Is Reese Hopkins Innocent?
January 19th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
From Glenn Sacks eyes Reese Hopkins case (1/16/09):
Columnist and former syndicated talk radio host Glenn Sacks has taken a keen interest in the child rape case against ex-WRKO gabster Reese Hopkins, saying there are “a lot of tangible problems” with the New York prosecution’s case.
“I’m not dumb enough that I’m going to go out there and declare this guy innocent and white as snow,” Sacks told the Herald yesterday. “But I think there are a lot of very tangible problems with the prosecution’s case that point to possible innocence.”
Hopkins, 39, is charged with raping a girl when she was age 11 and 12 in 2004 at the upper East Side apartment he shared with his girlfriend. The alleged victim was a pal of his girlfriend’s daughter.
The Herald reported yesterday that Hopkins said he would rather die in prison than admit to any guilt. He remains on Rikers Island on $100,000 cash bail.
Sacks said he became interested in the case after one of Hopkins’ friends wrote to him about it. He said he has spoken with Hopkins and has gone over the case with Hopkins’ attorney, Keith Cavet.
Sacks, a fatherhood advocate who lives in Los Angeles, said he’s awaiting documentation that shows Hopkins wasn’t living in the Manhattan apartment on the dates that the alleged rapes took place.
“He had moved out in June and the rapes supposedly happened between September 1 and October 1,” said Sacks, who said nobody was living in the apartment at the time because it was uninhabitable and being painted.
Hopkins has said he was living and working in Connecticut at the time of the alleged assaults.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s press office didn’t return a call yesterday.
Sacks said that, according to Hopkins’ attorney, there’s no record of the victim receiving medical attention after the alleged rapes.
Sacks hosted the men’s rights program “His Side with Glenn Sacks,” which aired in Boston.
According to Hopkins' attorney, the teen accuser also told child protective services that Hopkins had molested his stepdaughter, but the charge was found to be "unsubstantiated." I have been in touch with Hopkins' fiancée, whose daughter the accuser claims Hopkins molested. She says Hopkins is innocent and is working to help him get out of prison.
According to Hopkins and his fiancée, they knew nothing about this until Hopkins was arrested late last year. Imagine that -- a girl can claim that you did something to her four years ago, and you can be arrested out of the blue and thrown in prison on a bail they know you have no way of making.
I shuddered when I heard about the case. After all, my 16-year-old son and my 10-year-old daughter have their friends sleeping over at our house all the time. So four years from now one of my daughter's friends can claim that I raped her and on her word alone I'll be thrown and held in prison?
Hopkins called me from Riker's Island last week and he says he is also determined to prove his innocence.
I spoke with Hopkins' attorney, who believes that Hopkins is innocent. The attorney believes that the prosecution does not have any evidence outside of the girl's word about what allegedly happened to her four years ago. Yet the attorney says that there is nothing particularly unusual about this. He also says that false rape claims are common.
Hopkins' attorney says that there is no record of the girl seeking medical attention after the alleged rapes. This is very suspicious -- Hopkins is a large adult, and it is hard to believe that a large adult male could forcibly rape an 11-year-old girl without there being substantial injury to the girl.
Most of the previous coverage of this case has been of the inflammatory, "what a terrible thing Hopkins did" variety.
As I told the Herald, I'm not going to say I know Hopkins is innocent and white as snow, but I'm concerned that there has been an injustice here. As we've noted on previous occasions, false accusations of rape are a terrible problem. To learn more, see my column U. of Maryland right to deny protesters a forum to publicly name alleged rapists (Baltimore Sun, 10/15/07).
What You Can Do
Write a letter to the Boston Herald about this issue at letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com. If your letter gets published, please let me know at glenn@glennsacks.com.
Write Boston Herald reporter Jessica Heslam and thank her for presenting Hopkins' side by clicking here.
"));
19 queries. 0.423 seconds.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Yep - I'm not ever having a sleepover for my kids. Sorry, too much to lose, and there's no way to regain your lost honor, life, and funds spent defending yourself.
This has "Nifong" written all over it. Four years later? No evidence whatsoever? No medical treatment?
How the hell can you possibly defend against such a thing? I have a hard enough time dealing with the near endless stream of false charges brought up by my psycho ex, let alone 4 years out of the blue.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Here is another thing that people probably don't think of with false allegations.
When I grew up we didn't have this sex offender hysteria and I had sleep overs over my friends houses and I was alone with other older men and women and no one thought much of it.
Did I run a risk of something happening? Maybe
But I had lots of great times...vacations...fishing and other stuff...I can't imagine not having those experiences.
But for kids today lot of older people won't even take the risk to spend time with them......it's really sad and the kids loose out big time.
