Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9243.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9490.
“I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too.”
- Wicked Witch of the West -
Feminist broom-pilot Wendy Murphy says that the rape charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are weak and hurt true victims of rape (emphasis added):
As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I’m the last person you might expect to come to the defense of the unsavory WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. But the charges that now have him sitting in a British prison reek of opportunism and political expediency, and that does women around the world no good.
That doesn’t mean that I think the two women who’ve accused him of committing sexual offenses last August are lying. One woman said she had consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act.
She hosted a party for him the next evening.
A few days later, Assange had sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct was nonconsensual.
As a general matter, assuming the allegations are true, Assange should be punished because he violated the women’s fundamental right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity by acting without their “knowing, intelligent and voluntary” consent.
For the love of God, Elmira, isn’t screwing someone while they’re asleep the very definition of rape?¹
And this Wendy Murphy – the one who only assumes Assange’s accusers are telling the truth – is the same Wendy Murphy who is renowned for her repeated public condemnation of the clearly innocent Duke Lacrosse players and who once stated on the MSNBC news show The Situation that women never lie about rape:
“I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”
Then the arbiter of all things consensual and sexual shows her true colors when she says (again, the emphasis is mine),
In another context, I might support these claims as legitimate sex crimes charges simply to get the message out more clearly in this country that nobody should impose their body parts onto or inside the body of another person without their knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent.
So Wendy Murphy believes we should criminally prosecute men wrongly accused of rape just to “get the message out.” Well, I suppose this explains why she continues to support the condemnation of the Duke LaCrosse players and continues to publicly defend their disbarred rogue prosecutor, Michael Nifong.
Wendy Murphy is a bad and dangerous person and if you don’t believe me just listen to Radley Balko of Reason (emphasis added):
Murphy’s continuing saturation of the cable news airwaves is nauseating. Her punditry career should have ended with the Duke lacrosse case, when she appeared all over cable news to defend Nifong and to damn the falsely accused lacrosse players, first prematurely, then even as it became clear to the rest of the world that they were innocent. (As late as last year Murphy was still griping about the lacrosse case).
K.C. Johnson wrote of Murphy at the time,
“In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.”
Murphy never apologized for repeatedly slandering the Duke players. Yet her punditry career took off. She was rewarded with a book contract and dozens more TV appearances.
William Anderson noted earlier this year that Murphy was recently invited onto the Today show to vouch for Catoosa County, Georgia’s shameful sex abuse persecution of Tonya Craft.
(Craft was acquitted on all counts.)
In a 2007 interview with the American Journalism Review, here’s how Murphy justified going on TV to publicly convict potentially innocent people in spite of the evidence against them:
“Lots of folks who voiced the prosecution position in the beginning [of the Duke case] gave up because they faced a lot of criticism, and that’s never my style.” She notes that she’s invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. “You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I’m assigned,” she says. “So of course it’s going to sound like I’m arguing in favor of ‘guilty.‘ That’s the opposite of what the defense pundit is doing, which is arguing that they’re innocent.”
It’s all theater, you see. She’s just playing a part. It’s fine if she slanders some people, ruins some reputations, spouts flat falsehoods, and generally dumbs down the public discourse. Because it’s just entertainment. It’s what pundits do.
Ms. Murphy wants us to believe that she’s merely a law whore whose opinions can be bought. It is clear to me, however, that she’s trying to distance herself from some of the outrageous and immoral allegations she has publicly made against innocent young men.
So, when she’s says she’s merely making an argument on behalf of the side to which she is assigned by the network, she’s lying through her teeth.
Television pundits like Murphy are asked to appear on air because of their views. They aren’t asked to mold their views so they can get on television. In other words, when NBC needs a pundit to present the prosecution’s point of view it looks for one who already holds that point of view.
Make no mistake about it, Murphy gets her T.V. gigs because of her well-known legal positions. She doesn’t develop her position after she gets the T.V. gig. This is why you never see Murphy taking a defense position on air and why her written material always conforms with what she says on air.
These are Wendy Murphy’s views, people, and she is indeed a dangerous person.²
Footnotes:
¹ I don’t know whether Assange did anything wrong in this case, but I do know that it’s a facially much stronger case than the one brought by prosecutor Michael Nifong against three white Duke Lacross players in 2006, which prosecution Wendy Murphy publicly and stridently supported. (She’s claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the young men “ripped open the girl’s vagina.”)
² For you mothers-of-sons out there who are still not convinced that Murphy is a loose cannon, consider that she is on record saying that rape cases are easy to prosecute:
There’s nothing inherently difficult about prosecuting rape. It is, in fact, the easiest and least expensive crime to investigate and prosecute. The victim takes the stand and says she was forced to have sex without h er consent. If the jurors believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, they vote guilty. If not, they vote not guilty.
In other words, Murphy believes that a mere accusation without a single shred of corroborating evidence is enough for a prosecutor to bring an aggravated rape charge against a man who has no criminal record. Couple this with her wacky contention that women never lie about rape and you really don’t need a trial at all. All you have to do is have the woman identify her rapist and proceed to sentencing.
If we extended Murphy’s irresponsible and downright loony theory to non-sexual violence cases, it would mean that I could file a police report against a neighbor alleging that he broke into my house and stole my laptop and the prosecutor would allow the case to go to trial and the jury decide his guilt based solely on my testimony.
And Wendy Murphy claims to be a champion of due process and the Bill of Rights?
With views like these Wendy Murphy has disqualified herself from ever holding a prosecutorial position in America again. In fact, she shouldn’t even be permitted to clean the latrine of a prosecutor’s office.
She’s nuttier than a Snickers bar and twice as dangerous to the national health.
Trimiteți un comentariu