NCFM’s Mr. Manners Critiques Ms. Manner’s E. Jean Carroll
Click on the picture for a video of Ms. Carroll in her home environment.
Until recently, I had no intention to write about the claim made by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, that she was raped by Donald Trump in either 1995 or 1996. But a few sentences in columns in the Washington Post helped change that. One was by Molly Roberts. She quoted Carroll as saying; “most people think of rape as being sexy.” Roberts retorted: “Well maybe not. Plenty of women certainly disagree .” The other Post article was by Monica Hesse, where Carroll says about charging Trump with the crime before the election, Carroll knew her testimony wouldn’t change anything. She was right.
This article is not about President Trump, but Carroll’s allegations are clearly the serious. Rather I am writing in response to the contentions that rape charges are not taken seriously, as well as the lack of serious scrutiny given to many women who make rape charges and the conclusions about men based on these ideas.
In current America, I would argue that in a lot of ways rape is taken as seriously as murder charges. Historically, the number of those given the death penalty for rape was second only to murder. In fact, it wasn’t until 1977, in the case Coker V Georgia, that the death penalty for rape was ruled unconstitutional. ln today’s world, even a joke about rape, can have dire consequences for the teller.
These facts are of course true only of rape of a women by a man. At the same time men got the death penalty for raping women, homosexual rape of a man (gay or straight) was not even a crime. As for jokes, it is an almost a prerequisite when you hear about a man going to prison, that one makes a homosexual rape joke.
As for rape being sexy, the book “Beyond Heaving Bosom’s” found that in the 1970’s an 1980’s, in romantic novels, “routinely”, the hero raped the heroine and then she later came to realize how much she loved him (from the article, “You Should Read More Romance Novels, Reason Magazine, July-August 2016 page 56).
The treatment of Carroll’s claims has parallels to the Rolling Stone article that alleged a gang rape at the University of Virginia. In that case, the articles writer Sabrina Erdely reported that getting into a Sorority or Fraternity took precedence over reporting a gang rape. In fact, the baseless charges cited in the article (see my piece “Sex Crime Allegations before Me Too” on this website) unsurprisingly got worldwide attention. The fraternities and sororities were shut down, the fraternity where the crime was alleged to take place was vandalized, rocks were thrown in into the fraternity building etc.
Once again, the idea that rape of women is not taken seriously is being espoused. In addition, while Carroll’s claims do not reach the absurdity of the UVA story, the many questionable aspects of Carroll story have not been given near the scrutiny they deserve.
For the sake of brevity and so my words can be easily checked, I will discuss one interview. That done by Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC. (See, “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Transcripts … Monday, June 24, 2019 Guests … E. Jean Carroll, Ryan Goodman, Doug Jones).
LAWRENCE O’DONNEL E JEAN CARROLL INTERVIEW
Carroll’s story sounded suspicious to me from the start. She related that the two saw each other in the plush department store, Bergdorf Goodman. Trump recognized her as “that advice lady” and asked for help in buying a gift. Rich business men generally assign gift buying to others. In this case, he goes into the store by himself, without even knowing what to buy.
The married Trump, asks Carroll to buy something for “a girl.” They hang out in the lingerie section and he asks Carrol to put on a see-through body suit. Would Trump not care that this writer might publish their interactions in detail? In fact, Carrol told O’Donnell that writing about their meeting was her original plan.
The store is across from Trump Towers, so most likely Trump has been in there. But a journalist should have asked if he had ever been in the store. If not, the story ends there.
Perhaps, none of what is described above is uncharacteristic of Trump. But there is much more from the interview that should make anyone question Carroll’s veracity.
- O’Donnell not only did a softball interview, he guided Carrol around the bases. The Billy Bush tape in which Trump mentioned he could get away with grabbing a women’s genitals is a case in point.
Prior to showing a clip of that interview, O’Donnell mentioned that he is giving ”one more piece of corroborating evidence”, thus helping to lead Carroll to the desired response. Instead Carroll said that when she first heard the Billy Bush tape: “I was astounded, I was absolutely astounded.”
Clearly, her claims against Trump exceed what the President said on tape to Billy Bush. How could she possibly be astounded? Only when O’Donnell mentioned the similarities in the tape to her claims, did she get it, replying,” Yes, Yes. Yes.”
- Carroll, has mentioned that the dress she wore the day of the alleged assault has never been washed. O’Donnell reveled the big news that she could still file charges and their still may be Trump’s DNA on that dress. To the information about the dress Carroll’s reply was: “How can that be possible.”
But what doesn’t seem possible is that if she saved that dress from the 1995 to 1996 the time period when she claimed she was raped, that she could be surprised that there might be DNA evidence on it. After all, in 1998 there was the Monica Lewinsky dress with DNA that received tremendous attention. What is plausible, is that she came up with this explanation long after that time, when the Lewinsky scandal was no longer fresh in her mind.