This is another HUGE reason that false accusations need to be SEVERELY punished.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I find it incredible that the Judge and/or the DA would let a guy sit in jail if the guy had an alibi of LIVING IN A DIFFERENT STATE at the time of the alleged attack. Either this guy’s alibi doesn’t seem to be holding up, or that is one narrow-minded DA. If I were that guy, and this chick’s story falls apart, I’d sue everyone until they are poor for life.
Later,
B
January 19th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
{I shuddered when I heard about the case. After all, my 16-year-old son and my 10-year-old daughter have their friends sleeping over at our house all the time. So four years from now one of my daughter's friends can claim that I raped her and on her word alone I'll be thrown and held in prison?}
That's right! You can be convicted, too. And nobody will ever doubt your guilt. You are guilty no matter what, and you have no rights. The real rights belong to "the victim!"
January 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“I’m not dumb enough that I’m going to go out there and declare this guy innocent and white as snow,” Sacks told the Herald yesterday
Ummmmm, WOW! LOL
b
January 19th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
why do we even allow accusations four YEARS after the incident with no medical proof or witnesses at the time of the alleged incident? this is like a loaded gun that a disturbed or vindictive woman can keep pointed at a man's head forever. and why is this man kept in jail awaiting trail when the evidence is so thin and the alleged crime 4 years ago? how does an innocent person even establish where they were 4, 8, 12 years earlier? good luck finding witnesses who can recall the conversation you had with them in January, 1996.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Jimbo
I know!
And what is even worse is the way I understand it depending on where you live she can wait until she is 70 years old and you are 90 or 100 and it's still not too late!
January 19th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
JIm, at least if you're 90 a life sentence won't last long. That's the best a man can hope for nowadays. :)
January 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It really does need a statute of limitations. Rape SHOULD be dealt with asap. But that's not realistic.
I hope this case falls apart. She won't have any evidence, and he'll find it hard (but it's not impossible) to prove that he wasn't there at the time it supposedly occurred.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
critical male self defenses in a world gone mad:
1) implant a GPS tracker under your skin, record your location at all times.
2) have security cameras recording everyone who enters/leaves your house (must be time stamped of course).
3) put another tracker in each of your cars.
4) keep a detailed diary of all your movements, activities and people you speak to. it'll be useful for alibis and witnesses.
5) if you sleep with a woman, don't give her your real name, phone number, address, or profession. don't go to your place. don't leave any physical evidence behind.
6) just in case, use your cellphone to videotape her talking and smiling after you've had sex. it could be used at the trial.
7) carry an mp3 recorder in your pocket. activate it if it look like you might get intimate with a women and "accidentally" record the whole thing.
feel free to add other tips to the list...
January 19th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The only way to combat Klan type Rape hysteria is to force out the truth
. A civil rights lawsuit against police jurisdictions that keep promoteing faulty and inflamatory misinformation about the (2% false rape accusations) lie.
As someone who was also falsely acussed of rape, I feel sorry for this man and his familly.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
God,
Makes you feel like you don't even have a chance to lead a regular life. When some kid could just make something up out of the blue, and they decide to throw you in the slammer on a whim. When I hear things like this I feel like we are completely screwed. We men are at the complete mercy of any and every female in this country. Regardless of your character and hers, her word always trumps yours no matter how irrational and illogical it may be.
Makes me just want to withdraw from society completely. There is no hope.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
This man needs a swift, Immediate, trial from a jury of his peers, to judge his guilt or innocence.
But... If the jury of his peers have been subject the the same faulty and inflamatory (2% false rape lie), can that be considered a legal "pre-judice of the jury".
"Prejudice of the jury" is a legal term that has nothing to do with black/white.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Sharia law is looking better and better. Women's testimony is invalid without confirmation by another witness. The same two witnesses are required in Jewish LAw. Nothing has changed in 1,500 years and/ior 2,500 years; women lie because they are not punished, if found out. Men would readily lie also, if there was no consequence. Most crimes in NY have a six year statue of limitations. An unlimited statue of limitations is an invitation to abuse and would supply the NOW and VAWA feminists with more victims/fodder to fill their mangers. How could you disprove something years ago?
January 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
"Imagine that -- a girl can claim that you did something to her four years ago, and you can be arrested out of the blue and thrown in prison on a bail they know you have no way of making."
Unless they have some compelling evidence, how in the HELL can anyone in their right mind prosecute a case like this??? Have they charged this guy basd on nothing more than the testimony of girl who waited 4 years to file charges??? That's INSANE!!!
"I shuddered when I heard about the case. After all, my 16-year-old son and my 10-year-old daughter have their friends sleeping over at our house all the time. So four years from now one of my daughter's friends can claim that I raped her and on her word alone I'll be thrown and held in prison?"
