Fox Anchor Greg Kelly (And Son of NYC Police Commissioner) Accused Of Rape

As if it was only rape when the boyfriend found out?

I'm no fan of Fox but these details bother me until we know the truth:

It sounds to me like she cheated on her boyfriend with him. Boyfriend finds out, and she says "oh he assaulted me".

...The Police Commissioner of NY City AND Rupert Murdoch, as well as her assailant.

The sheer size of the beast she'd be locking horns with, is every reason why she might have wanted it to just go away.

But I don't write novels.
So I, like everyone else, should avoid snap judgements.
Yeah?

he does seem like an ass though.

I haven't seen it.

is on E! Wed. @ 9PM. Hilarious show.

egostical, self entitled, "the law doesn't apply to me", republican.

No need to bother with a trial right?

If she hadn't been raped?

Fingering a son of a police commissioner, a TV celebrity, and a conservative mouthpiece with deep connections? I mean, this is worse than accusing Cain. The odds of getting a fair trial here are terribly small.

I'll add that in some cases the trial's decision are suspect. There are many cases you can question after the trial. Just ask the Scottsboro Boys, among many others. So, do we judge it according to verdict, after the trial?

a black woman claiming rape against rich, white athletes. If this was 2006 given your own logic you'd she must have been telling to risk outing these much powerful and connected people. Of course in this case it turned the DA was withholding evidence that proved them inncocent for political gain.

One has to see that criminals, such as the extortionist in the Lacrosse case, are not the brightest people, and in that case, she did "set it up." I seem to remember she was a stripper, and apparently did have sex with one or more of them, so after the fact, she didn't really think through her options.

In this case, it seems that it's a woman who had months to think about this. And unlike the Lacrosse case, she wouldn't be blackmailing the wealthy, or going for media attention. She's throwing herself into the jaws of the police power structure. That's something that would have made the woman in the Lacrosse case recoil.

And I'll point this out: The Lacrosse case was exceptional. Only about two percent of accused rapes are fake (my estimate). About ten percent more may be ambiguous, where, say, consent was given then withdrawn. Chance says that after the accusation, you could have guessed rape had occurred and been right close to ninety percent of the time.

The motive for faking a rape, generally, is very indirect and let's say, more dependent on scheming and calculation. Whereas the motive for rape itself is quite direct. It's not like a rapist performs his crime for monetary gain or as an attempt at publicity. This makes rapes for more prevalent than faked ones.

And the question I asked was still fair in the Lacrosse case: why would she fake this? In the Lacrosse case, the answer finally came out.

So, she's caught cheating, that's being in the frying pan. Does she then throw herself into the fire by making a false criminal charge against somebody so fucking powerful and connected, that is, connected to the police and the DA? Think of the risk vs. rewards here. Her reward is that she gets to keep her boyfriend. Perhaps she also gets to write a book (but that's not her motive, you say.) The risk is that ends up under criminal charges herself. The definite is that she brings public scrutiny and infamy on herself for months and maybe years, having every aspect of her sex life examined, having prosecutors shame her and her sex life on the stand.

I admit there are people that stupid in the world. However, the odds say you can't count on somebody who won the idiot lottery at birth in any particular circumstance, especially when there's an answer that doesn't require extraordinary odds of a woman having the intelligence of a lobotomized gerbil. Like, perhaps, he did rape her.

This will never go to trial, and she will get away with smearing the alleged perpetrator's reputation.

If he did rape her, would you care to explain the continued text and phone contact in the 4 months between the alleged incident and her boyfriend's discovery of her cheating (which all-too-neatly coincided with her determination that she had been raped)?

Doesn't even begin to pass the smell test.

Why won't she? And why won't she be hit with civil suits for slander and libel, not to mention charges of attempted extortion since her boyfriend unwisely approached the police commissioner about it?

Fact is, after her boyfriend pulled that, she had to file charges, or be brought up on charges. Either he was seething mad or saw dollar signs. Or maybe both.

What did these text messages and phone calls say? Was she just answering him? That's important to know before you come to a conclusion. Rape can mess with somebody's mind pretty bad. Maybe she was brooding? Trying to figure it out? Maybe her life was ruined after that. Have you checked?

And it's one thing to say she sent text messages and such, but seeing him again would be something else. Did she ever get alone with him again? Did she have sex with him again? That would conclusively say it wasn't rape. If it's four months later, and it was consensual and they exchanged text messages that were flirtatious, that implies an ongoing affair, which means a charge of rape wouldn't stick for a moment. I'd expect it to be dropped within a week.

