Writes Jessica Bennett in "Why Didn’t She Scream? And Other Questions Not to Ask a Rape Accuser" (NYT).
The reason to scream is for help. At Bergdorf's, there were, presumably, people within earshot who would have burst in and interrupted whatever was going on. Help was available. From the failure to summon help, you could infer that Carroll believed it was a situation best handled privately. She chose to do her own fighting, she testified, but she also says she was in a panic, perhaps unable to come up with the strategy of summoning help.
The failure to scream is part of the testimony, and both sides will use this evidence to argue for inferences in their favor. I'd say, even if you think victims instinctively scream, there are still some situations in which a crime is being committed and you rationally decide not to scream. If you've gone into a dressing room with a man, you've begun with a friendly, positive view of him. You might hesitate to involve the store personnel in rescuing you. You fight for yourself, and perhaps you even blame yourself for getting into that situation and want to protect the man from consequences. But it's still rape. As Carroll recounts the incident, she did not consent, and he knew it.
Of course, Trump's position is that it's all a fabrication, and the absence of a scream is also the basis for arguing that no incident of any kind occurred. That was Trump's testimony in his deposition. Trump's lawyer could also argue that if there were any encounter, Trump couldn't remember it, because it was an unmemorable, consensual dalliance.
ADDED: Writing this post, I noticed I have a tag for "scream" and for "yelling." Both tags have lots of posts, so I'm not going to pick one or the other and edit all the posts with whichever tag I decide should be absorbed into the other. Something made me say "scream" some of the time and "yelling" at others. Is screaming what women do and yelling what men do? Another way to put that is: screaming connotes fear and yelling connotes anger, and screaming suggests helplessness and yelling seems more about taking action.
AND: Screaming as a response to Trump:
पोस्ट्स
१९६ टिप्पण्या:
You need to include in all your analysis that Carroll CANNOT remember what day, month, or year the assault happened.
'Cause she was so SHAKEN by it. Which is why she didn't yell for help. Or why she didn't file a police report. Or why she didn't sue before.
Because she was so SHAKEN and AFRAID.
Or because she's lying her ass off.
Or maybe she fancied getting fucked by a billionaire in a dressing room at Bergdorf. And any cry would have been one of pleasure.
The scream standard goes at least as far back as Israelite law in the Hebrew Bible. If a man has sex with a betrothed girl in the city where people could have heard her cry out, both are guilty of adultery. But if it happens in the country away from people who could hear, the girl gets the benefit of the doubt and only the man is guilty (Deuteronomy 22:23-27).
Not expressing an opinion here, though I have one, only geekily pointing out a historical example.
In the Old Testament, in the case of a man who assaults a woman sexually in the city, if the woman did not scream, both would suffer the death penalty. It is assumed she should scream and, not doing so, implied her consent to a sin.
If the same assault occurs in the country, it is assumed the woman did scream, no one heard her, and the man thus suffers the penalty alone. She is innocent.
I dated a woman who told me that she and her husband or boyfriend had consensual sex in a Lincoln department store dressing room. She was crazy and an exhibitionist, so I believed her.
IMO, E. Jean Carroll is couching or conforming her testimony re: no scream in order to win her case.
Yes, it could have been rape even with no scream. But what does your common sense tell you?
This whole thing is political. Trump will probably lose. NYC people hate Trump. They don't care about the facts or the law.
All these lawsuits against Trump are a big time warning to all conservatives: Don't enter the public arena or you will be defamed, slimed and sued because of your politics.
"If you've gone into a dressing room with a man, you've begun with a friendly, positive view of him."
Is this what Carroll says? If a woman goes into a dressing room, a private space, with a man, that implies consent. Maybe not legally, but certainly in any definition a woman understands about protecting herself.
If you're famous women let you grab their pussy and then years later they sue you.
That's reason to require police reports at the time. It cuts out the calculation time.
Women really like money.
It amazes me that any sentient person can believe the Carroll rape happened, much like the belief in the Kavanaugh gang rapes. The left truly have no concept of reality. I guess it comes from being cruelly neutral.
I worked with trauma victims my whole career. Responses are very individual, and applying generalisations like this doesn't work. People should think it through: if you are insisting that a woman must scream, does this mean it's okay to assault timid women? Ask the Finnish women what they think about disruptive displays in public. If you come from a culture where females scream a lot - you can see some of the variety if you are at international arrivals at the airport - are they more to blame if they don't?
What about girls who were molested and forced to be quiet as little ones? Can we rape them forever, then? Developmentally disabled women, elderly women? These are not hypotheticals. These are the reality on the ground.
It's not completely useless information. It is good as a single indicator of distress. It may even be a fair question to bring up with a victim or alleged victim. But it's not a decider.
she didn't scream.. For Exactly the same reason as Blase Ford.
They didn't Scream; because it didn't happen
so, just to review..
It was SO HORRIBLE; that she Couldn't Even SCREAM!
It was SO HORRIBLE; that she Couldn't Ever have sex again
It was SO HORRIBLE; that she Couldn't Even remember what day? or Month? or Year? that it happened
It was SO HORRIBLE; that she (three years ago) was BRAGGING about being on tender; and "hooking up"
It was SO HORRIBLE; that she had to invent, the WHOLE THING
She has an expert witness on her list. I don't believe he has any witnesses, period.
A similar case in Canada, which I believe has had international implications, involved a CBC radio personality, Jian Ghomeshi. It certainly became clear that he had a big ego, that he would vary his charming and nice treatment of women with at least verbal brutality, sometimes something like slaps, and then taunting: I know what you like. Several women were prepared to testify in court that he forced non-consensual sex on them; it may not have needed to involve penetration.
The great fear of feminists or advocates for more justice for women was that if some of the women exchanged sexual banter or biplay, before or after the alleged assault, this could be taken as consent--especially if it was after. For some reason Jian had kept mountains of e-mails and maybe texts, and indeed for all the alleged victims, there was plenty of "sex" after the alleged assault. As evidence, however, all of this didn't even come into play because the brilliant defence lawyer was able to argue that every single accuser had hidden most or all of these communications, and thus had failed to live up to the sworn obligation of every witness: the whole truth. Acquittal on five charges. Of course many people drew the lesson: don't bother with the courts; just Twitter storm a relevant constituency, intimidate the decision-makers, and so on.
My point would be: baffled by the Carroll case, I would say some women do keep going back to abusive boyfriends, maybe hoping true love or this particular woman's inner beauty can reform them. This may be especially true if the man is a celebrity who can make or break careers. If a woman chooses not to report rape when things are on an upswing, as it were, do the courts have to act if she changes her mind on a downswing? Carroll is not going for the criminal standard of proof, but the civil one.
Isn't this a defamation suit? Isn't the case based on her book stating he committed this crime, and now he denies it and accuses her of lying? Which she is now claiming is defamation?
Personally, I think he has a better case for defamation than she does.
it was a law and order episode in 2012,
They were shopping at Bergdorf Goodman, not the Dress Barn.
What separates a very high end store like BG from your run of the mill clothing store is the amount of attention and service each customer receives. Are you telling me that during this whole sordid episode there wasn't a BG employee outside the dressing room door asking how she was doing, how's the fit, etc? Or, who knows, may be DJT is 30 seconds and done, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am kind of a guy and it was all over before anyone knew what happened?
I think one of the major reasons Carroll cannot remember a date is because if she did, the defense could call the employees of BG who were there at the time and they could call BS on the whole deal. Do you really think that the hallowed BG would allow its premises to be so insecure that a woman could be raped in its dressing rooms?
It is all political. She is an ultra liberal with a cause. People lie for their cause all the time. In a dressing room withn earshot of shoppers, cmon? Trump says idiot things, but does not do idiot things. He has been with too many beautiful women to place himself in a situation like that.
It is all political. She is an ultra liberal with a cause. People lie for their cause all the time. In a dressing room withn earshot of shoppers, cmon? Trump says idiot things, but does not do idiot things. He has been with too many beautiful women to place himself in a situation like that.
Forget it Ann, its Chinatown.
In addition to believing that Emmett Till hit on a white lady, so he had it coming, the rank and file commenters think that when you lead a huge cult, you can stick your fingers (or your little mushroom willie) right in their pussy!
I do understand the motivation here. For many of these activists, they believe - rightly - that too many rapes go unpunished. The problem is their solution to this problem is basically to eliminate any ability for the accused to defend himself/herself. You end up with desperate rationalizations that only X% of rape accusations are false - a number that is incredibly dubious while also being incredibly horrifying - and they are more than happy to send that many innocent persons to prison to make sure that more guilty get convicted. Never mind that this sort of thing would increase the number of false accusations massively, and probably increase the number of rape victims that also ended up murdered. This is a logic that they would find appalling in just about any other situation, or at least I would hope so.