Same here. This is precisely why I will NOT allow my teenage daughter to have sleepovers at our house. I hate it, because I know that she has several friends that she would like to have over, but I'm a single dad and I just can't take the chance of some emotionally disturbed teenager making a false claim. Between rape hysteria, false abuse claims, and fake sexual harrassment charges, it's getting to the point where I don't even want to talk with adult females, unless I am surrounded by a crowd of witnesses.
January 19th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
TF,
You read my mind, except with facts supporting your hypothesis. While I do not necessrliy want to live under Sharia Law, it seems the West has no hope when you read stories like this one. Not only are we at odds with Muslium Extremists, but we are at severe odds with ourselves. A great man once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. I feel hopeless on the home front. It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't if you are a man in the West. You can be a good father, husband, son, brother, uncle, etc, but we have given so much power to the feminists, that a woman or girl can abuse it easily and destroy a man and suffer no consequences. To live in fear like this, shouldn't it make men wonder? Is the West worth saving?
January 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
The point is our legal system is a total failure. For any one of us has faith in our system check out exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com to see the total corruption of the NY Justice system.(the same is probably in your State) The feminists are one of the groups that likes the corruption on which they feed.
What to do? Know your enemy; confront the lies, the false allegations, the judicial corruption.. Possibly, the pen or the word is mightier than the sword. Use the pen or the word; think the Emperor's New Clothes; be louder as a man rather than a boy, so that you are heard;
Glenn is the grownup boy exposing the absurdity of feminism. .
January 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Cdub, TF, are you suggesting complete Apathy, or are you suggesting Action., I can't quite tell???
This man needs a speedy unprejudiced jury of his peers, and for the courts to discover all there is to know about the case.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Maybee when this man goes to court,a talented mens rights activist can volunteer to act as a "mens advocate", like the thousands of state sponsored "womens advocates", that currently flood our courts.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
@18 Apathy isn't loud. Neither Sharia law nor Jewish law would find him guilty. But the delusional among us have faith in our system and its constitutional rights. The reality of our system as exposed in the blogspot in my previous post is wake up call that most don't want to hear. Mr. Hopkins would not be found guilty in other legal systems which acknowledge that women and or men lie. The evidence against is not beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you want to adopt the feminist man-bad, women-never would lie paradigm.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@cdub...
In answer to your question "Is the West worth saving?"
Emphatically NO.
It's beyond the point where it can be saved anyway.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
On the bright side the yellowstone volcano could explode at any moment reducing humanity to pre historic population levels
January 19th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Perhaps we should send the District Attorney a copy of The Crucible by Arthur Miller.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:30 am
The guy’s lawyer says he’s innocent. Shocking. And the lawyer, who defends rapists, says that there are lots of false rape accusations. Equally shocking. What else would the guy say—that his client is guilty as sin and rapes are horrible? Of course not. He’s not paid to do that.
What kind of “substantial injuries” besides internal ones are we talking about? Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls. And no one can tell. So why would it be hard to believe that an 11 year old could have been raped and no one would know? And if the guy uses threats and intimidation, he really doesn’t have to leave any bruises, does he? So it is very, very possible.
And by the way, how many 11 year olds go to the doctor for treatment by themselves? That would be NONE.
And for those of you who think it is terrible that a child should have extra time to report—why? Sometimes it takes years and years and years of therapy to be able to even face what happened to them and to have the courage to report it. And usually the statute of limitations is up and the scum never gets punished. And what about the fear? If a girl is living with the guy who attacked her, if he’s not found guilty, then she goes back to him. I can’t imagine the kind of hellish situation that is like for way too many girls.
I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Jeana said: I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do.
I don't know if she's lying or not, but I'm not going to automatically assume that she's not just because she's a girl and girls apparently never lie about rape. Because they do.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:56 am
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Feminists don't believe in innocent until proven guilty for any rape claim. It is automatically guilty and lock them up and throw away the key.
The guy’s lawyer says he’s innocent. Shocking.
He could be. No one knows at this point. Speculation is useless.
And the lawyer, who defends rapists, says that there are lots of false rape accusations. Equally shocking.
Check out falserapesociety.blogspot.com when you get a chance jeana. See just how many stories there are (documented), about false rape claims.
What kind of “substantial injuries” besides internal ones are we talking about?
If they are little girls, then I would assume there should be some vaginal tearing? After this amount of time, shouldn't there be some scarring evident?
Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls.
Care to back that up with, oh, I don't know, some proof?
January 20th, 2009 at 1:21 am
So jeana, you're a feminist and a zionist.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Wolfboy69 - I can't top that :D
January 20th, 2009 at 1:54 am
well, jeana is ready to convict this poor man based on no evidence. surprise, surprise. feminists don't believe there are any innocent men. and i honestly believe that people like jeana would prefer to get rid of trials for rape altogether. if a woman says it, the man is guilty. lock him up. and sadly, that's where we as a society are heading.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
I don't think enough evidence has come out to draw any conclusions. I would like to think that the prosecutor's office would not pursue this case just on the uncorroborated accusation of a teenage girl.
