Chris Noth accused of two sexual assaults

[Dearblossom]

Trigger warning. This sounds pretty awful frankly.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59689064

@OliviaBensonStabler

Why wait 17 years to report someone for rape.

The justice system is absolutely brutal to women who've been raped. I've worked with women who say that it was worse than the actual rape, which is not remotely to mean that the rapes themselves were not horrific, and still caused tremendous suffering years after the event. The treatment of famous and powerful people at the time both incidents happened meant that it was even more difficult to report these crimes when they actually happened.

One of the worse things is the sense they weren't believed: by the police, by friends and relatives, by the jury. Unpacking the fact that friends/family of the perpetrators lied on oath to protect them (tough luck for the victims!), that it was not their fault (as they'd believed for decades), that the burden of proof is so high in a criminal case, went some way to help them to move on. But I can quite understand why other women (knowing how victims are treated in these cases) didn't report them to the police at the time.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275602/Violinist-driven-suicide-ordeal-trial-branded-liar-fantasist-woman-QC.html

It's awful of you to make such a flippant-sounding comment about such a terrible crime.

It's similar to: what was she wearing; why didn't she fight him off; what was she doing there anyway; why was she wearing that outfit; she shouldn't have been drunk. It is absolutely no surprise that women struggle to report rapes at the time they happen, when the trauma is at its height, and with these kind of attitudes.

There is such outrage about false accusations and men's lives being ruined (quite rightly). But so little outrage about the fact that rape is so prevalent in our society. Why is that?

I have to say that I always feel impatient with the “why did they wait so long to report?” argument. So many possible responses, eg coercive sexual contact is such a common experience for women that sometimes it’s hard to even know if it constitutes rape/sexual assault. We are so used to brushing it off and getting on with it. Then there’s the fact that reporting it will throw a hand grenade of destruction into the woman’s own life as well as that of the suspect and/or perpetrator. Very often it’s just easier to clean up the physical injuries, push aside the mental pain and just push on. Society has not been supportive to women who are raped, it’s only recently that it’s become safer to speak of such things.

While my instinct tells me there is weight to these particular accusations I do think it’s important to acknowledge that yes some women may exaggerate, jump on the bandwagon, even outright lie. That said my experiences and those of all my female friends tell me that rapey, entitled, coercive men far out way such women so the starting point must be belief and support. I’ve never met a woman who lied about sexual assault personally but I have met multiple men who committed it.

@LondonWolf I totally agree, women are so conditioned to believe it was something they did wrong, wore provocative clothes 🙄 were drunk etc that they don’t report immediately. Slightly different, but it took me 40 years to finally report child sex abuse, it weighed heavy on me for years because once the cat was out of the bag the knock on effects for others was massive and I felt so guilty for blowing up their lives.

@ChimChimeny When & where did I say anybody was lying please? I'm saying innocent until PROVEN guilty.

I'm not saying that the US (& UK) justice systems don't get it wrong - of course they do. But to 'assume' that anyone making an accusation is automatically truthful is just as wrong as automatically assuming they're lying.
The ONLY way to stop innocent people's loves being ruined is to remain neutral until investigations are over. They should NOT have released any details of the case before he's convicted IF that's the outcome. For everyone's sake.

I think it's interesting that the 'presumption of innocence' debate almost exclusively comes up when people are discussing accusations of rape. If someone gets accused of fraud or money laundering, you don't really get crowds clamouring 'but he's innocent until proven guilty!' Why do you think this is?

The whole problem with thinking that this should be taken to the courts and resolved there is a fantasy, as well we know. Only a tiny percent of rape cases actually get to court, and of those that do, men get sentenced in less than 1% of the cases. And for many cases, too much time has passed, so there will be no justice ever for those women.

In the meantime, dangerous, predatory men are on the loose, offending again and again, and I think women should absolutely BE WARNED. Be it via a text message, a #metoo thread, a newspaper article, an interview. You can't seriously say that all these women should be gagged, mute, silent awaiting their day in trial?? In what other way do you suggest that victims use their voices, speak of their experiences and let others know 'this man is a danger to all women'?

I heard a really interesting debate on French TV the other day. A feminist politician argued that the whole 'presumption of innocence' outlook should be countenanced with a 'presumption of credibility'.

Why don't we run with that instead? I choose to believe that the women speaking out are CREDIBLE, have too much to lose by lying and may not have spoken out earlier because of trauma, appalling hostility towards women who do speak out, and the power imbalance between them and their rapists.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Jackson did, in fact, abuse carefully selected, carefully manipulated child victims. I would not be able to vote guilty were I on an actual jury, because I don't think "beyond reasonable doubt" has been established, but I am perfectly entitled to conclude that I think he was a serial child sex abuser and act accordingly. Courts are held to "innocent until proven guilty"; people are not, and good thing too, because court is a completely inadequate means of protecting people against serial sexual predators.

And maybe these allegations would stick a little less well to Chris Noth if he hadn't sleazed on literally thousands of women, and been drunk at work in front of hundreds or thousands more, eh? What a misfortune for him.

Do you think SJP will make a statement?

One of the girls said her arms ached from fighting him off (or something like that) I mean have you seen the size of him? I would have thought fighting him off was pretty impossible. I don’t know .. I guess we should reserve judgement. I hope these women get some support though if it proves to be the case they were raped and my heart goes out to them .

if it proves to be the case they were raped

Even if he’s found not guilty it doesn’t mean they weren’t raped

Anyone else follow Deux Moi? According to them, it's been known of for ages and the newspapers in America printing the stories would not be publishing without belief in the stories.