My opinion here is Carroll's accusation is so outlandish that she needs to provide credibility. This isn't a standard rape case. It is not normal to bring the charge 20 years later without actually providing a year, much less a day, that a very important public figure raped you in an open-to-the-public store, which just happens to coincide with an election. Outlandish is sometimes true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Maybe Trump should confess and apologize. That advice was offered to Brett Kavanaugh by the proprietor of this blog.
Look at it from the standpoint of the potential rapist. A man intending a sexual assault would presumably prefer to commit the act in a place where a screaming victim will not attract the attention of many people close enough to intervene. Wouldn't someone like Trump be even more sensitive to the possibility that the rape victim would actually scream? A willing sex partner is not expected to scream except for that gal at the LA symphony performance of Tchaikovsky the other day.
Either he believed it to be consensual...or it didn't happen at all.
- Krumhorn
I don't believe Christine Blasey Ford Jr. THERE Is NO WAY that nobody there saw Trump and her together, coming in or out of a dressing room. She is a liar, but then, all Progressives are.
I also don't believe Les Moonves raped her. She isn't suing him because he didn't call her a liar?? What a joke. Women like her are the problem.
"'If you've gone into a dressing room with a man, you've begun with a friendly, positive view of him.'"
"Is this what Carroll says? If a woman goes into a dressing room, a private space, with a man, that implies consent. Maybe not legally, but certainly in any definition a woman understands about protecting herself."
You're misreading me and distorting something absolutely crucial. Consent to enter a room doesn't equal consent to anything that could happen in the room! It's just one part of the evidence. It *could* support an inference that there actually was consent, but if 2 people go into a dressing room together, they both still retain the right to say no to any touching. They might get their hopes up (or their worries), but they're still obligated to respect each other's rights.
In Carroll's story, she meets Trump at the entrance to Bergdorf's and banters with him, and she willingly goes along with his idea of helping him shop for lingerie and even to go into the dressing room with him. But she didn't want an actual sexual encounter in the dressing room and she refused him. I'm talking about this to explain a reason not to scream. You're using the store in a way that goes beyond normal shopping. You're fooling around. You go into a dressing room with a man, which they let you do, for shopping purposes, but you don't want your behavior seen and judged by the authorities. You wanted it to be a fun encounter. Then suddenly he's seeing the dressing room as a place for full-on sexual intercourse. Yes, you can scream rape and "Officer! Arrest this man!" But I can see wanting to handle it privately, and — importantly — that doesn't make it not rape. If Trump proceeded to penetration without her consent, he raped her. And it doesn't matter that she started out positive or that she chose not to involve the authorities.
All I'm doing here is explaining a reason for not screaming that isn't the freezing in panic (the reason stated in the column). It could be entirely rational not to scream, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't rape.
Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony.
While Ms Carroll can create plausible explanations for each issue in regards to the accusation, What is not there is any actual evidence can can corroborate her story. This is worse than a he said/she said circumstance since she cannot even demonstrate that Trump and she were together at the time (whatever time that was.) If this becomes the standard for accusations, then any woman might as well file suit against any wealthy man and claim that she was sexually assaulted.
I am not saying that she was not. It might actually be true. But there is not way it can be demonstrated to any level of sufficiency to even suggest Trump might have done it.
Where is the rape kit?
Why didn't she call authorities?
Why didn't she alert store security?
Why didn't she do anything for decades?
Stores have security cameras. Where is the footage?
Why won't Carroll tell us the date?
You'd think she would have recalled the date.
Blasey Ford didn't have the date either.
When you're a good leftist doing the lord's wok - any lie or excuse will do.
Now factor in the scenario she says included going into the dressing room to undress in front of Trump, which implies a lot more about her frame of mind and what she is admitting she had already consented to. Who models sleepwear and strips to their underwear in a secluded place and still fails to understand the implications? A former beauty contestant who is aware of Trump's involvement with the same kind of pageants?
If in fact the jury in NY is so corrupt and partisan to accept this hazy -- what decade did it happen in again? -- flimsy self-serving shitfarce of a case and convict then our system is dead. This is another small piece of the largest election interference effort in history, and like the other parts, completely built on bullshit and innuendo and intended to smear the hell out of Trump, if jail proves a bridge too far.
I was taught in the early 1980’s during my high school yoga/self defense class that if you were attacked you should yell, “FIRE”. But Coach B also taught us that if you stun your attacker you don’t just run away, you break their knee first so they can’t chase you. Coach B taught us how (in theory) to do this. This always seemed unrealistic to me. I doubt I’d have the strength or wherewithal to do it. I took the class three times because PE was mandatory and I liked the first few months of yoga each semester.
I don’t know if that advice has been changed over that last four decades but it has always stuck with me.
"Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar."
Some people are highly protective of their reputation and fight back when falsely accused.
You know who else doesn't scream? Willing participants.
There's also no scream if the event did not occur. Lack of screaming means several things and only one of them is "rape but the victim froze up".
So EJC may have been a willing participant or she's making the whole thing up - probably for political reasons.
Yes, you can scream rape and "Officer! Arrest this man!" But I can see wanting to handle it privately, and — importantly — that doesn't make it not rape. If Trump proceeded to penetration without her consent, he raped her. And it doesn't matter that she started out positive or that she chose not to involve the authorities.
I completely agree. I think a lot of acquaintance rape continues because the victim is too embarrassed to yell out.
The problem is, there is a difference between what is rape, and what is something you can convict someone on. "Without her consent" is hard also in a court, because although CA tried to make Positive Consent a law for college students, it is a difficult thing to enforce in real life. "Without her consent" is different than "Against her will" and even more different than "Despite her saying 'no' or 'stop'"
Carroll has provided precisely no rebuttable evidence.
Which puts Trump in the position of having to prove a negative.
I don't know who to believe. So it seems to me there's "reasonable doubt".
"In Carroll's story, she meets Trump at the entrance to Bergdorf's and banters with him, and she willingly goes along with his idea of helping him shop for lingerie and even to go into the dressing room with him."
This story is ridiculous. Was Trump going to try on the lingerie? Why did the two of them go into the dressing room if Trump was there to buy lingerie?
"Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony."
Let's say you were falsely accused by a former UW law student who failed out of school in one of your classes, and he years later publicly accuses you of trying to extort sexual favors in return for passing the class. Do you stay silent, Althouse? Or do you call him out as a liar? Further suppose you were still teaching and the accusation is taken seriously by the university and you are asked to answer the charges. Do you refuse to defend yourself?
"From the failure to summon help, you could infer that Carroll believed it was a situation best handled privately."
Yeah, right. And from the failure to remember what year it happened in, you could infer that she's batshit crazy and lies like a rug, if she is even sufficiently well-connected to reality to be said to be "lying".
Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony
As indicated by my immediate previous comment, this memoir was part of the years long effort to "get Trump," which is how all of the MeToo blowback that has engulfed Hollywood instead of Trump began, and this is but the latest act in which Carrol is involved. One could just as easily have written, Carroll, who could have kept silent decided to publish defamatory accusations against Trump with no proof. He responded in public to those public accusations made with no proof, pointing out she has no proof. She still has the burden of proof along with the prosecutor and Trump deserves the same presumption of innocence any accused enjoys.
No one should be below the law, nor above it.
What Donald Trump did was rape E. Jean Carroll - so why discuss anything else since Trump will not attend the trial nor testify under oath.
Without a valid defense, so-called attorney Joe Tacopina is just using the "Where were you when the shit hit the fan" tactic. TFG called Carroll a liar and cannot possibly prove that to be true. A "she said, he said" defense is the only way out, but Trump cannot be permitted by the defense to trustfully say the words that they need to have said.
Kristallnacht takes many forms.
I'm not fan of Trump - but I find the story and the timing preposterous. I don't buy it.
I think it's legitimate to ask that question. I don't think the answer is dispositive but, along with other evidence it may shed light on the incident.
"and she willingly goes along with his idea of helping him shop for lingerie and even to go into the dressing room with him. But she didn't want an actual sexual encounter in the dressing room "
A woman putting on and taking off lingerie in front of a man isn't an "actual sexual encounter"? I call bullshit. That's right op there with "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." It's just splitting pubic hairs.
The consent to go into a room here is consent to go into a lingerie dressing room in a department store. First, the store clerk has to consent for a man, any man, to go there. Second, the woman has to consent to be with a man in such a very strange place.
No screams, OK. But what about the sounds made by "fighting"? How strong the dressing room walls must have been in B-G, that no sounds of disturbance were heard by a store clerk or shoppers? And of course, no sounds of talk, his enticements or her protests? A fight without protests?
