Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fairfax accuser to speak with prosecutor after he threatens to file criminal complaint
NY Post ^ | 2/13/19 | Ruth Brown

Posted on 02/14/2019 2:35:52 AM PST by Libloather

The woman who accused Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her in Boston 15 years ago says she will now share her allegations with the local district attorney — after the politician threatened to pursue her for filing a “false criminal complaint.”

Suffolk DA Rachael Rollins said earlier Wednesday that she’d reached out to lawyers representing accuser Vanessa Tyson about her allegation that Fairfax forced her to perform oral sex on him during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

In a response to the Boston Globe, Fairfax’s spokeswoman reiterated his denial and said he’d cooperate with an investigation — but added that he would also “explore all options with regard to filing his own criminal complaint in response to the filing of a false criminal complaint against him.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: criminal; fairfax; justinfairfax; metoo; toast; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Liz

How is it different?


21 posted on 02/14/2019 8:35:37 AM PST by wastedyears (The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liz

How do you know she was sexually assaulted, 15 years later?
What. If. She’s. Lying?
“Reasonable doubt, tie goes to the runner.” (Presumption of innocence.)


22 posted on 02/14/2019 9:32:27 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change with out notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

In the Fairfax case, there is no dispute of what occured. Both parties agree to all aspects, including the sex act.

The disagreement is solely about whether she consented or not. He says she was a willing participant. She says she never consented, and was forced.

So in the end, you have to either believe her, or him. There will be no evidence you can find that tells you what happened in the room; no video evidence exists, and no observers were present.

You will need circumstantial and implicit information, to make any informed guess. Is he the kind of person who might do this? Has she ever lied about an attack? Which person has a motivation to lie? What do their actions after the incident show you?

That he has another accuser doesn’t help him. But what really doesn’t “help” him is his actions during this time period. First, he knew she was accusing him over a year ago, and he told only a few democrat officials. That’s not surprising.

But, when it broke publicly, he lied about what the Washington Post had found, claiming that they found “red flags and glaring inconsistancies” in her story. the WP had to publish an article pointing out he was lying about them.

Then he called her names, and then tried to sue people for reporting it.

And now he threatened to file charges against her if she tried to file charges against him.

note that every one of these things is probably a good legal strategy. And frankly, it is unlikely they could get a conviction from him at this point, or at any point.

But in terms of believability and acceptability for public office, these are really bad things. Even BK never threatened criminal retaliation, or ANY retaliation at all, for Ford. He never said bad things about her. He merely proclaimed his innocence.

He was helped out by the fact that she couldn’t identify the time or place, that every person she said was there said they never remember ford being in the same place as BK, and his calendar indicates little possibility that the party ever happened.

The problem with the Fairfax story is — could you EVER get a conviction for it? Suppose right after he finished with her, she ran out of the room, and called police, and said “a man just raped me”.

And when they looked for evidence, they saw no physical indication of any assault. And the guy said “she agreed to sex, but afterwards, she asked for my number, and I told her this was a one-time thing, and she got really upset and ran off”.

So they would have two competing narratives, and no physical evidence indicating one or the other. How would you get him?

Well, the same way you’d get someone for stealing your car.

Imagine you hang with someone for a weekend, you are hitting it off. At some point, you are sitting in a bar, and they leave. an hour later you realize your keys are missing, and your car is gone. 3 hours later she drives back with the car, and the police are there to arrest her.

She claims you lent her your car. How do you prove you didn’t? How do you prove that you weren’t just mad at her, so you said she could borrow the car, and then reported it stolen?


23 posted on 02/14/2019 12:19:10 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Liz

I mean, in this case I guess we could say she was Naive, since he turned out to be a rapist (if you believe her).

But I reject the notion that is is naive for a woman to be alone with a man, as a normal matter of course.

If a woman walked back to my hotel room while I retrieved papers, I can guarantee you that absolutely nothing would happen, and she wouldn’t have to worry about me kissing her without asking, or forcing myself on her.

And I’m pretty sure most every man I know, would be the same.

Yes, I know men who would take advantage of that situation, and try to convince her of something.

I don’t know any men who would force themselves on her. Although I know that there ARE men who would do that — and it is important to be able to identify those men, and not hang out with them.


24 posted on 02/14/2019 12:23:48 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“Rape at the RAT convention. Kinda redundant. “

Tell me about it. What were the women there expecting, an in-depth discussion of the big issues of the day, or something? If so, they did get the ‘in depth’ part, at least.


25 posted on 02/14/2019 2:25:02 PM PST by BobL (I eat at McDonald's and shop at Walmart - I just don't tell anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

So his life should be ruined just because we should “believe her?”


26 posted on 02/14/2019 2:38:34 PM PST by wastedyears (The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
I believe that "believe her" should extend only to the willingness to investigate. Once the investigation begins, all bets are off and the investigation goes where the evidence takes it.

In the case of Ford, they owed it to her to investigate; that investigation showed inconsistent facts, witness denials, suspicious timing of the accusations, and questionable actions by her supporters.

In the case of Tyson, she made the charge a year ago, Fairfax admits to being with her, the Washington Post denies Fairfax's description of their review, and he has exhibited poor behavior towards her.

None of this proves anything, but this means that Tyson's credibility is at least still intact after the initial investigation, unlike Ford's.

-PJ

27 posted on 02/14/2019 3:14:41 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

I didn’t get to be governor of Virginia, and I think my life is OK.

I think it is reasonable, when discussing the people who are in charge of law enforcement, to consider whether they have credible charges of criminality.

He should be all means be able to get a job; but an electorate has every right to reject him based on the plausibility of his actions.

Frankly, I can make an argument that his RESPONSE to the allegations is itself disqualifying for the office he seeks — and that the response of the other democrats who were told this and kept it secret also should bring into doubt there belief that sexual assault is serious and should be taken seriously.

I wasn’t swayed beyond the “her story is pretty credible” until Fairfax started lying about her, saying reporters had found her story had “red flags” and serious “inconsistencies”. This is what women have to put up with when they make claims, the men immediately claim the women are lying, and that their stories don’t add up.

In Ford’s case, her story did not add up; but Fairfax lied in this case, and at this point we know that everything she said about “what happened” is true, and the only remaining question is whether she consented or not.

I would note that, in all of Fairfax’s denials, he has never once said that she lied when she said he walked up to her and kissed her, nor has he ever said that he asked for permission, much less that she ever said “yes”, to anything.

His argument is that she “clearly” wanted it.


28 posted on 02/15/2019 9:59:56 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson