

Now it's time that you say that you were very mistaken about that, and thank me for pointing it out.

[pnwmom]

98. While I appreciate your sincerity, we have a legal system that relies on principles of justice

not someone's previous knowledge of an accuser or an accused.

I'm sure there are friends of Fairfax who would attest to their strong belief in his innocence.

Memory, as I have said, is a funny thing. I actually think they could both be sincerely telling their personal truth, and that the passage of 15 years has made the discovery of objective fact almost impossible.

Unless other witnesses come forward that we haven't heard from yet.

[ehrnst]

92. ....

[brush]

54. Effie, you have a way with words that get right to the heart of the matter.

I agree. No Al Franken deja vu. There has to be an investigation.

[Demsrule86]

118. +1000

I agree completely.

[Fresh_Start]

5. I believe her because her actions mirrored mine in non-reporting

and how she dealt with it.


I guess I also believe that someone who puts themselves out there helping rape victims would also not later create a false report thereby harming rape victims

PS: Fairfax's team lied about investigation one full year after he knew about the allegations and after he hired an attorney.

Northam was caught by surprise, Fairfax, no surprise.

.

[LexVegas]

13. Thats one of the disgusting things I've read: "Why didn't she press charges?"

[Fresh_Start]

17. you must have missed the threads that if she went into his room, she should have expected sex

lot of victim blaming going on.

[LexVegas]

19. I saw that one too. Wish I had not. nt

[Demit]

79. "He then took my hand and pulled me towards the bed"

I am quoting from her statement. She said she liked the kissing, in the doorway, then he took her hand and led her towards the bed. What do you suppose a woman might think at this point? That they were going to stop kissing and begin talking politics on the bed?

That's not "victim-blaming," that's asking a common sense question. And being VERY curious about the answer.

[EffieBlack]

56. I haven't asked and wouldn't ask why she didn't press charges.

But now that she’s come out and publicly accused Fairfax in intricate detail of assaulting her, I do ask if she now WILL press charges since fear of exposure or invasion of her privacy is no longer an issue and she can still have the claim investigated. And if she doesn’t, I’ll wonder why.

Since isn’t the ultimate goal of #MeToo to enable and empower victims to obtain justice?

[theboss]

102. No, it's too enable people to talk about sexual violence and be believed. It's not a revenge fantasy

She's an educated woman. She knows no DA is going to press charges 15 years after the fact on this. And she's not going to subject herself to what bringing charges entails. That's her right.

[ripcord]

149. Seems we have got to the point where our morals are fluid

We will support accusers or not based on the political affiliation of the accused, sounds familiar but I don't want to be a part of it.

[Pantagruel]

6. I assume no police report?

Were there any friends of hers she told about it or journals she wrote about it? Does HE have other accusers?
Is there anything else to corroborate the story before we destroy this guy's career?
Having myself been falsely accused, I have a healthy skepticism.

[Autumn]

7. I believe Vanessa Tyson. I understand her not reporting it since it was just

the two of them, she had willingly gone in to the room, she had enjoyed him kissing her and what she thought would be a make out session went further than she wanted. I also don't see why any woman would want to be known as a woman forced to give a blow job to a LT gov.

[Drahthaardogs]

8. Did she say this was a repressed memory?

I thought I read that.

[Autumn]

14. You did read that and no she did not say it was a repressed memory. A poster pushed that

and people jumped on it since some repressed memories later turn out to be false memories. She suppressed the trauma of the event, like many women do. She did not forget it.

[LisaL]

16. She called it a suppressed memory and a buried memory.

Whatever that means.

[Autumn]

22. Here is the letter, she said she felt shame and humiliation and

she suppressed the memory and the emotions to get past it and continue her studies. I think many of us have done that.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/statement-justin-fairfax-sexual-assault.html

[Demsrule86]

112. I had not heard that. Honestly that sounds like it could have been therapist produced.

[Autumn]

116. I don't know and I wouldn't presume to guess. I'm going with what Dr. Tyson said and

my own experience.

[Demsrule86]

124. I just can't support either of them. There is insufficient information.

[Drahthaardogs]

20. What does that mean?

"Suppressed the memory"?

[Autumn]

25. Have you ever done something, or had something happen to you that was so humiliating

that you force yourself to not think about it so you can get past it and get through your daily life? You don't forget it, you just get past it so you don't think of it constantly unless something happens to make you think of it. Dr. Tyson's letter is very detailed and seems credible to me.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/statement-justin-fairfax-sexual-assault.html

[LisaL]

27. I have no clue why you would have to call something like this a suppressed or buried memory.

Most people don't think about something constantly.

