Fem Faux Failure And The Rape Tape

The judge’s order was understandable.  If the prosecution had the video, the defense was entitled to it as well.  It was, without question, Giglio material, evidence that could be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness.  And it did, without question, “re-victimize” Lara McLeod, assuming she was victimized in the first place.

A Virginia court ruled this week that a four-year-old videotape depicting what a woman says is her rape will be handed over to the defense team in an upcoming capital murder trial, even though the woman says the video was recorded without her consent.

Lara McLeod, now 24, is not a witness and will not testify in the trial, which is slated for January 2016. The video was evidence in a case that was expunged two years ago. Under Virginia law, it’s illegal to record someone having sex without their consent.

But a judge ruled on Wednesday that the defense team had the right to view the video nonetheless.

Joaquin Rams is being prosecuted for the murder of McLeod’s 15-month-old nephew. Rams had earlier been accused by McLeod of raping her, but produced the tape to show he hadn’t, resulting in McLeod’s arrest for falsely reporting. What the tape shows, exactly, isn’t known, but certainly is subject to controversy. Does it prove a rape or disprove a rape? Who knows?

What it does show, however, is that McLeod’s sister, and the mother of the victim, Hera, has a motive to testify falsely against Rams in the murder case to obtain retribution for the alleged rape of her sister.

But McLeod, after learning of the defense’s effort to obtain the tape, lawyered up with Brooklyn anti-revenge porn advocate, Carrie Goldberg.

“Please let it not be lost on the court that its order violates Lara McLeod’s most intimate privacy – her sexual privacy,” Goldberg wrote, noting that even if the ownership of the video was contested, nonconsensual sex videos are illegal. “Without notice to Lara McLeod, the court’s order results in the video being constructively returned to the control of the criminal who violated that privacy.”

Ah, yes. The emotional plea for “sexual privacy,” a theme propounded with adoration amongst the small group of anti-revenge porn advocates who huddle together to applaud one another’s brilliance.  But putting their beloved feelz to the test reveals the problem.  There is no legally recognized claim of “sexual privacy,” no matter how many twits or Slate articles contend otherwise.

The emptiness of Goldberg’s myopic contention is revealed by her dismissal of the Giglio issue:

The defense’s claim that the video is necessary to establish Hera’s bias is absurd, Goldberg argued.

“Any negative feelings that the murder victim’s mother might have toward [Rams] are likely to be far more propelled by the fact that [Rams] killed her child than any prior sex acts,” the emergency motion read.

Yeah, well, no.  It’s not “absurd.”  It’s not even arguably “absurd.”  And most importantly, it’s not up to Goldberg to decide for the defense, or the jury, what motives Hera might have to falsely accuse the father of her child for murder.

This is the sort of argument that reflects inexperience with the law and the blindness that comes of repeating fallacious arguments within a small circle of friends who can’t bear scrutiny or criticism.  You come to believe your own bullshit because everybody wearing the cap of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative team agrees with you, tells you you’re the ginchiest, and rubs your tummy for being such a great defender of the gender.

Except the argument is nonsense, just as we’ve been trying to tell you.

Rams has denied that he killed Prince, and he also denies any wrongdoing in the deaths of his ex-girlfriend and mother, which prosecutors sought to connect with Prince’s death. Authorities have said Rams was a suspect in those deaths, but the court ruled that they are inadmissible, as it would be too prejudicial for Rams to have to defend against three murders in a single trial.

This is why they build courtrooms. This is why they have trials. The accused is allowed to exercise his right to require the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if Carrie Goldberg’s argument presumed he’s guilty, both of murder as well as a rape for which he was never convicted.  Sorry, but the fem ideology of believing the woman is not a rule of law. I know, that makes you very angry, but still.

That Lara’s “sexual privacy was exploited once by [Rams] through the unlawful creation of the video does not entitle him – or anybody – to continue exploiting Lara, which is what happens every single time the video is viewed,” the emergency motion read. “The court, by ordering the video’s release is participating, hopefully inadvertently, in the continued sexual exploitation and voyeurism of Lara McLeod by ordering its release.”

And the forces of fem faux justice agree wholeheartedly with Goldberg. Of course they would.  But Rams’ murder trial isn’t about your cries of “sexual exploitation and voyeurism.”  Nor does your complaint, that Lara will be re-exploited “every single time the video is viewed,” change the equation.

It’s time to come to grips with a little bit of hard, cold reality. The rhetoric used by the anti-revenge porn crowd about sexual privacy and the exploitation of women by non-consensual sexual video, even when tied to the baseless assumption that women’s allegations must invariably be credited as true, is all a big bag of legal bullshit.

You’ve been lying to yourselves and others all along by promoting your desired theories as if they were law. They’re not. And Goldberg just got smacked in the head with the heavy hand of reality.  But here’s the better, and sadder, question raised by this massive failure of competent lawyering: What if there were valid legal arguments to be made, whether to preclude disclosure of the video or at least limit the harm, but you failed to make sound arguments because you were so caught up in your failed ideological bullshit?

 

21 thoughts on “Fem Faux Failure And The Rape Tape

  1. Tim Knowles

    I can’t believe she wrote that the court is “hopefully inadvertently” participating in continued exploitation. Maybe I am missing some context, but it seems like a bad idea, when writing to the court, to suggest that the court might deliberately be participating in the exploitation. Using the word “hopefully” in that sentence will only serve to piss people off in a way that hurts the client.

    1. SHG Post author

      It’s the myopia of an advocate who fails to grasp that their political priorities and lack of knowledge of law aren’t shared by all. Trial lawyers know how persuading a judge works, and realize the foolishness of arguing that the judge is on the side of evil exploitation by adhering to the law. Lawyers who lack experience, or are blinded by their “passion,” fail to realize how poorly their self-centered arguments come off.