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

if it proves to be the case they were raped

Even if he’s found not guilty it doesn’t mean they weren’t raped

So do you think that if anyone makes the accusation of rape, then the person who is being blamed should forever be labelled a rapist and nothing, not even a thorough court case that finds them not guilty, should ever remove that label from them??

So do you think that if anyone makes the accusation of rape, then the person who is being blamed should forever be labelled a rapist and nothing, not even a thorough court case that finds them not guilty, should ever remove that label from them??

^^This. The guy could be completely innocent. People do lie. I’m not saying these women have but we should step back and let the jury hear the evidence (if it goes that far). This guy has kids and a career. He deserves a chance and not immediate vilification.

@HeartOfClass

I'm also very suspicious of these legacy reports. It's so long ago. It makes it even more scary when they appear in media and allegations assumed to be true, trial by media etc.

However when I was raped, (for a number of reasons) I did not report or discuss with people at the time, until many many years later. I really wished I had done it at the time.

My inclination, for better or worse, is to believe the people reporting based on my own personal experience.

I’m sorry for what you went through (and any other person that had experienced this).

What I can’t understand is why these women have gone to the media rather than the police. I can understand why people find it so hard to come forward and report, particularly at the time, but really can’t understand why they’re then ok with having the whole thing played out for the world to see.

I think it's interesting that the 'presumption of innocence' debate almost exclusively comes up when people are discussing accusations of rape. If someone gets accused of fraud or money laundering, you don't really get crowds clamouring 'but he's innocent until proven guilty!' Why do you think this is?

It’s because rape trials so often centre in his word vs hers, particularly if they’ve not been reported quickly and there is minimal/no medical or forensic evidence.

I will always believe the woman in these cases. Victims get treated like shit when they speak out, it isn't all boxes of chocolates and sympathetic ears. Lots of men rape but very, very few women falsely accuse, despite what society would have you think.

And if I'm wrong, at least I've only backed a liar, not a rapist.

FFS, Michael Jackson was a filthy paedophile. He was very lucky to die when he did.

@OliviaBensonStabler

Why wait 17 years to report someone for rape.

Because women are told they won’t be believed.

I told my best friend, her reaction was, ‘I believe you, but no one else will’ .

I didn’t tell another soul for four years, and I’ve never told the police, because she said that they wouldn’t believe me .

It must be a million times worse for those attacked and assaulted by men in the public eye, with fans and a following.

While I am broadly sympathetic with women and broadly distrustful of men, and deplore the low conviction rates for rape, I do wonder whether the "I will always believe the woman, always" stance some people hold would remain as firm if one's own husband or son were accused of such a terrible crime.

He deserves a chance and not immediate vilification

Wouldn’t disagree

But its still a fact that just because someone is found not guilty it doesn’t mean they didnt do it

Micheal Jackson innocent, he was a powerful man who paid millions to vulnerable families. There was pornic graphic images of boys discovered in neverland, he had a secret room with alarms, his own sister toyana said he like boys. He slept with them in his bedroom groomed them with gifts. Of course he was an abuser in plain sight watch the footage with one of the boys he was sitting with, its not normal behavior from an adult man. Its appalling people say he's just childlike, he was a smart manipulative individual who used his status as an icon to gain access to young boys never girls I may add and dropped them when they got too old. Jurors were always going to be baise because of his status.

@Bananarama21

Micheal Jackson innocent, he was a powerful man who paid millions to vulnerable families. There was pornic graphic images of boys discovered in neverland, he had a secret room with alarms, his own sister toyana said he like boys. He slept with them in his bedroom groomed them with gifts. Of course he was an abuser in plain sight watch the footage with one of the boys he was sitting with, its not normal behavior from an adult man. Its appalling people say he's just childlike, he was a smart manipulative individual who used his status as an icon to gain access to young boys never girls I may add and dropped them when they got too old. Jurors were always going to be baise because of his status.

This is not grounded in evidence. Even the name of his sister is wrong. If child porn had been found Jackson would have been charged with possession of child porn. I think you're talking about the Martin Bashir interview - if so, I'd recommend you watch the footage Jackson's videographer shot at the same time, showing Bashir choreographing the scene.

Would you acquit someone famous who you believed had abused children? If not, why do you assume everyone else would?

www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

Have a look at the fact he's not innocent by no means. He was popstar royalty people are biased because they are fans it was never going to be a fair trial for the victims. Even seeing the hysteria from fans during the trial demonstrates that

Not the least bit surprising. He used to live quite close to my office when I lived in NYC in the early 00’s. Often saw him at the local Starbucks and it was common knowledge he hung out there to hit on all the university girls who also frequented it. He was often cosying up to a young 20 ish year old woman, and he was definitely 40 ish then (and in a relationship). Really pervy.

Vanity Fair - respectable source you've produced there 🥴👉

@Bananarama21

www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

Have a look at the fact he's not innocent by no means. He was popstar royalty people are biased because they are fans it was never going to be a fair trial for the victims. Even seeing the hysteria from fans during the trial demonstrates that

The question remains: would you acquit someone famous who you believed had abused children? If not, why do you assume everyone else would?

Another question: are you a fan of any musicians? If they were accused of child abuse would you defend them because you like their songs? If not, etc...

Vanity Fair also claimed Jackson bathed in cow's blood, put a voodoo curse on Spielberg etc etc - it's celebrity gossip rather than a reputable source. Their list repeats claims that are easily disproven (e.g. if the drawing of Jackson had matched the photographs it would have been presented in court but the prosecution never entered it into evidence). If you want to read about the trial I recommend the primary sources: all the court transcripts are available online, as are the FBI files. Even the drawing.

I do like your username though ;-)