It might have been her boyfriend who got the story and confirmed for her that she had been raped. On the other hand, if it weren't rape but a one time encounter, and if the only contact were by text or phone calls, why would the subject even come up with the boyfriend four months later?

"Not passing the smell test" is a ridiculous way to come to a judgment on this. Despite what guys might think, false accusations aren't made that often. But they certainly do get press when they are.

I'll also add that if the sex were consensual, why not his apartment or hers? Why go to your place of employment when you don't have be there, (not like during your lunch hour,) to have sex in the complete discomfort of a chair or on a desk, knowing that security guards and cams might catch you?

And if I were that guy, nothing about a woman taking me to a law firm after hours would signal to me I was about to score. This seems extraordinarily dumb if the plan were originally to have sex.

They couldn't go to her place or his because they both had SOs. So they went to her job. She was consenting, but sometime during the process, she must have realized it was a bad idea said "No, stop!" And he went on.

So, if this is the scenario, he did rape her. But he's never going to be convicted and it's never even going to go to trial, because if consent is in any way ambiguous, it gives that shadow of a doubt needed to avoid a guilty verdict.

It also explains her inaction over the next several months. She'd be wondering if her signal was clear enough. When her boyfriend got the story, though, he called it rape or sexual assault.

So, she would be telling the truth, but it's not going to lead to a conviction, no way.

Your imagination seems limited by your biases.

Speculation in absence of facts sure is fun and productive, eh?

Or your prejudice is reinforced with laziness. The link says the sex occurred at her office or that's what she told police, and since saying that's guaranteed to get her fired with a bad recommendation, lying about it is unlikely whether the sex was consensual or not.

You really read my post thinking I was making that detail up whole-cloth, all from my dirty mind? That I would "fantasize" about a real, criminal matter? I'm insulted. You are gross.

In this case, all we're ever going to have is speculation. Barring security cameras at work having caught it (a possibility), even if it doesn't go to trial he could still be guilty, or she could be making a false accusation because it's a case of her word against his. Rapes cases most often get thrown out because there's no way to know if the sex was consensual or not.

I doubt it breaks into national news, unless there's another accuser, so I might as well speculate. As long as don't advocate any hard conclusions.

or her dog, or her mom and dad.

Oh, no. They will sting her directly.

Notice how the precedent, started by Bush, has expanded to date.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml

Well, trials for some people anyhow are passe'..for others, arrest and trial never happens.
( Corizine, heads of banks, even Mozillo, etc)


Any takers in this case?

Guilt being enormously difficult to prove in a rape case, often the guilty go free and not because of incompetence or bias (though there is that). Often it's just because the rapist is innocent until proven guilty (at least in the courts, not in the president's courts) and guilt could not be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's a price we pay for that principle. And unfortunately, there's no good way to correct it without throwing the assumption of innocence down the drain.

I don't think that an opinion about the guilt or innocence of a person holds any legal relevance, hence, a trial would still be necessary regardless of whether one believes that guilt or innocence.

Additionally, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is relevant legally only-- that a layman having no influence on the trial may emphatically state guilty or innocent without any consequences relevant to the accused.

that if you put them all together, the republicans win by far. By far. I mean if Weiner is your best Dem example, he can't even come close to the pugs.

an investigation and all I am pointing out is that its premature to bash the guy but of course if people want to do it and risk having egg all over their faces if it turns out to be a false accusation then whatever have at it.

more on pedophillia and gay acts while bashing gay acts more than cheating, but yes, the party of the family values has proven time an time again that the have none.

And I agree that while it is great fun to speculate on cases like this, the facts may show a different side and this case certainly is looking like consensual sex from the start.

And yes, I supported Weiner up til his announcement and was very disappointed in the stupidity of his acts. I mean does someone really need to tell you not to text shit if you are in a postiion of power? lol

I remember there was a site that had a list of Dems and Repubs who have done such things.

entirely (or mostly) not considered harassment.

but totally stupid.

I think it's disgusting that our country is so fucking puritanical that a man is forced out of office for having sexual fantasies. It's not enough that we demean people for their private sex lives, but now we have to even demean them for their sex thought-crimes.

repukes can literally get caught in public rest rooms, or their stinky diapers, or habitually force themselves on unconsenting women or destroy their wives and families, all of them spouting Family Values crap the whole time, and still keep their job, knowing that the smear and destroy media will stay cooperatively quiet about it........