I think Jeana has a bit of a point here and I'm not going to automatically take the side of the man just because the system is often unfair to men.
There is a political blogger who posted back in April of 2008 that Reese Hopkins had made certain statements on the air. Obviously it's just thirdhand information, but presumably WRKO has tapes of the broadcast which the prosecutors can check.
Here's a link:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2008/04/24/young-boy-threatens-to-kill-george-bush/
January 20th, 2009 at 6:54 am
If a rape accusation is made years after the fact with no evidence to back it up, innocence is a very safe assumption.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:39 am
jeana Says:
"Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls."
Please define "lots and lots." Can you provide a number or percentage of men who commit this act? Perhaps you could even just describe it in more descriptive terms, such as: most men; some men; or a few men.
Can you provide a source for this claim? If you can't then you are doing nothing more than spreading rumors and gossip. I believe that this country has seen enough innocent people suffer because of unfounded claims and the hysteria that they generate. Haven't we learned anything from the Duke fiasco?
If you will note, Glenn stated that he is not declaring the man to be innocent, nor do I believe that anyone else here has. All we are saying is that this man should not be charged (and certainly not convicted) based on nothing more than the testimony of a teenage girl who waited 4 years to say anything. Is it your contention that if a teenage girl says that an adult male raped her then he should be charged, tried, and convicted based on nothing more than her word?
January 20th, 2009 at 8:15 am
30
dreamin Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
I don't think enough evidence has come out to draw any conclusions. I would like to think that the prosecutor's office would not pursue this case just on the uncorroborated accusation of a teenage girl.
I think Jeana has a bit of a point here and I'm not going to automatically take the side of the man just because the system is often unfair to men.
There is a political blogger who posted back in April of 2008 that Reese Hopkins had made certain statements on the air. Obviously it's just thirdhand information, but presumably WRKO has tapes of the broadcast which the prosecutors can check.
Here's a link:
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2008/04/24/young-boy-threatens-to-kill-george-bush/
Oh Brother ... Oh Sister ! As suggested I followed the link and here is what I found...
Besides being a site especially skewed in favour of men bad, women good ... 'civil rights' ? ( riiiiight, gagging ) and the old standby of right wing conspiracies, neocon this and that - and the link of a political blogger being nothing more than a post by 'kayinmaine on April 24th, 2008 ... and most of all Reese Hopkins is guilty of something but especially rape ?
Perhaps because since the link provides anonymous moonbeam poster ' Kay in Maine' a platform for an all knowing high ( more like hijinks ) priestess of slander first and attack anonymously any man but especially his character while simultaneously shrouding themself in 'civil rights'; credibility : 0.
The site 'Whitenoise' electronically lynching a Black man ? Civil rights ? It sounds like trailer trash, the thinking sounds like trailer trash, ergo ... does the word 'feminist' apply ?
January 20th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Jeana said " I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do."
and with this statement it's fair to say you are setting the standard at guilty until proven innocent. You also claim "lots and lot of men rape" - really? First off define "lots" - is it 2 or 5 or 50 or 100 or 10000? Your assumption is actually that ALL men rape and we know it.
oh btw jeana your statement above actually applies to you also. You see I'm not going to automatically assume you are innocent because you are a woman and women apparently never rape. BECAUSE THEY DO.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don't know why I am bothering with this but....
24: jeana Says:
"What kind of “substantial injuries” besides internal ones are we talking about? Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls. "
Wow! And this statement is based upon...? Oh, I forgot, you DO have an agenda when it comes to accusations of rape... especially when a great deal of time has passed... thus enabling the accusation lest proof.... Nope! No misandric agenda there! No-sir-ee!
Based upon your logic, or lack thereof, since mothers are notoriously MORE abusive towards children than fathers, should we just assume that mothers are guilty when accused?
"And no one can tell. "
Really now... Ask the SANE nurse on the Duke non-rape case.. She seemed to think that she can tell it happened even when it didn't!
"So why would it be hard to believe that an 11 year old could have been raped and no one would know? "
And why is it so hard for you to believe that an 11 YO girl COULD be full of shit?
"And if the guy uses threats and intimidation, he really doesn’t have to leave any bruises, does he? So it is very, very possible. "
OK. I'll concede. It is possible. Will YOU now concede that it IS POSSIBLE that this never happened? That this girl is making a false accusation? Oh, I forgot. Women NEVER lie about rape.
"And by the way, how many 11 year olds go to the doctor for treatment by themselves? That would be NONE."
Really now. You are really really stretching here....