Sorry, but I can't see anyone "handling this privately" while also "fighting" and attracting no attention. There are too many contradictions to clear probability.
As with the Ford-Kavanaugh kerfuffle, the failure to remember key details fatally undermines the ability of the accused to mount a defense and should count heavily against the accuser.
We're asked to accept that failure to scream is not an indication that it didn't happen, but how about the failure to remember the year? How does one prove they were not in town that day if there is no day? If people are having sex in the change room, employees will know about it. But which employees? If you can't name even the year, then the accused has no hope of enlisting employees who can testify it didn't happen as they would know if it did.
What are the minimum expectations of an accusers story such that we can doubt it happened by the sheer weight of what they "can't remember"?
The reason for not screaming is this never happened. Giving any credence to this is as bad as believing Christine Ford. Oh, wait, this is Althouse!
the screaming myth endures.
Myth? Common sense tells me that the only reason a woman does not scream is because she is being threatened with a weapon — “Scream and you’ll die.” And I’m aware of cases where people heard a scream, rushed to its source, and found a woman bleeding badly. In all cases that I know of prompt medical assistance provided by or summoned by the rescuers saved the woman’s life, but the sample size is too small to extrapolate. And, of course, E. Jean Carroll was not menaced by a weapon. And. She. Did. Not. Scream.
Althouse should know better than to push an appeal to authority at her commentators. I don’t know who James Hopper is, but if a writer for the New York Times then there’s a good chance it’s junk science.
I’m not gullible; I believe in common sense. No scream, no physical threat, therefore no rape. Period
She brought this lawsuit as billionaires are funding it.
But I can see wanting to handle it privately,
I can’t.
and — importantly — that doesn't make it not rape.
Wrong.
"Carroll CANNOT remember what day, month, or year the assault happened"
And yet, it's the one event that, she also appears to claim, changed her entire life.
I recall an article by somebody I can't recall saying the layout of the rooms precluded the rape. Be interested if the issue comes up, either way, in the case.
@Althouse, your convoluted reasoning might be more palatable to me if (1) you didn’t repeatedly express a visceral hatred of all things Republican, in general, and anything Trump in particular; and (2) you had been more sympathetic towards Tara Reade.
Serious question here - if Trump is correct and he did not do this, how does he prove that he is right? If something happened that was consensual, how does he prove that?
He should have sued her for defamation so that she bore the burden of proving the truth of her statements, not sure why that did not take place? In any event, it seems wildly unfair that the case will likely be determined by which party bears the burden of proving something that (particularly at this point) neither can likely do.
I was a criminal prosecutor for many years. There are many reasons why a rape victim might not scream. In one case it was a stranger raping her in her apartment, and her 2 little children were sleeping in another room, and she was afraid what might happen to them if she screamed. Other women fear that their attacker will get even more violent if they scream. Others freeze or go into shock. Some just can't believe what is happening because their attacker is someone they know and trust. Also, most sex abuse victims do not report it right away. It's called "delayed reporting." Again, there are many reasons for this which you can discover by googling it or talking to any former prosecutor. Some delayed reporting may be for hours, days, weeks, months, even years. But few are the cases where the victim reports the sexual assault right after it happens.
What is reasonable doubt in this case? No memory of when, no outcry, willingly going into a dressing room to try on lingerie with someone (seriously?), no police report, waiting decades to bring it up…. did she tell anyone at the time? Also just read that the event closely aligns with a Law & Order episode a few years ago, before her recollecting what happened in the dressing room. She was aware of that episode. There’s a lot to consider I agree, but provable facts of the encounter matter, don’t they? We shouldn’t just imagine >all< the pieces and the reasons why perhaps and then make what happened in our imagined scenario the truth.
Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar.
That is really couching things - she did not make general allegations of "complex relationships" with miscalaneous "hideous men," she specifically accused Trump in two separate publications in 2019 of raping her! You would mock this phrasing were it done by someone else in some other case.
I'll interpret from the sidelines solely on actions.
E. Jean Carroll was a successful and powerful publisher for over 20 years and chose at the end of a deeply unpopular presidency to claim Trump raped her. The rape is claimed to have occurred between late '95 and early '96 - let's say a 6 month window of time. The day, month, or exact year is unclear - making defense very problematic. A person is claimed to have done something ~25+ years beforehand on an unspecified day. Now prove/disprove it.
Further compounding this is:
- No contemporaneous reporting or police involvement
- No contemporaneous evidence of store/civilian involvement
- Self-testimony that she elected to walk into a closed door lingerie dressing room with a man, which to be clear while not consent is definitely a signal in the "I'm interested in being physical" realm.
- No real past or future evidence that she had a real friendship with Trump prior to going into a dressing room with him.
- No verbal altercation
Let's assume the entire ordeal is accurate and she has legitimate reasons for not knowing or recalling the exact date. Let's postulate that's true. We are left with a 25+ year old claim against someone that comes down to "Exactly when did she retract consent? When they kissed? When he digitally penetrated her? When she pulled away and left the room?"
Extremely sordid. If you take everything she has said at face value, I've seen no claim trump overpowered her or sought to prevent her from leaving. No claim of physical injury from a very large man in a very small space.
If I took her testimony as exactly accurate, accepted no defense, I'd still struggle with her testimony being consistent with rape.
She was not into screaming or reporting.
You've got to hand it to these progressive women who show up years down the road, with no evidence, to further the "cause." Of course they are encouraged by knowing the mediaswine and, if necessary, politically corrupt judges will have their backs.
Amoral Democrats have contaminated the mass media and our legal system and much else.
Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony.
There will be some commenters here who will point out that Carroll also accused the notorious multi-victim-accused Les Moonves of assault/abuse. And Moonves is on record having denied the allegation.
But that is almost entirely where Moonves left it. Moonves -- another rich and powerful man -- did not do that thing that Trump almost always seems to do, which is to attack his accuser(s).
I must admit that a fair question is why E. Jean Carroll has not pursued a civil action for sexual battery as newly enabled under the New York state's Adult Survivor's Act (ASA). I don't know the answer, but it isn't too hard to imagine that because Ms. Carroll had already initiated a previous defamation action against Trump before the ASA (the "Carroll I" litigation), and Trump's general behavior toward her and his response to the Carroll I case was what pushed her to make the additional claim when it became statutorily authorized.
The social, and possibly legal, presumption used to be that a woman's silence was *withholding* of consent. Thus the rape defense that the victim was 'asking for it' by either overt or ambiguous means. The relaxation of sexual mores since the 1960s made that a more and more plausible defense, as evidenced by the recent attempts to put the toothpaste back in the tube via such means as the requirement for 'enthusiastic consent' to each progressive move towards full sexual relations. You can claim silence is no longer consent but the presumption clearly runs the other way.
"Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar."
Yeah. He brought this on himself. Why in the world would he, or any man, deny a public accusation of being a rapist?
There is some lefty logic in there some place.
Other things to consider: She didn't scream or report it because it didn't happen. Also, Trump wasn't there.
If juries believe a twenty-year old accusation of rape with no supporting evidence, we are well and truly screwed.
“Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony.”
While Carroll could’ve/should’ve screamed, she remained silent. Where Trump could’ve/should’ve kept his yap shut, he didn’t.
I can see Carroll not screaming because she may have thought he would not actually go through with a rape, maybe she hoped she could get him off of her quietly. She may have been worried about how it would look having gone into the dressing room with him after a flirty conversation about lingerie. I would understand her shock about what just happened and just wanting to get out of there.
Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony.
You are so predictable Althouse.
No, no, no, no, no. You do NOT get to consider any ANY aspect of this accusation absent a specific date and time. Her accusation is flat-out a lie, yes, a lie, without that predicate. NO one can EVER defend themself against such an obvious charge. WHERE is there a single point in her favor? Her story? We’re expecting Trump or any man coughKAVANAUGHcough) to defend himself against a charge without the most basic where and when as a starting point?
I know this is a civil case, but c’mon, doesn’t there have to be some fairness in our judicial system? Or is “I said it happened sometime, some day, some year at Bergdorf Goodman. Now YOU prove it never happened.”
No fair trial for him in New York City.
Ann said “Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar.”
God, woman, what a hellish worldview you have. If he’s innocent, he shoulda let the lie stand?
I know why people hate lawyers.
"You wanted it to be a fun encounter." When a situation turns from fun to forced sexual assault, you take immediate and direct action. Start with "NO!", then fight and scream. (At least I would if I were a woman.) Resistance is not futile- at least not in a department store where there would certainly be other people around.
OTOH, here's an alleged victim who tried to scream.