Democrats who flirt or have a dumb but consensual arrangement get harangued and held up as red meat in front of the slavering repuke mobs, permanently.

of the corporate media and until some rules are returned or the media is forced to adopt some sort of ethics, that will not change.

some women would class what he did as cheating...since he was a married man showing off his penis to other single women via the internet. It's hardly puritanical. I personally would have an issue if my husband did that. But whatever...the point being is that Weiner is no innocent and there are many Dems who have done far more extreme things.

I wouldn't even care if he did cheat on his wife. He wasn't elected to be a husband, but to be a congressman.

but also he's innocent until proven guilty..just that everytime some right winger gets accuded of an illegal or improper sex act, it doesn't surprise me..seems like they have an entitlement mentality along a sense of "the rules don't apply to me"

So we cant 'bash' republican assholes on DU anymore ?

I dont care WTF a Republican may or may not be accused of ... In DU?, we bash them at will, without caring one whit whether a couple of DUers object ..... not one fucking whit ...

Do you object ? ... So what ....

What used to be the planks of the Repuglians -- like permawar, union bashing, limiting "entitlements" and welfare for Wall Street -- are now becoming "official" positions of the Democratic Party. Infreakingcredible.

Democrats and Independents have raped too.

The news story generates a bunch of questions.

the incident was only reported when her boyfriend found out, got pissed off about, it and went to the police commissioner about it in private.

I'm betting that when it is discovered that this is a false report, she will not be prosecuted.

a traumatizing situation. We'll have to see what the content of the texts are. They might be angry. Even if they're not, it still doesn't mean the rape didn't occur.

I hate these types of cases - it could be either way. We just don't have enough information. In the meantime, neither party should be thought to be guilty of anything.

I say this based on the snippet provided at the OP source:

The woman told the police that she met the younger Mr. Kelly on the street and that the two went to South Street Seaport for drinks on Oct. 8. They then proceeded to her office at a Lower Manhattan law firm. The woman told the police that the rape occurred at the office. The two continued to have contact by phone and text message after the encounter.
According to the woman’s account, when her boyfriend later learned about the night, he became angry. He then approached the police commissioner at a public event and told him that the younger Mr. Kelly had sexually assaulted his girlfriend.

This sounds like either a shakedown, or an effort to prove to the boyfriend that the encounter was not consensual. How did the boyfriend even learn about it? That's not made clear--but maybe he was checking her text messages...?

Something stinks about this. It's not passing the smell test.

The alleged incident happened in October. Nearly 4 months later her boyfriend reports it. Hard to imagine that this will go anywhere.

Unless if I'm mistaken, she continued contact with him after the incident. She only reported it when her boyfriend found out.

Of course, that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. Maybe she was ashamed and didn't want to report it, but once her boyfriend found out, she felt she had to because people knew now.

depends on the context of those messages. Were they "you son of a ****bitch, or are they "I hope to see you soon"?

But yes, many cheating women have tried to use the ol "I was raped" claim when caught. We will just have to see if this woman fits that catagory or perhaps she was too intimidated by his position to go to the police originally.

The boyfriend went directly to Commissioner Kelly. Only then did she decide to press charges. It stinks to high heaven. One can only hope that she is disbarred by the state of New York if it comes out that she's filed a false accusation to cover up her cheating. There is very little hope she would ever be prosecuted for the malicious act.

She went to the police station with her sister. From the story:

The New York Times reports that the woman walked into a police station Tuesday night with her sister and reported the alleged incident.

I don't think he encouraged her to report the rape. I'm not sure if what he did was technically reporting rape, but none-the-less she also went and reported it.

Most would report it immediately to get the criminal off the streets.

We'll see how this pans out, but if true, then damn.

Dreyfuss' character spends more than 30 seconds explaining to her why the apartment he sublet from her ex-boyfriend should be his new home. She's an actress whose boyfriend dumps her, moves to Italy, and sublets the apartment to Dreyfuss, unbeknownst to Mason, and she finds out one night when Dreyfuss shows up at the door; she agrees to let him in to make his case, but she is very frosty about it, and tells him, "okay, go ahead and say what you have to say, but you have 30 seconds and not a second more, and if you carry on for longer, I will cry 'Rape!'"

It's a funny, sweet movie, but my point is, even where charges of "rape!" are investigated, we need to remember that there are two sides to every story.

From what I've read about this scenario, I'm not sure whether she's being completely truthful.

They continued to have contact? Until the boyfriend found out?

Remember the Strauss-Kahn case? Wasn't Kelly alleged to be a friend of Sarkozy somehow?

And wasn't the woman in that case shown to be lying about the incident?

And now, Kelly's son has to face a similar accusation.

Whether the accusation is false or true, the similarities are ironic.

Wonder what kind of texts she has. Hopefully she kept them. This should be interesting.