"And for those of you who think it is terrible that a child should have extra time to report—why? "
When I was in the third grade, I got the piss beat out of me by a group of Hispanic kids. Racially motivated for sure. Almost 40 years later, I still have anxiety when I see a large group of Hispanics. And I aint a tiny man either. Can I go after them now and get them charged with a hate crime?
Of course not. One, it's my word against theirs. I COULD be lying. Secondly, the PROOF that I would need (as it should be) is no longer viable or even obtainable. Thus, they are NOT guilty unless I CAN PROVE it. My claiming that these racists beat me up because I was white are just that, a claim. Additionally, they have the same rights that I do... and they should. My word should hold no more weight than theirs.
"Sometimes it takes years and years and years of therapy to be able to even face what happened to them and to have the courage to report it. "
Ahhh yes. The magical "recovered memory" angle. Gottah love it. Maybe, just maybe it takes years and years of prodding and "guiding" to instill said memories.... McMartin (I believe was the name) case ring a bell?
"And usually the statute of limitations is up and the scum never gets punished. "
Your predisposition to assumed guilt of said "scum" is quite telling....
"And what about the fear? If a girl is living with the guy who attacked her, if he’s not found guilty, then she goes back to him. "
And what of the case where many many men have been found to be TOTALLY and UNEQUIVICALLY INNOCENT through DNA after years and years in jail? Only to never be able to live their lives normally? Or does that mattter to you....
"I can’t imagine the kind of hellish situation that is like for way too many girls."
Oh, I think you can. You imagination is quite active, as we all can attest to. You really shouldn't downplay your superior imagination is such a manor. It is quite self-loathing and sad.
"I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, "
Do you really care? No, I really don't think you do. In your mind, he is guilty and must pay. And if there is the off-chance that he is not, you still want him to pay... why you ask? Because the ALLEDGED "rapist" in your 'story' never got his come-uppance and you want him, shoot, ANY him to pay.
" but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do."
But you will, without batting an eye, believe that he is guilty. No prejudices there....
And for the record, men do rape. Women rape. Freaking donkeys probably rape for crying out loud! What you seem to never admit and we evil MRA's claim is that WOMEN LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, and RAPE as well.
We MRA's want men AND WOMEN to be held EQUALLY accountable, and the metering of LAW to be applied as it was/is written; primarily, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
TMOTS
January 20th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Jeana says:
"I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do."
...which would disqualify you from sitting on the jury which is required to begin with the assumption that he is not guilty.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Jeana says: "I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not ".
And you fully have that right. The legal system, on the other hand, doesn't. They should assume he is not and only work off of the evidence supporting the fact that he is, not the other way around. I think that is where the outrage comes from. If I knew you at some point in my life and 4 years after the fact went to the cops and said you stole an envelope full of money from me when you were visiting at my apartment...would they prosecute? Would you feel wronged/railroaded if they did?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:05 am
A friend of a friend of mine got his leg blown off by an IED while serveing in Iraq. I read a study somewhere that states we spend 5 times the amount of money for (womens(Rape post traumatic stress disorder), than we do on post traumatic stress disorder for (young men who get their legs blown off in Iraq).
Is getting raped 5 times more traumatic then getting you're legs blown off??? That is what society has been conditioned to believe. Are women the only ones that bleed????
January 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Maybee the superfunded "women as victim" agitation propaganda, is simply a tool to "marginalise" any real victims!!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:24 am
What exactly is the story here, and what is the evidence? Was this supposed to be a violent attack or was she willing? (Although that wouldn't be legal consent, of course.) That link said something about comments he made on the air. Has that been substantiated?
January 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
40
ManCan Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 11:24 am
What exactly is the story here, and what is the evidence? Was this supposed to be a violent attack or was she willing? (Although that wouldn't be legal consent, of course.) That link said something about comments he made on the air. Has that been substantiated?
Here's an excerpt in the manner and context in which it was written ManCan.
Perhaps since the link provides anonymous moonbeam poster ' Kay in Maine' a platform for an all knowing high ( more like hijinks ) priestess of slander first and attack anonymously any man but especially his character while simultaneously shrouding herself in 'civil rights'; kayinmaine's credibility = 0.
As an aside and for those amateur history buffs .... may I suggest reading,
"A Festival of Violence" or "Lynching and Lawlessness", (they go together).
With respect to 'reasons' used to rationalize lynchings on the books: one 'reason' was angering a government backed group and one of the other 'reasons' was insulting woman and of course the handy dandy multi-purpose 'unknown outrageous act' - just like the one Reese Hopkins is accused of !
If feminism is the practice; he has already been convicted as evidenced by the false character assasinations and contradictory electronic lynchings on this site by some bloggers here and other Internet sites.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Given the timing, lack of evidence, potential motive of the girl to lie (e.g., as an enabler for a bitter ex live-in lover) this sounds like another false allegation to me.