[Autumn]

28. I didn't call it anything. A poster asked and I told the poster what Dr. Tyson said.

People react to events that leave them ashamed, angry, humiliated or with other negative emotions in different ways.

[LisaL]

34. She called it both suppressed and buried.

If it was simply something she didn't think of constantly not sure why she would use those terms.

[Autumn]

42. She said she suppressed it and got on with her education. When she saw him the

humiliation and the traumatic memories she had buried came back. I don't know how else she could have or might have described it. I just know how I would describe it from an unpleasant experience I went through.

[Drahthaardogs]

41. I crushed my spine and went into shock

I remember every second of it from the accident, fusion, and physical therapy. I think suppressed memory sounds like bullshit.

[Autumn]

43. You are certainly entitled to how you deal with your memories, as is Dr. Tyson on how

she deals with hers. She said she suppressed the event and based on my own experience to a traumatic emotional event I believe her.

My appendix ruptured when I was 12, I'll remember that pain to my dying day.

[Drahthaardogs]

44. Well, I don't.

I remember every tragic event in my life well. I was raised around horses and dogs. Watch a dog have a tragic event and see how long it takes them to forget. Elephants aren't the only thing that never forgets.

Biologically, it makes no sense. You should remember tragic events BETTER for species survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense.

Doesn't really matter what I think though, so I guess it's unimportant.

[Autumn]

60. In matters of a sexual nature there's a world of difference between women and animals.

You're right though, what we think of this situation isn't important.

[kcr]

30. Wrong. It's right there in her report n/t

[Autumn]

31. In Dr. Tysons letter? I haven't seen a report. She used the term suppressed not repressed. nt

[LAS14]

29. This is from her statement.

Unfortunately, using "suppressed" instead of "repressed" and "triggering buried traumatic memories" leaves it open to interpretation.

I did not speak about it for years, and I (like most survivors) suppressed those memories and emotions as a necessary
means to continue my studies, and to pursue my goal of building a successful career as an
academic.

The image hit me like a ton of bricks, triggering buried traumatic memories and the feelings of humiliation I’d felt so intensely back in
2004.

[LisaL]

32. It is open to interpretation.

She made a point of calling it a suppressed and a buried memory.

[IluvPitties]

9. Just a comment. Everyone insisted in calling Christine Ford "DOCTOR Ford"

I found it over the top, but that was the way everyone decided to address her. Dr. Tyson deserves the same courtesy.

[BlueStater]

12. Presently, she's given me absolutely no reason for me to think she's lying.

Quite a few people here have attacked her character and have thus, unfortunately, revealed themselves to be partisan hacks who only take sexual assault accusations seriously when its a Republican being accused.

[theboss]

26. As I wrote above (and was mocked for), I have a first-hand account of her character

And it comes from someone I hold in very high regard who knows her personally.

[OilemFirchen]

23. I believe both of them.

I believe neither of them.

Have I dissuaded you? Have I encouraged you?

[Jarqui]

33. I don't "believe" her or him

Both are credible and might be telling the truth but only one of them can be.

I will not support removing a public official from their job on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. The political instability from allowing such a thing routinely would be insane.

We must require evidence and due process.

[regnaD kciN]

45. Not sure about the "only one of them can be"...

Frankly, I think it’s highly-probable that both of them are telling the truth as they experienced it. She felt coerced and he, not realizing it, assumed she was participating consensualy. I’ve seen other cases where I’m pretty sure that, if both parties were hooked up to some hypothetical 100% accurate lie detector, both would be shown to be telling the truth.

I know that a lot of us older people made fun of the “explicit positive consent” rules of the past few decades (“What, you now have to get a signed consent form before kissing someone?”), but cases like this show to me the necessity of taking care to making absolutely sure the other party is comfortable with increasing intimacy…and especially in “one-night stands” or other encounters where you really don’t know your partner well enough to have a level of mutual trust and communication. In other words, although I’m pretty sure Fairfax wasn’t intentionally committing sexual assault, you should realize it’s a bad idea, especially with someone you barely know, to go straight from a couple of kisses to sticking your dick in her mouth. Rushing blindly into sexual activity with someone you barely know is practically inviting after-the-fact allegations such as we’re seeing here.

[58Sunliner]

50. LOLLLL.

[Jarqui]

52. He maintains they were in communication for months afterwards

If that is true, the slant of what she is telling us is not likely to be entirely true. If it isn't true, he's lying.
If someone has forceably stuck their dick in your mouth, I would think that would present social problems such that you would not be doing a lot of communicating months afterwards.