(From the NPR transcript)
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did it, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most, and this had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.
Perhaps she gave just as good as she got!
It took her 30 years to remember that it happened.
Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar.
Which is what an honest man would do if she really was lying, you know.
I can see a 16 year old girl being conned into the dressing room assuming adult will not hurt her. I have bit of trouble accepting that a grown, experienced woman would invite a man into the privacy of a dressing room with completely innocent intent. In many cases one could see that as a mode of enticement or entrapment. I am not defending Trump's general behavior, but the combination of circumstances with such a substantial delay before the accusation and the previous recent history of women falsely accusing prominent men of rape makes me very suspicious of Carroll's truthfulness. I do agree that she is playing before a sympathetic audience and Trump is in danger of being convicted.
Maybe she didn't scream because it never happened...
Now do Joe Biden and Bill...
Taking her seriously is not rational. Why would The Donald want an ugly skank that could send him to prison? This is Democrat paid for dossier material. Maybe it was in MOSCOW.
If you had to argue....
...you were raped by a Republican political candidate you would need to know his whereabouts on the day you would claim the supposed rape occurred, which is problematic unless you know for certain he did not have proof of his whereabouts on the day you choose to say the supposed rape occurred, and you will need plausible explanations as to why you did not scream or seek help or contact the police or anyone else during or after the supposed rape occurred...moments, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades after the supposed rape occurred and you will need a plausible explanation why you have been recently contacted by political operatives, the type of political operatives paid to help political candidates win elections by smearing their opponents...
...these are challenging positions to argue, as we've seen with all the other attempts at destroying conservative political and judicial candidates and despite the help they get from armchair observers intetested in the play by play of their attempts...
I scream, you scream, we all scream for—
This poisonous farce of a lawsuit over a story of alleged misconduct;
a story precision-drafted and expertly hand-crafted to survive every logical objection;
the kind of story that a novelist would take years to get exactly right;
the kind of story that balances utter unbelievability with the feel of truth;
the kind of story that seizes your imagination and captures your sympathies;
a story that combines a perfect political weapon with a big monetary payoff.
Carroll is a writer of fiction, isn’t she? This is her masterpiece. Tom Wolfe must be spinning in his grave.
It seems she puts herself in positions to "be raped" if you believe her. WHY isn't she suing Les Moonves. I don't care if he didn't call her a liar. He supposedly raped her. She is the Jussie Smollet of #METOO
Mammas don’t let your babies grow up to be pussy-grabbing short-fingered vulgarians.
I think of yelling as verbalizing. It's talking really loud and sometimes angrily. Screaming is just making a loud, often high pitched noise. Both men and women yell and scream. Men probably scream less often than women, generally speaking.
So, let me get this right.
Trump had the ability to ignore what this woman wrote and get on with his life, but he somehow lost that ability. This should be noted.
Trump had the ability to build a personal brand that was at odds with this kind of behavior. By the advent of the 21st century, that ship had long since sailed. By doing so, he set himself up for this kind of stuff, and has spent most of the last few decades dealing with the collateral damage.
That said, it is pretty clear that the facts of the case can easily be seen as a secondary consideration, and there are legal polities within which Trump would be foolish to expect to be protected by the rule of law. The nature of the blind spots that people develop is a fascinating thing to study.
A clown show will always find an audience. Using the justice system as a prop for lawfare is the part I hate to see. Just watch Night Court or something.
"Carroll wrote a memoir — a Me Too era exposition of her complex relationship to "hideous men." Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar. She decided at that point not to be silent and brought this lawsuit and engaged in this testimony."
Carroll accused Trump of rape, in her memoir. If Trump kept silent, it would be a tacit admission of guilt, though silence would have prevented him from this lawsuit.
As for her deciding not to be silent: She already decided that when she wrote and published her book.
I can understand not screaming.
I can’t understand not reporting a rape w/in a reasonable amount of time.
If we wait- it’s too late. We suffer in silence forever.
Or, you know: she’s lying.
"If Trump proceeded to penetration without her consent, he raped her. And it doesn't matter that she started out positive or that she chose not to involve the authorities."
But the question is, who should be believed as to whether it really happened? Where is the preponderant evidence?
No police report, no recollection of even the year. Why would such a report be believed?
I find it very difficult to believe that at Bergdorf Goodman—a very high end store and in the lingerie department to boot— a man was able to walk into a woman’s dressing room. I was shopping with my son this weekend at a JC Penny’s and was not allowed anywhere near the entrance of the men’s dressing room. At regular department stores the dressing rooms in lingerie departments are usually locked and watched over to prevent weirdos from entering or harassing women. The alleged attack by Trump took place in the 1990’s —Bergdorf’s is a luxury department store with excellent customer service.
E. Jean Carroll is making this story up.
Screaming is not required for a rape victim to receive justice.
Screaming is an element to consider in assessing an accuser's credibility as to whether she actually was raped.
The fact that Carroll cannot remember the hour, day, or even YEAR the alleged rape occurred means that Trump can offer no alibi. He only has his word that it didn't happen. She, however, can offer no proof that it did happen.
How can any court reasonably find him guilty of rape? This is purely another political prosecution of the former president.
“ It could be entirely rational not to scream, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't rape.”
And nothing in her testimony means that it was rape. It is much more likely that she is lying her arse off. No police report, it didn’t happen.
Mammas don’t let your babies grow up to be pussy-grabbing short-fingered vulgarians.
I would prefer that to a lying, hair-sniffing, bribe taking pedo-douchebag.
Ann said “Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar.”
God, woman, what a hellish worldview you have. If he’s innocent, he shoulda let the lie stand?
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
May I point out without getting too graphic that standing sex from behind with a non-willing (or willing) female is not the easiest thing to do. Certainly not the quietest.
Trump's six-three and Carroll's five-eight so knee bends are required and the wall would have taken some punishment.
If the dressing room's a-rocking...
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "I can see Carroll not screaming because she may have thought he would not actually go through with a rape, maybe she hoped she could get him off of her quietly."
Oh, believe me, we are all very aware of the sorts of things you claim you "can see".
They are all obvious and trasparent lies of course, but you "can see" them as clearly as you can see hookers in Moscow peeing on a bed.
The good news for you is you have a brand new teammate that is on board the Hoax Express: Earnest Prole.
So you've got that going for you, which is nice.
What are the minimum expectations of an accusers story such that we can doubt it happened by the sheer weight of what they "can't remember"?
It's all actually very simple. If the accused is a Republican or conservative, always believe the woman. If the accused is a Democrat or a Leftist, never believe the woman.
Alex, I'll take Things That Did Not Happen for $500
where is the burden of proof?
She is making an accusation that goes back to the 1990s.
Where is the proof? She cannot even specify a date.
Reid Hoffman is funding the entire exercise, George Conway of The Lincoln Pedophile Project is a key instigator amongst others, and we will see moving forward that the "statute" passed by the democraticals in NY state in 2022 will essentially be another Bill of Attainder-ish effort designed specifically to attack Trump and Trump alone.
Do you seriously believe Carroll wrote her memoir with no intention of suing Trump whether or not he responded to her?
Do you seriously believe she would not sue if he issued some calm statement saying he remembered the encounter, but differently?
What if he said he presumed he was one of the 15 boyfriends she spoke about on television, or that the incident occurred but was just one more example of the casual sex she continually bragged about? What if he complimented her and said it was great consensual sex and she was gorgeous?
You're making a lot of presumptions here and behaving as if politics plays no role in any of this.
Carroll is a particularly sad and twisted example of the zipless f*** generation. If her account is at all true, crying out would have violated the decorum of her profession (much like Alito and the Supreme Court) and the philosophy of her performance art, which was, literally, to encourage women to engage in risky and random sexual encounters and equate such behavior with liberation.
I doubt we will ever know what, if anything, happened when two walking brands allegedly encountered each other in a department store decades ago. But we do know that she is now claiming under oath that this one encounter permanently altered her, made her stop having any additional sexual encounters, and led her to renounce the lifestyle she recommended to other women.
Only, she didn't do that. She kept recommending and kept writing about random and risky sex. So did she value her brand more than feel concern or even culpability for pushing other women to continue behaving in a way that purportedly harmed her so brutally? Or is she lying now about its effect on her? Either way, she is a liar.
If she wasn't lying, we had tabloids in the city that would have loved that story, and she could have profited from it, and she of all people knew that. But she would have had to renounce her previous career.
So what I gather from all this is, if somebody writes a tell-all defaming you, you can simply deny it —but you must not call them a liar. If you do, they can sue YOU for defamation, and (because the truth is that you did not do what they claim) you must prove a negative. Good luck with that.
So you can just deny it, and if pestered by media types asking “You deny this? Doesn’t that mean you are calling her a liar?” You can only smile and shrug and say “I would never call her a liar. I deny that this ever happened. Let’s leave it there.”
Alternatively you could sue her for defamation: and as the attacking party you will have advantages ranging from timing and venue to burden of proof that the defamatory event DID happen. Make her pay and sweat and worry.
Just don’t call her a liar…
Again, I spent 20 years of my legal career as a criminal prosecutor. It is very common for sexual assault victims not to report the rape right away, or even not at all for a long time. Some of them blame themselves afterwards, wondering what they might have done to trigger the rape. Some of them are in fear of reprisal from the rapist or his friends/family, whether it be physical, psychological, financial, etc. Some are in fear of losing their husband, lover, children, family, friends, career, etc if they report it and it goes public. Some of them are so traumatized by the rape that they don't report it because they can't relive the rape during a jury trial if they have to testify. That is what is called being raped by the abuser a second time -- in open court. Some victims just want to try to forget the whole ordeal and try to get on with their lives. I could go on and on and on based on my 20 years of experience, but so many of you here don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Try talking to a rape victim advocate or a rape witness coordinator in your community, and you will learn the truth.
Once again, let's remember the mid-90s. Trump was an extremely well-known and popular figure.
The idea that he could simply walk into ANY department store in Manhattan and not be mobbed defies common sense.
It doesn't matter what her story is. It's bullshit from the jump.
Mammas don’t let your babies grow up to be pussy-grabbing short-fingered vulgarians.
Yeah. It's much better to let them grow up to be lying, gold-digging Tuesdays who get their rocks off by falsely accusing men of rape.
"CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did it, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most, and this had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me"
and she was so ruined - she never flew on an airplane again.
Lonejustice: you are correct that many women don't scream out of fear, reasonably, when they are isolated or in danger or surprised. This story doesn't fit such cases. You are correct that women often don't go to the police right away, reasonably. This story doesn't fit those cases. This woman's career was about bragging in print and on tv about casual sexual encounters. Whatever she was doing, she knew what she was doing.
"Earnest Prole said...
Mammas don’t let your babies grow up to be pussy-grabbing short-fingered vulgarians."
Don't let your abortion-surviving children grow up to be leftwing jackasses.
Please tell me what day, month, and year this so=called rape occured.
If you can't remember the day. IT did not happend.
Sorry, I'm not like all you other gullible rubes.
So ...
are there effective ways of making man scream??
What if?
They meet and Carroll offers to help Trump buy lingerie. Presumably women's lingerie.
She helps him select an item and asks if he would like to see it modeled.
The enter the dressing room together. She strips and puts on the lingerie.
She models coquettishly; he becomes aroused and presses. And they f... con-sensually.
Years later she writes a book with a hot chapter about this -- some of it fancied.
Trump objects because he doesn't like being portrayed in public about this private affair.
Carroll discovers or is informed about this politically damaging possibility of a lawsuit.
She sues. Now Trump defends.
Screaming is hard. Not every woman can do it despite what you see in old horror movies. You hire good screamers for the soundtrack.
Friend and I were mugged at knifepoint once and I couldn't scream so i yelled. The mugger ran away.
Yelling's not very ladylike tho.
From the failure to summon help, you could infer that Carroll believed it was a situation best handled privately.
I think I can infer that she had no reason to scream, either because she wanted the sex, but even more likely that the sex/rape never occurred. I have a hard time believing a store wasn't monitoring who and what goes into dressing rooms at all times. She may want to handle the matter privately, she may have embarrassed, she may have become catatonic in the horror of the moment.
First, she needs to prove it ever happened, and she has nothing but a place and a story without details like date or time, which would be needed to prove that Trump was at that particularly place for the event to occur. That lack of detail causes me to infer it never happened at all. That's the position I held as a juror in an aggravated sexual assault of a minor, all the way up to the point that it was clear the perp was definitely in the same place with the minor at a time and in a situation when no other reasonable inference could be made but that the reason was to assault the minor. That case had a date, time, location, and fortunately a third party. There was no talk of screaming, ever.
In space no one can hear you scream.
There is always the truth that Elizabeth II put forward about her new grand-daughter in law, Meagy Mark:
"Recollections may vary."
She said it happened. He said it didn't. No evidence, no witnesses, and she even admits she didn't do what most would have when it happened, if it happened. Seems like a slam dunk for not guilty, whether it happened or not.
Why this looking for a way to convict someone of something with no evidence. Is that just a law that applies to Trump?
@Eva Marie
You nailed it!
"Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar."
Ah yes, the always expected Republican decorum and silence when being attacked by their enemies. How dare you deny pushing grandma over the cliff.
I want to know what brand of tights those are. When I try to take mine off, the elastic is so tight that my legs are virtually bound together until the waist is below my knees. Hers sound like ones that cling when they are up, but have more give when you pull them down. Must not be control top.
Must not be control top.
When I was single, I referred to them as Anti-Hose.
“Oh, believe me, we are all very aware of the sorts of things you claim you "can see".”
No, I won’t believe a Moscow Trained Propagandist, sorry, not sorry.
but so many of you here don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Instead of waving your finger of shame at the rest of us for not believing her story - and since you claim to know so, so much about rape victims - why don't you point out her bullshit does harm to, you know, actual rape victims..
In other words, get off your fucking high horse, AltChuck, and see the real damage being done here.
I want to know what brand of tights those are.
OMG that's funny...
“She has an expert witness on her list.”
All bought and paid for. “Expert” has lost most of its cachet.
I don’t believe any part of this alleged rape happened. Maybe Carroll saw Trump at Bergdorf’s shopping for lingerie one day and that’s as close to the truth as her story gets. The rest is fiction which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Trump was a player, he liked models and porn stars - that’s his type. Sexy and available. I have looked at Carroll’s younger photos and she was definitely was not sexy, not his type — but kind of uptight and repressed looking. Then there’s the absurdity of her going into a dressing room with a man she’s not involved with, as a woman in her early fifties. I mean that is so ridiculous it sounds like a teenage fantasy. It’s absurd and not something a sane grown woman would do unless she was looking to get laid.
I have unfortunately known women who have zero conscience about making outrageous accusations — they’ve done it against me. And I’ve known women who will lie about being a witness to something which never happened. These are evil people who give women a bad reputation and of course greatly harm women who actually have been victims.
Kevin said...
"In space no one can hear you scream."
So close.
In Bergdorf's no one can hear you scream.
But then, all she had to do was say no loudly. No scream queen horrifics were necessary. The push to justify the lack of a scream is a good way to divert from the more difficult justification of why not just draw a little attention to the dressing room.
All BS. Hell, this ditz (and, yes, she is a ditz) may have by now convinced herself it happened.
Also, some of y'all might want to get up to speed as to what the trial is about. It's getting a little like Instapundit comments up in here.
Take a knee, beg, VP? That's not Trump's style.
If she didn't scream, you must acquit. Was it a scream-scream?
Does Planned Parenthood have a record of servicing a "burden"? A butterfly?
Did Biden rape his daughter?
Whatever happened to the minority gang rape of the trans/homosexual female in San Francisco or near by in the sanctuary state of California?
The trans/homosexual male serial rape parade through the South West?
This is Democrat paid for dossier material.
The third impeachment through projection or exercise of liberal license?
lonejustice:
Your experience damns her the more. No contemporaneous cry, no witnesses, no police record, nothing. Nothing. NOTHING. For her to then claim to not recall a year, a month, a date?
You may wish to credit all that, but where is the defense to such a misshapen accusation? She has corrupted the entire situation by putting it into the public sphere years, at a minimum, after it supposedly happened.
We must expect some degree of evidence beyond her late statements. And all of that, ALL of that, is on her.
Blame the Duke Rape Hoax.
Blame Columbia’s Mattress Girl.
Blame Christine Blasey Ford.
meh. The place to be in Bergdorf's is the shoe dept.
and colored girls sing... doo doodoo doodoo doo doodoo doo
take a walk on the wild side.
That's New York City baby, origin of the zipless fuck.
The shoe fits.
It's a ridiculous case in an absurd courtroom setting, where the plan is to carefully navigate to the already-decided 'guilty' verdict.
But it seems to me that all the defense has to do is prove Caroll is a liar. And for that, all they need is to produce a witness that attests to having sex with her sometime after 1996. Let's make it extra juicy, Fabio.
ChatNYT
Her claim should be subject to discovery. All of her past splooge stooges should be required to testify in court to her socially liberal lifestyle and behavioral orientation(s).