Show me objective evidence - until then it's her words against his, so it's a draw. Unless we've become a full-blown Femifascist dictatorship we still have "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of the land, and that means, at least for now, he's presumed innocent.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
One Question Glenn....WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE RULE OF LAW ???
I thought a suspect is presumed "innocent" till "proven" guilty...not the other way around.
The only way Reese Hopkins treatment by the authorities can be justified is if he has a prior record....if not....let him go & see ya in court !!
Any law that is so broad as the child rape law in NY ...in my view...."IS" UNCONSTITUTIONAL & therefore ILLEGAL !! I's hard for me to believe that this is what's become of this nation in just my lifetime !!
January 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
10
Jimbo,
Yeah, I saw "Freeze Frame" (2004) also. I got news for you soon we will be forced to do this, do not bring it on any faster than we have too. I will not submit.
b
January 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Danny – “Is it your contention that if a teenage girl says that an adult male raped her then he should be charged, tried, and convicted based on nothing more than her word?”
[snark]Well, of course it is. If you’d bother to listen to you Feminist “betters” you might understand that it is a horrible affront to women that one of their number might not be believed. The idea that a woman could lie is a manifestation of the oppression of the Patriarchy.
If a woman’s claims were required to be examined for their veracity, it would be a serious blow to women’s power.
And, as we’ve been informed, if one man can commit rape, then all men are capable of doing so; thus we must proceed forward with the assumption that all men do rape. Thus, when a woman says she’s been raped, because it is possible, it must also be assumed true. [/snark]
Actually, this Jeana poster is very puzzling to me. She tells that she has a son, yet she seems to be entirely unconcerned that men (and boys) be given fair treatment by the criminal justice system. Perhaps she believes her son has been imbued with some magical powers that will protect him from ever finding himself in need of a fair and honest assessment by that criminal justice system.
Unlike all other boys, her son must be immune from the threat of ever having a false rape or DV charge level against him, so Jeana doesn’t need to be concerned with such matters.
Maybe Jeana could explain how her son came to possess such these magical powers – I’d like to try to get some for my son.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Oh BTW, I spoke to a detective in our jurisdiction and I asked him if our false rape rate was at least 90% and he said at least that . . .
b
January 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
12
cdub,
I guess that is when I would invoke my privilege of only having to comply with the REASONABLE request of an officer.
b
January 20th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
slwerner
That is what makes no sense to me do the women in our society want their sons to have their lives torn apart for nothing and with no punishment to the people who do this?
I was falsely accused by two GUYS a long time ago of something that is a not a sex crime and I can tell you that it's a horrible thing to do to someone and it sticks with you for life....you are always thinking about if someone might accuse you of doing something.
To this day I will not be in anyone's house unless they are there with me I'm very wary of putting myself in any position that I could be blamed for something.
Anyone can make up something that is the biggest lie and it can get really far.
False accusers deserve very serious punishment. The fact that they usually get nothing or even get rewarded just shows you how messed up our society is.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
14
TF
How could you disprove something years ago?
========
Not just that but the bigger problem is proving a negative. How would you prove that you did not do something, since it was not done there is no evidance that it did not happen. How do you prove that you did not receive a letter in the mail? You really cannot.
b
January 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Bernie Misiura - "Oh BTW, I spoke to a detective in our jurisdiction and I asked him if our false rape rate was at least 90% and he said at least that . . . "
Bernie,
I think that another very telling question to ask of that detective would be whether or not he felt pressured to always operate under the assumption that the claim was true (even when highly doubtful) and continue to pursue it until (an unless) he could positively rule it out?
The impression that I have gotten is that both rape and DV charges, being perceived as something that men to do women (exclusively), are handled much differently when it comes to what standard of judgment will be used in determining what course an investigation will take. In such cases, there seems to be pressure placed upon Police to always accept a woman’s word over any lack of substantive evidence.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
21
gwallan,
Come now, YOU are not worth saving?
b
January 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
22
lujlp,
Mom N, always has a way to flush.
b
January 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
46
Jim Says:
"That is what makes no sense to me do the women in our society want their sons to have their lives torn apart for nothing and with no punishment to the people who do this?"
-------------------------------------------------------
I draw the same conclusion Jim. It is puzzling to me, because no man here is suggesting the opposite of that, that our daughters should be able to be raped and have those who did it suffer no consequences. I feel that this is what Jeanna and her ilk would imply, that, that is something most of us MRA's would support. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I want equal protection under the law for men and women, but as I see it now, the system wants to not only go after men who are guilty, but all men because women are NEVER guilty, which is completely abusrd. There is no balance, men have no rights.