      1. Jason Peterson

        Maybe is wasn’t meant to be an argument at all. I read it as a blatant threat. “You know what we do to supporters of the patriarchy.”

  2. Raccoon Strait

    I really appreciate your use of language. I do however have some questions regarding ‘ginchiest’. If one were to create a scale, would it be ginchosity, ginchablilty, or ginchiness? Also, if ginchiest is the top end of the scale, what would be the bottom? Could you please give us some feelz on this?

  3. mb

    When they finally win, and women are allowed to be judges in their own cases, they’ll criticize their own language of re-victimization as though it were a standard imposed against them, in their argument to dispense with the courts entirely. For further reading, see “no means no” and “yes means yes”.

    1. Scarlet Pimpernel

      “Turkey means Turkey” and “Dog means Dog”. I know you had a point but it is completely lost on me.

      1. mb

        My point is that like all “feminism” I’m aware of today, this “re-victimization” concept is being used to substitute a woman’s subjective feelings for a determination by a court, based on relevant legal standards. I predict that if it is ever the case that courts regularly defer to any woman who claims that someone else’s due process rights will “re-victimize” her, the same people advocating for that today will argue that it is unfair for victims to have to prove that they will be “re-victimized” in order to overrule the Constitution. They are already doing this with sexual offenses. In arguing for broader definitions, they used the rallying cry of “no means no”. Today they argue that lack of consent, defined based on what a reasonable person would believe, as an element of such offenses, is an impossibly high burden on victims. They condemn their own activist language as though it were a legal standard. Now Wendy Murphy is already arguing that their new “affirmative consent” standard is an impossibly high burden on victims, and that the accused should not have the right to say anything in their defense at all.

        1. SHG Post author

          Today they argue that lack of consent, defined based on what a reasonable person would believe, as an element of such offenses, is an impossibly high burden on victims.

          I don’t think that’s what they’re arguing at all. They’re arguing that lack of consent, based upon whatever feelings, whether overt or covert, before, during or after, are proclaimed by the “survivor” are the test.

          1. mb

            That characterization is, I think, consistent with what I said. When you or I say that someone consented to something, we will have considered the facts known or knowable to the other person, and weighed the reasonableness of the belief that there was consent. They say that is wrong and that we should be weighing “feelings, whether overt or covert, before, during or after”

          2. mb

            No, wait. You’re right and I’m wrong, and it underscores my original point. They bypass arguing against reasonableness by calling it “no means no” or “negative consent”. They claim that current law allows raping people who are too intoxicated or paralyzed with fear to utter the word no. The distinction is unimportant when responding to them, but it was my whole point here.

            1. Scarlet Pimpernel

              So your whole point was to point out the obvious? I think everyone knows there are certain people who will argue undefendable positions when it comes to sex i.e. “Lack of No doesn’t mean Yes” but the blog post brought up much deeper issues and attempting to redirect it to some college level “No means No” conversation is either disingenousn or….

            2. mb

              “Disingenuous”? I’m some conniving bastard plotting for there to be comments on the internet that you don’t like? Fair enough. But I don’t think I redirected the conversation. I was making a prediction, which I justified with an example. It’s not my fault you asked about the example.

              If you’re done criticizing me for answering your question, and if you don’t agree with me that re-victimization in this context is meaningless activist language which the same activists will turn against as soon they’ve got all the power they think they can get out of it, I’ll be glad to discuss it further.

  4. EH

    “What if there were valid legal arguments to be made, whether to preclude disclosure of the video or at least limit the harm, but you failed to make sound arguments because you were so caught up in your failed ideological bullshit?”

    Are there, as far as you know? This is not my area, and I’m curious.

    1. SHG Post author

      Did you think I deliberately left that out there hanging so you could ask me in a comment because you’re curious?

      1. delurking

        Ooh, Ooh, is it OK if I play lawyer? I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

        How’s this:
        It is uncontested that McLeod accused Rams of raping her.
        It is uncontested that McLeod’s sister believes her; that is what family members do and she swears to it.
        Rams was not convicted of rape; McLeod was arrested for falsely reporting rape.
        From those statements alone, the defense can make its arguments about the motives of the witness.
        Therefore, the tape has absolutely no added value to the defense in impugning the credibility of the witness.

        How did I do?

  5. Osama bin Pimpin

    I’m trying to know that I know the known facts of this case because they appear CRAZY.

    Lara McLeod accused Joaquin Rams of rape, which he rebutted with a video he secretly recorded of them fucking, which persuaded cops to arrest McLeod for false accusation.

    Rams had a kid named Prince with Lara McLeod’s sister Hera, who then died, who Rams now stands accused of killing.

    Rams’ ex-girlfriend (not Hera, I presume) and mother also died (both I presume under mysterious circumstances), who Rams is also suspected of killing.

    Anything I’m missing? Were these people from House of Borgia? The names involved themselves are crazy enough.

    1. SHG Post author

      I gave up trying to make sense of the allegations flying around the underlying case. Too bizarre, not enough info, too many bodies.

  6. Osama bin Pimpin

    More craziness just on Prince’s cause of death. Medical examiner said drowning, his boss overruled and said undetermined. Prosecution consulted three more experts, one who is a forensic pathologist said not drowning, but two who are not forensic pathologists said drowning (if not forensic pathologists, what were they exorcists?)

  7. losingtrader

    “Rams has denied that he killed Prince, and he also denies any wrongdoing in the deaths of his ex-girlfriend and mother”

    Remind me to vote against him joining the co-op.

Comments are closed.