Some victims just want to try to forget the whole ordeal and try to get on with their lives. I could go on and on and on based on my 20 years of experience, but so many of you here don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Try talking to a rape victim advocate or a rape witness coordinator in your community, and you will learn the truth.
As usual this commenter takes the left wing argument at face value. Nobody but this former public defender knows anything. This poor woman, who was an advice columnist and bragged about her sexual adventures, "just wanted to get on with her life" so she could make an accusation 30 years later against a man the "lonejustice" hates. Got it, lefty.
Blame the Duke Rape Hoax.
Blame Columbia’s Mattress Girl.
Blame Christine Blasey Ford.
#MeToo, rape culture, socially liberal lifestyles, progressive affirmative consent, aborting the "burden" of evidence in darkness, take a knee... VP, are a disservice to women, girls, and civilized society.
why don't you point out her bullshit does harm to, you know, actual rape victims.
@Jim at, neither lonejustice nor Ann Althouse much care. It’s called TDS and it is, in fact, tedious.
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "No, I won’t believe a Moscow Trained Propagandist, sorry, not sorry."
LOL
I wasn't asking a lefty psycho like you to believe me, I was pointing out your psychotic mind-reading antics are well documented and thus we are all very well aware of what YOU are capable of conjuring up in terms of lunatic conspiracy theories.
And thank you for demonstrating that very thing with your last comment. I am afraid that you might lose your new ally Earnest Prole with that one. I suspect he has limits about how far he'll follow you just to get at Trump in the middle of another obvious hoax.
On the other hand, the night is young. Lets see what else it brings.....
I must say I'm shocked, shocked I say, to see lonejustice's "Tonto"-act kemosabe-ing up to his Lone Ranger amigo LLR-democratical Chuck!
How obvious can you get?
LOL
"Others freeze or go into shock. Some just can't believe what is happening because their attacker is someone they know and trust. Also, most sex abuse victims do not report it right away. It's called "delayed reporting." Again, there are many reasons for this which you can discover by googling it or talking to any former prosecutor. Some delayed reporting may be for hours, days, weeks, months, even years. But few are the cases where the victim reports the sexual assault right after it happens."
This.
I think it's quite plausible that Trump did this. In fact, I believe he did. But my opinion counts or nothing, and the legal case is weak, and on that basis I think Carroll should not prevail.
I voted for Trump twice and might do so again.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of commenters here are really showing their asses regarding their utter ignorance about rape and its effects on women. Or maybe it's not ignorance at all but something more fundamental.
Laurel: "We must expect some degree of evidence beyond her late statements. And all of that, ALL of that, is on her.
Blame the Duke Rape Hoax.
Blame Columbia’s Mattress Girl.
Blame Christine Blasey Ford."
lonejustice is the sort of "muh principles" "conservative" that is all in on framing conservatives with lawfare hoax tactics in deep blue corrupted proceedings.....and all to "conserve" "conservatism" no doubt.
Interestingly, right after LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck came out in support of complete surrender to the radical trans agenda across the board.....so did lonejustice.
I'm positive that is just the most coincidentally coincidental coincidence in the history of coincidences!
I'm afraid LLR-democratical Chuck is going to have to call in more effective blog reinforcements for the 2024 campaign in order to smear Trump more (Chucks explicitly admitted role) as well as drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers (Chuck's other explicitly detailed purpose on the blog).
Personally, I'm interested to see what kind of handle the next LLR-democratical Chuck mini-me blog handle will be. It will have to be something good to top "lonejustice" (LOL).
Perhaps something along the lines of the "Last Ethical & Principled Conservative Lawyer In America Who Just So Happens To Despise Trump and Conservatives"....though that would be a bit too "on the nose" and is far too long to fit on a business card.
"In 2012 — seven years before E. Jean Carroll publicly accused Donald Trump of raping her — "Law & Order: SVU" aired an episode featuring a rape in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, while a victim was trying on lingerie."
"This happens all the time with Law and Order stories," Carroll wrote in response to an email pointing out the similarities between her story and the show's plot. "Also, there are 200 scripted shows a year on TV, this kind of thing is bound to show up."
Of course, Law and Order acknowledges basing plots on stories "inspired by recent headlines," but it would be pretty amazing to base a story on a headline that would not be published for another seven years. Also, Carroll says she watched Law and Order but not Law and Order SVU - pretty convenient, huh?
Rosalyn C. said...
"The rest is fiction which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Trump was a player, he liked models and porn stars - that’s his type. Sexy and available. I have looked at Carroll’s younger photos and she was definitely was not sexy, not his type — but kind of uptight and repressed looking."
"That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife," Trump said when shown a photo of Carroll by her lawyer Roberta Kaplan during an October 2022 deposition at Mar-a-Lago, according to newly-unsealed excerpts of the conversation obtained by Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mistook-photo-accuser-e-jean-carroll-ex-marla-maples-2023-1
So she was 'fighting'?
Did she stick her thumb in his eye? Bite his nose off? Rip his hair out? Slap his ears? Or what?
No commotion? No nothing others could hear or see?
What did she do?
And she could not remember what day it was??? But she was 'fighting' and had no time to scream or shout or call for help?
"Then Trump, who could have kept silent, decided to yell and call her a liar."
I guess he was asking for it.
I was almost date-raped in college, and I didn't scream.
I went to a dorm party and started talking to a really cute guy who lived on that floor. We eventually went into his room with no mention of sex; I certainly just thought of his room as an extension of the party space where we could get away for a bit from the noise. He kissed me once and that was OK but then he immediately got way handsy. I tried to push him away and told him to stop. Next thing I knew I was pinned on the bed and all my struggling got me nowhere. It was like he was an entirely different person. I remember thinking that since I was pretty strong and fit, that I would be able to just wrestle away from him if I kept fighting. I didn't scream, I thought surely he would stop and/or I could wiggle away. Perhaps it was my Guardian Angel's work, but just when I began to panic and realize that this guy was way way stronger than I was and that he wasn't going to stop, his roommate walked into the room. The molester released me and I got out of there fast.
I didn't scream because I thought I could get him to stop. I thought I could get away. I may have subconsciously realized that no one would likely hear me through the heavy door and the sounds of the party. I may have sensed that if I screamed I might get hit. OTOH, if he had actually been able to get my clothes off, I don't know if I would have frozen, or if I would have screamed.
I became an assistant district attorney in the same college town. I would not have liked to prosecute a similar case. I didn't scream.
MalaiseLongue: "Meanwhile, a whole bunch of commenters here are really showing their asses regarding their utter ignorance about rape and its effects on women. Or maybe it's not ignorance at all but something more fundamental."
The "fundamental" thing might be the 7 straight years of hoaxed up lawfare lies against conservatives in general and Trump in particular and the fact that lefty activist billionaire Reid Hoffman (who had to admit guilt in the Alabama Senate race proceedings to have funded liars posing as conservatives online) is funding the entire effort and that Carroll was coached up by the usual NeverTrump/lefty suspects into pressing charges right after the democratical controlled govt in NY passed a "law" in 2022 that was tailor made for just this sort of proceeding.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe its me. But I sense a pattern of some sort here....
...of course I clearly lack the sophistication of those who have already pronounced Trump Very Very Guilty because of course he is.
So much "sophistication". So very very much. Basically swimming in it at this point.
YoungHegelian: you are completely correct about the service in stores like this. You hold1-2 things in your hand and you have a clerk asking you if they can set up a room for you. The once you are in the room they frequently check back and ask if you need a different size or color. (Remember, this was 30 years ago when service was absolutely key and those clerks made commissions on their sales back then. Today in 2023 they provide that kind of service at the Madison Talbots store. And they don’t make a commission.) There was staff there. She’s a liar.
But yes, Trump will lose. This is New York City after all.
Readering said...
She has an expert witness on her list.
No she doesn't.
Mary Beth said...
"I want to know what brand of tights those are. When I try to take mine off, the elastic is so tight that my legs are virtually bound together until the waist is below my knees. Hers sound like ones that cling when they are up, but have more give when you pull them down. Must not be control top."
Man;If I knew you were a virgin I would have taken my time.
Woman; If I knew you had more time I would have taken off my pantyhose.
I'll be here all week
I haven't read all the comments, but somehow whenever the Left/Democrats have someone they really want to destroy, some woman appears to allege without evidence that long, long ago that person did terrible things, generally of a sexual nature: Clarence Thomas, Bret Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, etc. It's the strangest coincidence. The Left has no integrity and plays by no rules except that they should always win (which is their definition of Democracy).
I can't say with any certainty what did or did not happen to Ms. Carroll. I can say with absolute certainty that if Trump gets convicted it will be an absolute injustice. You just can't convict someone based on such evidence.....Harvey Weinstein, the well known Democratic fund raiser, has made the world a very unsafe place for Republican Lotharios.