Bernie, I'm not sure what you are trying to say to me. My apologies for my ignorance.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@Bernie...
"I" wasn't part of the question.
Probably won't be around at the knell anyway.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
jeana, jeana, jeana,
Shocking, jeana is letting her emotions override hare intellect again.
Now for the critical analysis in bold (if I remember to close the tags LOL
24
jeana Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 12:30 am
The guy’s lawyer says he’s innocent. Shocking. And the lawyer, who defends rapists, says that there are lots of false rape accusations. Equally shocking. What else would the guy say—that his client is guilty as sin and rapes are horrible? Of course not. He’s not paid to do that.
Addressed above
What kind of “substantial injuries” besides internal ones are we talking about? Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls.
Ooooo, yeah about that, it is just a smidgen over the top. Would you mind quantifying LOTS AND LOTS? I am sure you would be hard pressed to run into one of these men, and much more likely to run into a false rape accuser.
And no one can tell.
And no one can tell a false rape accuser especially after four years
So why would it be hard to believe that an 11 year old could have been raped and no one would know?
After four years? Really?
And if the guy uses threats and intimidation, he really doesn’t have to leave any bruises, does he? So it is very, very possible.
and if a girl uses "RAPE" to get her way she does not need to be larger and stronger than a man to get it
And by the way, how many 11 year olds go to the doctor for treatment by themselves? That would be NONE.
But the do go to see doctors
And for those of you who think it is terrible that a child should have extra time to report—why? Sometimes it takes years and years and years of therapy to be able to even face what happened to them and to have the courage to report it.
and with a child that young that type of "therapy" can lead to false memories much of the time. That does not seem fair to the man now does it?
And usually the statute of limitations is up and the scum never gets punished.
My above comment is in part why there is a limit
And what about the fear? If a girl is living with the guy who attacked her, if he’s not found guilty, then she goes back to him. I can’t imagine the kind of hellish situation that is like for way too many girls.
Um, and if she is lying there is not much to worry about is there? I am sure a loving parent will giver her a stern talking to and some form of punishment. I am also sure that the lying far out weighs the substantiated reports and in that case she does not go back to the abuser.
I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but I’m not going to automatically assume that he’s not
Um, you do realize that what you state here is against our law, Constitution and would disqualify you from serving on a jury, right?
just because he’s a guy and men apparently never rape. Because they do.
Oh, good GOD, how many times must we tell you that all the men here agree that men do rape, but since she is a girl (little woman) apparently they never lie, because they do.
Kewl, I can play that game too . . . .
b
January 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Bernie, the troll is doing what that troll does.
Smear.
"Because lots and lots of men rape their little girls."
Surveys looking at victims indicate that natural fathers are about the least likely individuals to rape their own daughters. Mum's new boyfriend on the other hand...
January 20th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
"If a rape accusation is made years after the fact with no evidence to back it up, innocence is a very safe assumption."
Perhaps, but why assume there is no corroborating evidence? If there is such evidence, how would we learn about it at this point? Certainly Hopkins' lawyer isn't going to volunteer it.
Not all prosecutors are evil idiots like Mike Nifong was.
"Oh Brother ... Oh Sister ! As suggested I followed the link and here is what I found..."
What also is there is what purports to be a contemporaneous report of Hopkins making some possibly self incriminating statements on the air. Presumably, at the time of that blog post, the blogger was unaware that Hopkins would eventually be charged with rape.
As indicated in my earlier post, one can assume that the prosecutors have access to the archive tapes of those transmissions.
Personally, I prefer not to reduce myself to the level of most feminists by automatically siding with one person based on their gender before all the facts are in. I will wait for more facts to come in on this one.
Just my opinion.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
If there was evidence, you'd think the articles would have mentioned it already. But if it's there, let's see it. And let's hear what the story is exactly.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:29 am
50
slwerner,
He said "You can tell right away when they are lying." His basis for this was, inaccurate stories, changing stories, and odd emotions by the complainant. Yes he knows that everyone can act differently so that is why further information is researched after the complainants deposition and those that have lied do act inconsistently than those who have collaborating evidence with the deposition.
I am not sure that I answered what you wanted . . . let me know I will see him again in about 3 days.
I have witnesses that there is a much bigger push on the DV and they push hard on the men accused and because of the "primary aggressor" laws the man is usually the one arrested.
Note: I cannot really prove it (I will always say this when I am conjecturing but have strong circumstantial evidence) but there is much more funding available for PD's in some areas then others and DV is one of them.
You can always tell when there has been a shift in federal funding regarding PD's. Just watch the year end stats and how there will be much fewer offenses logged for crime X and more for crime Y most of it has to do with governmental grants. If they want a vehicle for . . . DWI checks they will actively hunt for more DWI's and "prove" a need. If they want a Commercial inspection vehicle and equipment they will "prove a need by witting more commercial vehicle violations. This is not unique to any PD it is just the way it is. It is not as if there was a dramatic shift in particular crimes it is just that they will concentrate on one more than the other to receive grant money for equipment and overtime pay.