In other words, there are problems with trying to reconcile both stories being completely true.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Oh so that automatically means she's telling the truth?

Who knew?? Guess Fairfax needs to start drafting his resignation letter, right??

And how have I "characterized" her? Can't WAIT to hear this shit...

[LexVegas]

36. ...

[Blue_Tires]

37. So you've got nothing... We're done here, thanks for playing.

[LexVegas]

39. ...

[Apollyonus]

38. It is far too convenient

when the accuser is a Justice Democrats sympathizer.

[regnaD kciN]

46. Uh...what?

[Apollyonus]

48. ummmmmm

She is a part of the AOC-Justice Democrats crowd.

[Me.]

51. Ummm Indeed

what the heck beef could they have with him?

[regnaD kciN]

55. So she's going to falsely accuse another Democrat...

...because he’s not far enough left for her? The crazy is strong in this one...

[Vinca]

40. So if a woman makes an accusation against your father, brother, husband or male friend,

you will believe them - no questions asked - without any evidence????? We'll be lucky if we have any men in the Democratic Party before long. You don't know who is telling the truth. I don't know who is telling the truth. We shouldn't pass judgment.

[David__77]

49. I neither believe nor disbelieve Fairfax and Tyson.

...

[ehrnst]

58. I'm with you. (nt)

[Hortensis]

59. Same here. Need more info. But there's more to it.

With the Republicans trying to knock out the 3 Democrats between them and power, even though questions of guilt remain as they were, the stakes have risen dramatically -- and with that the way we meet this threat needs to change. Simple resignations as symbol and substance of what we believe in won't do.

Imo, for all 3 both the level of evidence supporting the various allegations that we need to require has risen and the question of what would be appropriate and proportional consequences is smack on the table.

There's a great deal to lose here. Btw, last night I heard one tactic to deal with a domino-tumble might be staged resignations so that Democrats could remain long enough select the replacements.

[Baltimike]

61. ...

[LexVegas]

62. ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Lex, I want to hear from both sides

But I hope the people who are suggesting Ms. Tyson is a GOP plant know that she is an African American Democratic feminist advocate.

[LexVegas]

65. They don't know or don't care to know. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Lex, they need to familiarize themselves

https://heavy.com/news/2019/02/vanessa-tyson/

[Demsrule86]

71. If he ratfucking in Virginia succeeds...this will never end.

[Demsrule86]

63. Why doesn't Fairfax deserve the benefit of the doubt? This is a very old accusation...

Sorry. The GOP are engaged in ratfucking and I won't participate. This can never be proved one way or the other. I predict a slew of 'anonymous' accusers coming out soon. if the GOP got rid of all three embattled Democrats, a Republican would take the office.

[theboss]

68. Should we investigate Dr. Tyson's finances?

To see how much she was paid?

[Demsrule86]

70. I don't know...was she paid ? I had not heard this.

[theboss]

73. If it's Republican ratfucking, it would make sense

It seems weird she would simply do this for political reasons.

[Demsrule86]

80. It could be personal. Maybe he angered her in some way...it has happened before.

[theboss]

81. Then it's not Republican ratfucking...unless she's a Republican and has been lying in her career

We need to investigate her for academic fraud.

[Demsrule86]

83. Not neccesarily...if she complained an it was reported back to the GOP, they could have found out...

or when she approached the Washington Post too...it is definitely ratfucking.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

86. The old "woman scorned" defense to rape allegations.

That’s original.

[Demsrule86]

87. This has happened. you know that. My feeling is we will never know and I find it unfair

to crucify Fairfax who is a very admirable person if you look at his background. I don't know much about the accuser but she could be credible as a person too. My hubs has a friend who's now wife accused his best friend of rape...she was making out with him all night but the next morning it was rape...hubs was there. She is a lovely person and so is the guy she accused...it happens. This can not be proven at this point so let it go. The voters will decide.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. We'll put you down for not believing women. Does that go for Doctor Ford and Kavanaugh?

Just keep in mind this is the woman being slandered.

This is the woman who came forward and described a rape wherein a man held her head and forced his penis in her mouth.

This is the woman who put everything on the line:

[Demsrule86]

115. Dr. Ford was in a different situation. First of all she was a child. Secondly' she had no

relationship with Kavanaugh. She merely went to a party and was attacked. There were others that came forward as well on the record. This young lady went to the motel room and the suppressed memory thing is a red flag for me. I don't disbelieve her. I don't disbelieve him...I will never know. However, I do know this is GOP ratfucking and I feel we must put an end to this. I would like to know a bit more about the young lady involved and how did the rightie publication get the story...same one as published the Northam article. If all three Democrats are taken out and Herring is under attack as well, the GOP steals the governor's seat so I don't support anyone resigning.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. It was not a "suppressed memory" thing so knock that shit off

She said she “suppressed” the memory, as many victims or rape do, so she could get on with her life, her career and her studies.

The thing you are trying to conflate it with is “repressed memories” - which is an entirely different subject that has NOTHING to do with this.

One is a conscious act and the other is an unconscious act. Learn it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

Repressed memories are memories that have been unconsciously blocked due to the memory being associated with a high level of stress or trauma.[1] The theory postulates that even though the individual cannot recall the memory, it may still be affecting them subconsciously,[2] and that these memories can emerge later into the consciousness.

[Demsrule86]

121. I don't see the difference between supressed or repressed...just so you know I was the victim of

a sexual assault and luckily ( a miracle) ,the cops showed up but I was hurt badly and went to the hospital for more than a week. My attacker was never brought to trial because I had been hanging out at a bar with a girl friend so was asking for it according to the DA. I remember it everyday of my life and will never forget ever. There is no need to be so nasty. I have also known women to lie yes it is true. Sometimes women do lie. Now I have no idea who is telling the truth here so I won't pass judgement. The angry Black man as a rapist is a racist meme so I am troubled that a rightwing organization unearthed this...where did they get it?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

120. Second of all, her being a child at the time of the attempted rape has nothing do with it.

The NEW STANDARD, apparently, is the victim has to file charges TODAY to be believed.

That’s cynical bullshit. You know it, I know it, and the people propagating it know it.

The new standard is: Belive Women!*

*Disclaimer:

Only if you filed charges
Not if you went to the hotel room
You must have suffered a beating - (a black eye will do but broken bones are better)
Extra credit if you bit the guy’s penis off (see injuries, getting the fuck beat out of you, possibly murdered)

[Demsrule86]

123. I don't agree with that. But if charges are not filed, how do you sort it out decades later?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

125. Charges being filed is a red herring.

And the people spewing that bullshit know it. It wasn’t the standard to believe Dr. Ford and it shouldn’t be the standard now.


I’m a guy. Probably 90% of what I’ve learned about sexual assault and surrounding issues has been learned on this website the last 10 years.

Listen to women. Believe women. The police won’t do shit most of the time. Credible accusations matter.

I’ve seen all that unravel the last week. It’s fucking bizarre. It’s pathetic. It’s embarrassing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. Some of these responses are antediluvian.

[ehrnst]

90. Where did that come from?

Ah, yes.

[EffieBlack]

72. One doesn't even have to believe this is ratf*cking to give Fairfax the benefit of the doubt

A rape allegation is serious and toxic and no one should be assumed to be a rapist just because someone says they are.

[Demsrule86]

85. That is true. Lot's of hearts Effie! You are beloved on DU...I am sadly out of pocket with hubs

surgery, but I would add a heart if the disability had come through.

[EffieBlack]

96. Your post is worth a thousand hearts!!!

[Demsrule86]

110. Thank you that means a great deal.

[Demit]

88. I wonder, if Fairfax had stayed an obscure lawyer, & she bumped into him years later in a restaurant

or something, and seeing him triggered her bad memory, would she have pursued the same course of action?

[wasupaloopa]

101. These things need to be in a separate forum. Every day we get a new revelation of wrong doing

by some Dem brought to you by the right wing and every day we fall like suckers for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. Vanessa Tyson is an African American Democratic scholar

https://heavy.com/news/2019/02/vanessa-tyson/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

107. This is the woman being slandered as a liar who was asking for it by going to the hotel

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Seems like a solid woman of the left.

[EllieBC]

127. Maybe a forum called,

"People Born With Penises Who Cannot For The Life Of Them Understand They Cannot Just Go Sticking It In Anyone They Want And Their Ardent Supporters Who Believe The Woman Was Probably Asking For It"?

[madville]

134. More women are coming forward

#2 today and word is that more are in contact with the media and having their stories vetted.

[Pantagruel]

137. OK, that's what I wanted

some corroboration other than simply one woman's 14 yo story. Fairfax should step aside.
What now.
I suggest appointing a black woman as replacement, hoping to avoid the VA curses ?

[WeekiWater]

144. I don't believe or not believe her.

I think anyone making either of those statements has a serious grudge against reality.