I took over the appeal. The brief my firm filed was what I described as a feminist brief: Just because the legal system has moved away from the view that all rape accusations are contrived does not mean it must move to the view that none are. This conviction was not just technically imperfect, I argued, it was a true injustice. I was successful. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed Paul’s conviction on a procedural error, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The prosecutor could have retried the case, but, thankfully, chose not to do so.Here is discussion of another accusation:
After decades of feminist advocacy (the case establishing the right to choose abortion in Massachusetts, the first introduction of Battered Woman Syndrome in a defense to a murder charge, and on and on), I was picketed by a women’s rights group when I spoke on a panel following the reversal of Paul’s case; I was a “so-called women’s rights attorney,” one sign announced, simply because I had represented a man accused of rape. When I explained why, including the fact that I believed he was innocent, a demonstrator yelled, “That is irrelevant!” The experience was chilling; to the picketers, a wrongful conviction and imprisonment simply did not matter. Paul would have been incarcerated, but for my firm’s advocacy and the appellate court’s independent review. Still, advocacy and appellate review could only go so far: Though the charges against Paul were dropped, he was expelled from the college he had been attending; he struggled to reapply years later and finally get his degree. Worse yet, he continues to suffer from the stigma of the accusation to this day, many, many decades later.
I did an interview and talked about Bill Cosby. Obviously I’m disgusted with what’s going on, it’s horrible what’s happened to these women, it seems like he did it. That’s what it seems like. But obviously, no, I don’t want to believe it. The last reason I don’t want to believe it is because it will hurt my image of Bill Cosby. The first reason is women are getting drugged and raped. That’s awful. But what I said was, of course I don’t want to believe this, but there’s fucking 20 of them now. If there’s 20 accusations, that means there’s hundreds. It’s like when you see one cockroach in the house that means there’s a thousand in the walls. That’s what I said. So that sounds okay, right? What do you think people did with that?I am not sure of his point here, but look at the illogic of his reasoning. If 20 women are willing to publicly accuse Cosby of drugging and raping them, then there must be 100s more who had the same thing happen and are keeping their mouths shut. So Cosby did it.
WIL: Comedian compares rape accusers to cockroaches.
PATTON: Rape victims to cockroaches.
I think the reverse. Assume that the evidence is such that either Cosby is innocent, or that he drugged and raped 100s of women. Which is more likely?
If just one of those supposed victims called 911, made a report, and was given a physical exam, then there would be objective evidence. Cosby's semen in the vagine, and rape drug in the blood. Then the cops get a search warrant, and find matching rape drugs in his house, and other evidence. Cosby would be a dead duck.
Not all women report rape. Maybe only a half or a third do, I have no idea. Maybe some were aspiring actresses who thought that Cosby could get them jobs. But I cannot believe that he drugged and raped 100s of women and none of them reported it.
That is part of why I doubt the Jerry Sandusky molestations. He supposedly molested dozens of kids, and no one ever reported. Even after Sandusky was being investigated, his supposed victims denied. They only made accusations after they lawyered up and the likelihood of millions of dollars from Penn State became available.
The latest feminist victory is to get more clothing on the London The Sun page 3 models. A rival newspaper offers discussion:
Is the Sun's scrapping of Page 3 topless models a victory for women?Of course all the comments are from feminists who essentially say the same thing -- that showing pretty girls objectifies women and therefore must be censored. No one wants to say the obvious. My guess is that women look at those pictures as much as men do.
The Sun has 'quietly' stopped publishing photos of bare-breasted women on Page 3. Our writers discuss how significant this is for women