Tied Down and Chained - BoDeans (mp3)
This is a continuation from Tuesday's Kinky Sex Blog (Part One)...
When Flying Tandem, Avoid Ropes: The David Jansen Story
Meanwhile, the story out of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, gets odder every day. The original story: an Atlanta woman was kidnapped by an acquaintance, taken to a cabin near Gatlinburg and allegedly raped. A pizza delivery man arrives (dude pictured at right), sees this woman bound on the couch as the man pays for pizza, and the woman mouths "Call 911!", and the rest is history. The latest, according to the dude's lawyer: The woman has filed multiple false accusations of rape in her past. She was a stripper. They were having relations. She asked him to abduct her, because it was a fantasy of hers. He has text messages and emails and surveillance footage to substantiate his story. A couple in the next cabin saw no indication of forced captivity, either.
Except around here, the only part most people know is the part where a crazy man kidnapped a woman and raped her. The follow-up stories all fall inside the paper and don't make the TV news.
The dude's name is David Jansen. His mug shot is available in print and on the web. He was married, and his wife has filed a restraining order and for divorce. Meanwhile, the woman in question remains under journalistic protection. It is newspaper policy; it is not a legal issue. If journalists so chose, they could reveal her name, but they won't so long as she remains a "victim."
First, I ask not that you pity this man. The man dillied where he shouldn't have dallied, and he did so with a woman whose chest was clearly more stable than her brains. Either is enough for plenty of folks to think he deserves to sit in jail for a while. The wackos would be fine if he was shot or had his tallywhacker lopped off, but I think most reasonable minds are just fine with the "you lie down with dogs, you get fleas" theory.
My frustration is not in his exposure per se, but by the injustice of our journalistic standards. This guy's face and name are all over. We even know he's a software engineer from Snellville. Basically, his life as he knows it is totally over even though it looks increasingly like charges will be dropped before he ever stands trial. Who really knows whether he'll manage to find another job? Who knows how much in legal fees this experience will cost him? Yet, did he commit any actual crimes? Did he do anything expressly illegal? Probably not.
This woman, on the other hand, has Glenn Close'd a man's life. She's accused people falsely before, to the point of being sentenced to psychiatric help. She looks to have been a willing participant in this particular game. Yet her name and her identity is protected because she's a "victim," because this man gave her money for cosmetic work, because he went along with her kinky tie-me-up wishes, and because ordering pizza during bondage fantasy role-play is apparently par for the S+M course. ("No anchovies! Noooooo, not the anchovies!!!" "Yess you bad boy, you're gonna eat allllll the anchovies!!")
I absolutely despise this rule of journalistic ethics: If you're arrested, your face and your name and your ass is fair game. Guilt matters not a lick. But if you're an accuser with a criminal history of falsely accusing, you're protected.
Basically, it's OK for our media outlets to rape someone accused of a crime and drag them through the streets like dead soldiers in Somalia. The best the accused can hope for is a fair trial and a forever-sullied name.
One of my relatives, whose life was admittedly a small-town soap opera already, was on the verge of filing child abuse charges against her ex-husband's new wife when she was arrested for sexually molesting a friend of her daughter's. The girl in question was the daughter of the best friends of her ex-husband and new wife.
Now, at the very least, all of that looks suspicious. Yet one name was revealed, and one picture was put in the papers, and all other names are protected by journalistic integrity. My relative has lost her job and every last penny. She's lost all visitation rights to her daughter and hasn't seen her in more than a year. She's only allowed to see her son once a week for a few hours under strict supervision. Her parents have lost their retirement and put down a second mortgage on their house.
Trust me when I say this: I really hope my relative is guilty. If she's guilty, then justice or something like it is being served, and all this misery and suffering is, in some sense, justifiable. But if she's innocent? If she never did these things? Sadly, I believe she is innocent, which means that the accusing family engaged in a very Abigail Williams small-town witch hunt revenge plot that has spiraled into something straight out of anyone's worst nightmares.
If you think people in small-town South are above involving their young child in a revenge plot against an ex-wife, then you really haven't lived down here very long.
But for now, this is our reality: if you're accused, you're fair game. You're bound and gagged and declared "probably guilty" in the public sphere, and by the time you've proven yourself innocent, no one cares.
If you're the highly suspect accuser with questionable motives or dubious explanations, you're protected. You're free to throw accusations behind a veil of privacy and protection like a caged monkey throwing shit at onlookers.
Except around here, the only part most people know is the part where a crazy man kidnapped a woman and raped her. The follow-up stories all fall inside the paper and don't make the TV news.
The dude's name is David Jansen. His mug shot is available in print and on the web. He was married, and his wife has filed a restraining order and for divorce. Meanwhile, the woman in question remains under journalistic protection. It is newspaper policy; it is not a legal issue. If journalists so chose, they could reveal her name, but they won't so long as she remains a "victim."
My frustration is not in his exposure per se, but by the injustice of our journalistic standards. This guy's face and name are all over. We even know he's a software engineer from Snellville. Basically, his life as he knows it is totally over even though it looks increasingly like charges will be dropped before he ever stands trial. Who really knows whether he'll manage to find another job? Who knows how much in legal fees this experience will cost him? Yet, did he commit any actual crimes? Did he do anything expressly illegal? Probably not.
This woman, on the other hand, has Glenn Close'd a man's life. She's accused people falsely before, to the point of being sentenced to psychiatric help. She looks to have been a willing participant in this particular game. Yet her name and her identity is protected because she's a "victim," because this man gave her money for cosmetic work, because he went along with her kinky tie-me-up wishes, and because ordering pizza during bondage fantasy role-play is apparently par for the S+M course. ("No anchovies! Noooooo, not the anchovies!!!" "Yess you bad boy, you're gonna eat allllll the anchovies!!")
Basically, it's OK for our media outlets to rape someone accused of a crime and drag them through the streets like dead soldiers in Somalia. The best the accused can hope for is a fair trial and a forever-sullied name.
One of my relatives, whose life was admittedly a small-town soap opera already, was on the verge of filing child abuse charges against her ex-husband's new wife when she was arrested for sexually molesting a friend of her daughter's. The girl in question was the daughter of the best friends of her ex-husband and new wife.
Now, at the very least, all of that looks suspicious. Yet one name was revealed, and one picture was put in the papers, and all other names are protected by journalistic integrity. My relative has lost her job and every last penny. She's lost all visitation rights to her daughter and hasn't seen her in more than a year. She's only allowed to see her son once a week for a few hours under strict supervision. Her parents have lost their retirement and put down a second mortgage on their house.
If you think people in small-town South are above involving their young child in a revenge plot against an ex-wife, then you really haven't lived down here very long.
But for now, this is our reality: if you're accused, you're fair game. You're bound and gagged and declared "probably guilty" in the public sphere, and by the time you've proven yourself innocent, no one cares.
If you're the highly suspect accuser with questionable motives or dubious explanations, you're protected. You're free to throw accusations behind a veil of privacy and protection like a caged monkey throwing shit at onlookers.
"Notorious" was actually written by Jon Bon Jovi, but apparently had too much synth and wacky voice machine for his own band (?). If both songs can't be found at iTunes and Amazon.com, mock those companies and demand they grow up and get some real music.
No comments:
Post a Comment