Nothing really changes except what they actively target.
b
January 21st, 2009 at 2:41 am
53
cdub,
Bernie, I'm not sure what you are trying to say to me. My apologies for my ignorance.
==============
No, no, no, often my thoughts come out abbreviated because "I" know what I was thinking but I know what is in my head and you do not . . . my fault.
Let me expand . . . legally you only have to follow the "reasonable" requests of an officer. The rub comes in when the officer then wants to place additional charges on you for "resisting arrest." See you have the right to refuse the unreasonable request to be placed under arrest for something you did not do BUT they also have recourse by claiming "resisting arrest."
Sometimes you have to fight the good fight and not cooperate but there can be consequences, but sometimes they make a very loud point.
b
January 21st, 2009 at 2:45 am
oops post 50 that should have been "corroborating" not 'collaborating"
b
January 21st, 2009 at 10:42 am
Gotcha Bernie, thanks for the clarification.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
No offense people.... I remember my wild youth.Not only was I provocative,I recall a self inflicted incident ,from naivete that left me physically "traumatized" as the gyno gently asked me if I had been raped....
So men and ignorant women ... there is a definate issue of "genitalia" size when it comes rape and physical trauma.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I believe that when it comes to 'Women's Centers' and/or domestic violence shelters, women of any caliber are encouraged to come in and render reports of 'violence'. They, then without comity of evidence, are offered free of charge - room, board, protection services, and legal representation.
As concerns this article - I am curious, by what avenue or means the young woman in this four year old complaint took to cause these charges to become public?
Since many woman's shelters are reimbursed upon the number of 'victims' they afford 'services' to, it is generally not in their self interest to question the legitimacy of a claim or seek any clarity as to any particular individual's 'history'.
I believe, that if Women's Centers offered simple questioneers along with perhaps follow up and/or intervention opportunities that mentioned or offered 'couples counseling' services or 'conflict management workshops' as tools for distressed couples rather than rewarding only the most heavy handed anti-male punitive menu of mitigation i.e. arrest and imprisonment for 'male perpetrators'. Women's Centers could then go along way to stemming the tide of many of the most egregious of 'false accusers'.
Unfortunately, that is not the case, the 'victim' women is never questioned, her story never corroborated, her honesty and motivation never questioned.
In my own deeply damaging experience, running men through the judicial system seems to have become a money making cottage industry for not only the 'Women's Movement', but to District Attorneys eager for their blessing when it comes time for re-election. Lines are often crossed to keep the numbers who are prosecuted high and defense attorneys employed.
The real public work that needs to be done is in laying a foundation that ultimately helps create mechanisms that could necessarily provide a dis-incentive to those women who only wish to angrily vent their spleen for free by abusing a system designed specifically for those who really do in fact need its help.
My recommendation is that there be - for a first time complaint- be a 24 hr. 'cooling off' period before the police are brought in and men are summarily shackled and bound. During this 24 hr. period, for a first time complaint, every attempt should be made by an on site staff social worker or law-enforcement expert to contact the 'purported perpetrator'. His or her duty would be to attempt to identify the problem from his point of view, and to check thoroughly whether he has a criminal background, or malicious intent before potentially assisting an angry or abusive woman give him one.
Not only is this 24 hr. period a genuine an attempt to help the woman, who by now is installed in a protective shelter, but it is also a humane attempt toward helping protect the man a perhaps his children from the ravages of being falsely accused.
I strongly believe that if after 24hrs. if the woman has not wholly been forth coming in honesty, she may recant her claim without fear of reprisal. It should be a condition of being accepted into the shelter. The 'intake counselor' at the shelter must remind him/her of the penalties for making false or mis-leading statements (Perjury). The intake counselor should also cause the complainant to read and sign a sworn statement to that affect.
Perhaps during the 'cooling off' period the social worker does speak to the 'other party' in the complaint and deems that counseling and or arbitration could be more useful and less damaging alternatives to arrest and incarceration. Less damaging to himself, his family, his future, his community and to the whole of the judicial system in general.
Imagine shelters being rewarded for taking these simple more humanistic steps.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
The Sex Crimes DA's office which is prosecuting Reese was found to have a history of prosecutorial misconduct. Jeannene Piro was the prosecutor who put Jeffery Desckovic in prison for sixteen years for a rape and murder he did not commit. She denied the introduction of DNA evidence that exonerated him. I contacted him this week and he forwarded my e-mail to his attorney at Cochran, Neufeld and Sheck. I'm praying that they step up to the plate.