Gabe Menezes wrote: Seems like there was a rush to judgment; apparently, according to the NY Post the woman was a part time hooker.
COMMENT: Once again, 'we' appear to be missing the important points in cases of molestation. 1: The 'rush to judgment' tag is NOT based on these reported 'unverified claims ..... that male guests at the Sofitel had paid her for sexual services'. 2: The fact is that the prosecution indeed 'rushed to judgment' without adequately verifying ALL the reasonably ascertainable facts of the case. I believe that even the alleged victim's lawyer - who was IMHO looking for fame and gain, was shocked by the CONTENTS of the reportedly-taped recording of the alleged telephone call made by the lady in question to her contact in Arizona. 3: That is why (I repeat) it is crucial that ALL the facts of any such case are viewed before a judgment call is made. 4: In the US (unlike in the UK), it appears that 'facts' can be selectively leaked in the press. Fortunately, in the US, they also have Miranda rights. 5: I wonder what would have happened if this was a Goa based case. Apart from telephone-calls from 'high up', ghuspott in the evidentiary proceedings, I am almost sure that some brilliant avacado pear and his blogamiga would have carried this story from an unilateral angle - ad nauseam. 6: And Gabe would probably have defended the principle (now prevalent in Goa) which states that a Man has to prove his innocence-If he does not, he is guilty. http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm please (see s32 in the middle of the page) 7: BTW: Even if she was a hooker - does not mean that any person has the right to commit sexual-battery on her. Except that .....the credibility of the WAY her story was initially told .....would have taken a beating in court. 8: Once again ......it is important to look at ALL the facts of the case - and not be blinded by avocado pears or blogs. jc