All these lawsuits against Trump are a big time warning to all conservatives: Don't enter the public arena or you will be defamed, slimed and sued because of your politics.
^^^^^THIS^^^^
Trump is nothing but an effigy. Sending a message to all that might consider coming to DC without getting prior approval of the Swamp.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of commenters here are really showing their asses regarding their utter ignorance about rape and its effects on women. Or maybe it's not ignorance at all but something more fundamental.
Or maybe some of us know actual rape victims, and that's why we're calling her story a bunch of horseshit.
Ever consider that?
What a pile of unmitigated bullshit. Anyone who thinks this insult to justice has any meaning is full of shit, and knows it. But they claim to believe it because it advances their political quest for degradation of their enemies.
We are a stupid ignorant nation. And we can’t admit it. Damn you for a bunch of self serving deceitful louts, no matter how well educated you are. Feminism? Believe all women? You disgrace yourselves.
There's no evidence she even met Trump at the store, let alone was raped by him.
At a minimum there needs to be a specific accusation, and that includes a date.
That would allow you to get witnesses who could at least confirm Trump was in fact at the store on that date and that he did meet her. I'd be shocked if there wasn't an attendant at the change rooms to prevent shoplifting and harrassment of patrons. Once you have a time and date, you can narrow down the employees to who worked for the store at that time and identify that attendant. I'm reasonably certain that meeting Donald Trump would stick in their memory.
Absent a date, she hasn't even provided a specific accusation, let alone evidence of one.
MalaiseLongue: "I voted for Trump twice and might do so again."
Oh, no doubt.
E. Jean Carroll, what is best in life?
To have a rich Democrat finance my hate crime against a man who is my political foe.
To blithely accuse him of nebulous, unsupported, but evil crimes,
And get a knee jerk judgement in a venue that is sympathetic to me.
Clinical psychologist Dr Leslie Lebowitz began on direct this afternoon, and will continue tomorrow morning. Plaintiff expects to rest midday Thursday. We'll see what defense does. Definitely not defendant coming to court. Expect closings Monday after instructions settled on. Verdict in for CNN town hall?
Surprising comments here assuming it's a criminal standard of proof. Preponderance. Higher standard helped Weinstein in CA rape trial.
Rabel said...
" Some people are highly protective of their reputation and fight back when falsely accused."
I suspect that if i was falsely accused, I'd show up in court, testify, and subject myself to cross-examination. But that's just me.
Ancient Mariner said...
" He only has his word that it didn't happen."
Actually since he is not going to testify and subject himself to cross, he doesn't have his word.
So, she is fighting and resisting while he pulls down her tights and rapes her.
Was he able to remove her tights as she was trying to hold them on? Did he threaten her ,or choke her or punch her?
Did she scratch his face while fighting him off?
Did he throw her to the floor and lay on top of her?
Did he back her up against the wall and penetrate her while she is trying to escape and fighting him off?
Would billionaire playboy Trump actually continue to assault a woman who was refusing his advances and physically resisting?
If your go-to pickup move is grabbing a woman by the pussy, it’s only a matter of time before you’ll be accused of rape. To put it in terms dopey Neanderthals can understand, Trump was asking for it.
I have a job that requires me to physically touch people's bodies for non sexual purposes. Unfortunately, I have been sexually assaulted a couple of times in this process. I can tell you that, until it happens, you never know how you are going to react, and you don't react necessarily in an intellectually logical way. I would never have thought my response would be to freeze up, but that's what I did. I found it's very hard for the brain to process what's happening in the moment. So it's entirely credible that a woman can be raped and not scream, or even give a strong indication that she does not consent, though I do agree that *some* indication needs to be given in the moment.
There are huge problems with this woman's story, but the lack of a scream is not necessarily one of them.
@RigelDog, a harrowing story and I’m sorry it happened. But! They don’t teach college-age women not to be alone in a room with a strange guy who’s been drinking?
@MalaiseLongue, and there have been men whose lives have been ruined by false accusations of rape. Women lie, and some do it reflexively. I believe E. Jean Carroll to be one of them.
No, I won’t believe a Moscow Trained Propagandist, sorry, not sorry.
Sorry Inga, but that is CNN, MSNBC and all of your other propagandists who lied for 7 years. YOU fell for it, hook, line and sinker...like a good little Progressive does. You girl, Hillary PAID for the Russian disinformation that YOU keep spewing.
"I suspect that if i was falsely accused, I'd show up in court, testify, and subject myself to cross-examination. But that's just me." - The Muta
Nobody would make any money falsely accusing you of anything.
But, you know that.
"There are huge problems with this woman's story, but the lack of a scream is not necessarily one of them."
Exactly. So why has this become the focal point?
Earnest Prole: "If your go-to pickup move is grabbing a woman by the pussy, it’s only a matter of time before you’ll be accused of rape. To put it in terms dopey Neanderthals can understand, Trump was asking for it."
You should probably show your work for this inchoate smear.
We wont be waiting for a response though because its obvious there is nothing underlying this latest prole inanity.
If past practice indicates future actions, I expect to see a couple fast deflections from prole to avoid showing his "evidence"/"facts".
It appears prole very much wants to assume the role of Althouse blig E. Jean Carroll...which will not be easy as there is intense competition for that role by LLR-democratical Chuck, gadfly, lonejustice and an assortment of Althouse blog lefty backbenchers.
So....good luck!
Next up for prole et al: hey, that hookers peeing on the bed claim sure seems credible to me! Plus, by being a Putin asset since the 90's, which seems likely to me too, Trump was asking for it.
Cameron: "Absent a date, she hasn't even provided a specific accusation, let alone evidence of one."
Shhhhh!
According to prole, its all absolutely true and probably just the tip of the iceberg....which also has zero evidence but that only makes it even more true.
I have to admit, the dems figured out that their faking evidence over and over and iver and over again wasnt paying off, even though the proles could always be counted on to drink it in and believe, so instead they've constructed a fail-proof Soviet show trial scenario where the utter and complete lack of evidence helps them avoid being shown to be liars....again. And thats all this "jury" of 100% partisan dems will need.
Cynthia "Plaster Caster" Albritton is, sadly, unavailable to educate the audience about celebrity attraction, females and sexuality.
Or maybe ask Bob Dylan.
There's no evidence she even met Trump at the store, let alone was raped by him.
At a minimum there needs to be a specific accusation, and that includes a date.
Yes, this is simply her 30-year (?) old assertion. ChatNYT et al are publishing another handmade tale, posing straw men to support a witch hunt.
Mutaman said...
"Rabel said...
" Some people are highly protective of their reputation and fight back when falsely accused."
I suspect that if i was falsely accused, I'd show up in court, testify, and subject myself to cross-examination. But that's just me."
But then you've never been hounded by the press and the courts for years on end.
She should have yelled, then. Something along the lines of"HELP"!!!! or "STOP" or something. No scream required.
Surprising comments here assuming it's a criminal standard of proof. Preponderance. Higher standard helped Weinstein in CA rape trial.
you logic and facts are discombobulated.
Not standard of proof. Standard of evidence. The more evidence the closer you get to proof.
Here, we have a single accusation, with no contemporaneous evidence to corroborate.
Some are faulting Trump for not testifying. What facts, exactly is Trump suppose to testitfy to?
Drago - Inga just accused you of being a "Moscow" trained propagandist."
LOL.
Have you ever been to Moscow? If yes - how was that training? Did they they teach you to hide under Inga's bed?
Dressing rooms are not private places. Any sort of ruckus would be heard by anyone within ear shot.
Trump testified in deposition. Normally party can't substitute own side's depos for live testimony unless unavailable, but parties could stipulate to allow substitution. Done for time in Paltrow trial, for example.
You guys always leave out the permissive assertion in Trump's famous Access Hollywood tape. I'll help you see it: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." So stop overlooking the part where he says "they LET YOU do it." Stop pretending he's describing a sexual assault. He's not. He's describing the same Hollywood we all are aware of, the only industry that has a "casting couch" for applying for a job, the only industry where groomers and pedophiles and rapists have free rein even after all the MeToo nonsense, nonsense so richly embodied and projected by the drama queen miss E Jean Carrol.
I'll even give y'all a link to verify the content* for yourselves. Cut and paste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape (Hot link for daring types.)
*Gotta love the Wikipedia editorial addition of "experts say" this description has all the classic hallmarks of sexual assault. Well then! Please do the Wikipedia thing for Tara Reade and get back to me.
The commenters hoping she is not lying are actually hoping she was raped. Sick, but typical of the Trump haters.