What about the two confidants, she told about the rape? Even if she never mentioned the dress to them, during the Lewinsky scandal, wouldn’t they ask if she still had that dress?
- After the news that she can still press charges, she still showed no interest in doing so. During the interview, O’Donnell said: “When I read your book, you do have a bigger regret than not reporting Donald Trump.” So we can infer that she really wanted to nail Trump even before he came to be the leader of the free world. Why not now?
Of course, she can have the dress checked for DNA even if she doesn’t charge rape. Why doesn’t she? I will add in that regard, if the dress is examined it also should be determined if the dress really has not been washed for all these years and even look at aspects such as, is the dress really back from the time of the alleged assault. Trump’s DNA on the dress is not prove of rape, but it is powerful evidence. I say, show naysayers like myself were wrong. As they say on the “Learning Channel”, “Say Yes to that Dress.”
- O’Donnell next asked why she will not press charges. Her answer was: “I would find it disrespectful to the women who were down on the border who have been raped around the clock down there without any protection.” What sense does that make in any instance? In this particular situation, Trump’s is being held responsible for a lot of the conditions at the border. Her reporting an actual rape, could help get him out of office. Clearly, it seems quite disrespectful to these women not to make the charges. Someone should ask these women if they want her to report the rape, if they say yes, how can she not do so?
Feminist’s constantly mention that far too few women report being raped. E. Jean Carroll is setting a precedent by her reason for not reporting rape, yet feminists remain silent.
- Carroll remembered her encounter with Trump in detail, even the time, saying “it’s like 6:37 in the evening.” However, she did not know the year, which she said was either 1995 or 1996. She said she told two other women about the rape, the day it happened. So we can also conclude that the two also didn’t remember the year of the assault. Even the one who wanted her to charge rape and thus had reason to keep track of the date.
It appears from Carroll’s words, that she is using the time of day to explain how empty the store was. Because if someone saw Donald Trump in the store, wouldn’t they remember it? Wouldn’t people recall Trump looking at women’s lingerie with some women? However, Carroll claimed of the lingerie department that day “there was no one there.”
However, people did see them in the store according to Carroll. Earlier in the interview she noted that in the store, “he greets the people like he is the king of Siam.” Carroll was a known person herself, having not just a column but a television show from 1994 to 1996. Wouldn’t someone seeing them together say in a voice heard by many, say she is that advice lady? This is gossip fodder. However, no one has come forward saying they remember seeing the two together.
Not knowing the date when the event happened or even the year, is also in her favor. If she is lying, she might cite a time of year when Trump could prove he was nowhere near the store. Does the store have film of that day? Not knowing the date makes it difficult to find such evidence if it exists.
- Rather than wear the lingerie as Trump desired, her idea is to get him to wear it over his pants. Why go to a dressing room to do this? She could just suggest he put it over his pants. Particularly since they were in the empty lingerie department. If he wanted her to try it on first, she could also have put it over her dress in the store.
She also observed “that the dressing room door – was unlocked and open, which is very unusual for Bergdorf`s.” In addition, there was not even an attendant around. All of this is crucial to her story. Otherwise how would someone not know that Trump was in the dressing room with her, if in fact that would let him in? Also, what is keeping an attendant from doing their job at a time the store is unusually empty?
In addition, there are people whose job it is to watch the customers. Would none of them not see any of this, or the negligence involving the attendee and the unlocked room?
- There is no evidence that they checked to see if anyone saw them go into the dressing room. But when Trump supposedly attacked her, rather than scream, Carroll explained that she consciously decided to laugh in order to deter Trump. One would think she might have screamed, even unintentionally. Being in the dressing room, she would not know if it is true, that there was still nobody around in this popular store. Nor would Trump.
Over time, police have been handicapped by things that are no longer acceptable to ask women who charge rape. One being, that in many places, using a lie detector as a tool to help determine if a rape accuser is telling the truth is not permissible. Here are some taboo things that should be looked at in this case.
- Is sexual penetration of a resisting women standing up as easy as it seems to be in this case? I don’t know. I think someone with some expertise should be consulted. This should not be a taboo subject. It can help to prove or disprove rape allegations.
- It has been said that the fact that Carroll was 52 years old is not important because rape is not about sex. I am sure that rape is a lot about sex. But it does not matter if you believe that or not. Because for whatever reason younger women are more likely to be raped.
- A new thing which could make the truth harder to discern was claimed by Carroll in this interview. Trump claimed Carroll was lying in order to sell a book. Carroll countered in the interview and elsewhere, that such a charge would only be made against a woman. Good God!!