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker: "Drago - Inga just accused you of being a "Moscow" trained propagandist."
LOL.
Have you ever been to Moscow? If yes - how was that training? Did they they teach you to hide under Inga's bed?"
Like all weak quisling democratical NPC's, Inga has been trained to believe that anything she doesn't agree with emanates directly from the Kremlin in Moscow.
Inga the Idiot believed the russkis hacked the electrical grid in New England. Remember that one?
Inga the Idiot believe Trump was communicating with Putin via the Trump Tower - to -Alfa Bank "secret servers". She was all over that one. Of course we found out it was a wholly concocted scheme funded the democraticals utilizing comp sci professors at several universities and a couple commercial enterprises to create the "pings" between the servers by simply marketing messages.
But Inga STILL believes it happened. To this very day.
Just ask her.
The commenters hoping she is not lying are actually hoping she was raped.
A lack of empathy, legal judiciousness, critical reason, and a sincere hope that soon a "burden"... uh, burden, will soon be aborted.
Naturally, Inga would be the rocket scientist to "discover" that I am a secretly trained Moscow disinformation asset because when she was in nursing school, Recognition of Moscow Trained Disinformation Specialists was a junior level class taken between Microbiology and Human Anatomy.
I mean, everyone knows that.
Also in Inga's self-declared wheelhouse of knowledge (or should I say "funhouse of non-knowledge") is, somehow, geo-military strategy, Russian-Ukrainian history thru the ages, international business finance, etc.
It's pretty amazing the amount of "stuff" you can simply "download" and award yourself as a democratical lunatic NPC just by having the "correct" (politically) viewpoints.
And lest we forget, Inga was all too happy to declare that those of us who didn't completely trust the information coming out of the CDC and WHO regarding masks and the jabs and the shutdowns and the distancing etc were actual "murderers".
She should never be allowed to forget that.
iowan2: "Here, we have a single accusation, with no contemporaneous evidence to corroborate.
Some are faulting Trump for not testifying. What facts, exactly is Trump suppose to testitfy to?"
Indeed.
Other "facts" Trump refuses to testify about:
- His conversations with aliens
- His secret lair at the center of the Earth
- His ability to communicate secretly with Putin via a language they jointly developed which only they know
etc
etc
etc
Hunter Biden's Taxpayer Funded Hooker: "Have you ever been to Moscow? If yes - how was that training? Did they they teach you to hide under Inga's bed?"
I was out sick alot due to my serious borscht allergy. Who knew beets could be so dangerous?
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker: "Dressing rooms are not private places. Any sort of ruckus would be heard by anyone within ear shot."
I don't think Russia Collusion Truther Inga will agree with you on that. And she should know. After all, Major City Large Department Store Dressing Room Acoustics is the Nursing School class that comes between "The Large Intestine And What It's Wrinkles Say About You" and "The Colon: The End Of The Road For Waste Or Just The Beginning?".
And trust me, whatever Inga vomits up earnest prole will be there to boost the accusation.
Writes Jessica Bennett in "Why Didn’t She Scream? And Other Questions Not to Ask a Rape Accuser" (NYT).
1: Good for her, using "rape accuser" rather than "rape victim"
2: Bad for her, saying there's question you "should not ask" a rape accuser. That's bullshit. you should always ask. Whether or not the answer is dispositive, you should still ask
The reason to scream is for help. At Bergdorf's, there were, presumably, people within earshot who would have burst in and interrupted whatever was going on. Help was available.
There's lots of reasons to scream
1: To get help
2: To scare off your attacker (who fears that help will come)
3: To focus yourself so you can fight back harder
4: To surprise your attacker and possibly get a second to flee
What there was not, in that situation, is a reason NOT to scream
From the failure to summon help, you could infer that Carroll believed it was a situation best handled privately. She chose to do her own fighting, she testified, but she also says she was in a panic, perhaps unable to come up with the strategy of summoning help.
From the failure to summon help, we can most reasonably infer that the entire story is bullshit, and that nothing actually happened.
Next most reasonably, we can infer that if it did happen, she was approaching the situation like a "casting couch" situation, and she willingly chose to trade sex for some financial advantage.
What you can not reasonably do is look at the long delay between the claimed event and the making it public, and believe that a rape actually took place
Assistant Village Idiot said...
I worked with trauma victims my whole career.
And now you're using them to advance your political ideology, which makes you a complete monster
1: She didn't scream
2: She didn't file a police report
3: So far as I can tell, there are no believable reports of her contemporaneously telling anyone about the attack
That's a hell of a lot more than "she didn't scream", it's "there's no evidence of any sort that she did anything other than make up the story out of whole cloth, using the actual pain of actual rape victims to advance her personal financial advantage"
Now you're trying to victimize those women again, using them to push this bullshit story
If you were a decent human being, you'd be deeply ashamed of yourself
This, and the Blazey episode has taught me to despise all women and damn them for conspiring liars, except for my loving, brilliant, and thoroughly honest wife. And my mother to some degree.
I now believe that there is a group of women that are well classified as femnazis.
Big Mike said: @RigelDog, a harrowing story and I’m sorry it happened. But! They don’t teach college-age women not to be alone in a room with a strange guy who’s been drinking?"
Well they didn't teach it at the time. I was 18 and naive. To me, to be in a dorm in a party around 8 or 9pm wasn't like a private situation, it was like a party that was in and out of people's rooms. To be briefly alone in a room with an unlocked door and people wandering in and out didn't seem like a sexual scenario to me; it seemed like summer camp. Lesson learned now.
He was just SO STRONG and so silent and grim, all in an instant.
BTW, I don't believe Carroll but more importantly, I don't believe for one second in bringing legal action decades after the fact. If the jerk who tried to rape me was running for Supreme Court all these years later, I would not come forward, it's ridiculous.
Readering said...
"Trump testified in deposition.'
You do realize that testimony at a deposition is not subject to cross examination. or maybe you don't.
Greg the Class Traitor said...
"3: So far as I can tell, there are no believable reports of her contemporaneously telling anyone about the attack"
"Carroll's longtime friend Lisa Birnbach, who Carroll had told about the alleged rape immediately after it happened, also testified on Tuesday.
She said that Carroll called her about five to seven minutes after the attack happened in the spring of 1996 and told her she had been shopping with Trump in Bergdorf Goodman before he accosted her in a dressing room and "penetrated" her."
https://www.salon.com/2023/05/03/expert-new-witness-testimony-in-carroll-case-enough-to-chip-away-at-any-doubts-the-jury-may-have/
So turns out defense had an expert on witness list, who will not be called at trial. Does not sound like any case being put on. Plaintiff exercised right to read from Trump depo in case-in-chief. Judge now forecasts closings Monday, jury charge and start of deliberations Tuesday.
Mutaman said...
Greg the Class Traitor said...
"3: So far as I can tell, there are no believable reports of her contemporaneously telling anyone about the attack"
"Carroll's longtime friend Lisa Birnbach
I said "believable reports".
"She said that Carroll called her about five to seven minutes after the attack happened in the spring of 1996"
So, what day was it? So Carroll can't remember what year it was, but Lisa Birnbach can?
But even with Lisa Birnbach telling her what year it was, Carroll still won't specify a year?
It seems this Lisa Birnbach should be providing a day, moth, and year for this claimed attack. And that therefore this information should have been made available to the Trump team months ago, so they could search his schedule and establish where he was on that day.
But no report I've seen, up until this claim, has given a date for the claimed attack, or even just a year.
One of the liar's tells is they way the story keeps on shifting, long after the details should have been nailed down.
So, do tell us more about this "confirming friend". Does SHE have any contemporaneous proof? That would be a diary entry that has been provided to the Trujmp team so they can "date" it.
that would be notes of a psychiatrist that can be subpoenaed.
That would NOT be the unsupported word of a friend.
The longer they drag this out the dumber it gets, these old hags crying in court is embarrassing to women
@RigelDog, my aikido sensei back in the day taught a rape prevention class. In all too many cases his students had needed the training months or years before finding out about the class, but emphatically didn’t want to experience a second assault. You can’t outmuscle your attacker; you learned that the hard way. You must know techniques to turn your attacker’s strength against him, and also women (all of us for that matter) need to develop and trust that sixth sense that warns them that something is wrong and they need to get out.
Second confirming friend testifies today.
Readering said...
So turns out defense had an expert on witness list, who will not be called at trial.
Why yes, both sides put lots of people on their "witness lists" that they're not actually planning to call
this makes it harder for the other side to figure out what you're going to do at the trail
Readering, legal genius, apparently missed out on that
Readering said...
Second confirming friend testifies today.
And her testimony is so completely worthless that Readering has nothing to say about it
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा