#FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment

Posted on | May 27, 2013 | 44 Comments

“The first time occurred in the bathroom of the W wing at Sebastian High School. [The 14-year-old] stated that they sent text messages to each other to meet in the bathroom. [The 14-year-old] and Kaitlyn went into a bathroom stall and started kissing. Kaitlyn then took [the 14-yea-old’s] pants off and put her finger inside of [the 14-year-old’s] vagina.”
— Detective Jeremy Shepherd, Indian River County Sheriff’s Office, Feb. 16 arrest affidavit

“Our client is a model citizen.”
— Julia Graves, attorney for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt

There’s something pathetic about the reaction of people who’ve bought into a clever lie, once the truth starts coming out. Something they had been told was good and true and right is revealed to be bad and false and wrong, and their emotional investment in the appealing deception causes those who were innocently deceived to lash out at the truth-tellers.

Creating a myth of innocence for a criminal — the arrest affidavit makes clear that Kaitlyn Hunt admitted breaking the law — requires many elements, including deception, as in Steve Hunt’s Change.org petition that misstates the ages of both girls:

My daughter Kaitlyn . . . is not guilty of anything other than a high school romance, but is being prosecuted . . . because she has a girlfriend who is 15. . . .
The two girls began dating while Kaitlyn was 17 but her girlfriend’s parents blamed Kailtyn for their daughter’s homosexuality. They waited until after Kaitlyn turned 18 and went to the police to have charges brought against her.

Let’s call this what it is: A deliberate lie.

To repeat the facts that must be repeated until deceived people turn loose of the pleasant lie, Kaitlyn Hunt’s 18th birthday was Aug. 14, 2012 — she was 18 before beginning her senior year at Sebastian High School — and the younger girl was born in April 1998, so that she was 14 from the time she met Kaitlyn last fall and throughout the duration of their sexual involvement. The younger girl was still 14 when Kaitlyn was arrested in February, and did not turn 15 until last month.

Steven Hunt lied, and people believed his lies, and by the time the arrest affidavit became public last week, the belief in Kaitlyn’s victimhood — the target of an unfair prosecution motivated entirely by homophobia — had solidified in people’s minds. The woman who sincerely believed this case was about “a schoolgirl crush . . . and a little innocent flirting” was obviously a fool (crushes and flirting are not felonies in Florida), but how was she to know any different, based on what she had been told by the clever liars behind the “Free Kate” myth?

And what about Rachel Lockwood, who accuses truth tellers of “a huge defamation of character and slander”? Doesn’t she realize that the Hunt family and their advocates are the ones who have defamed not only Jim and Laurie Smith, parents of the younger girl, but also have wrongly impugned the integrity of law enforcement authorities in Indian River County, Florida? Does Rachel Lockwood have so little regard for truth and justice that she is willing to let the false “Free Kate” narrative discredit honest citizens and public officials?

Given the aggravating circumstances involved in this case, the plea deal offered by prosecutors was about as merciful as anyone could have expected, and Kaitlyn’s decision to reject that deal appears far more foolish now than it must have seemed to her misled supporters.

What will these deluded people say when they are forced to admit what I said on Thursday, that they have been enlisted — willingly or not — in a campaign to normalize pedophilia?

This is a serious charge, which was immediately met with the counter-accusation that I was inciting a “moral panic.” Yet this is a subject about which I have more extensive knowledge than some readers may apprehend. Please carefully read my 2002 article about the arrest of the pedophile lawyer Lawrence Stanley:

An American lawyer who specialized in defending those accused of child pornography is under arrest in Brazil, charged with violating that country’s laws against child exploitation.
Lawrence Allen Stanley, 47, was arrested June 8 after police in Salvador say they found more than 1,000 photographs and more than 100 videos of young girls in swimsuits and underwear. . . .
He has written several articles about child pornography, including one in 1987 in the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika. “Law enforcement officials have exaggerated the incidence of possession of child pornography,” Stanley said. “Only 14 percent depicted children engaged in sexual conduct with adults,” he said, referring to photos in child pornography magazines.
Those assertions were expanded by Stanley in a 1988 Playboy article, “The Child Pornography Myth,” in which he argued that pedophiles were a “small, essentially insignificant group.”
Stanley’s work was cited by Judith Levine in her recent book, “Harmful to Minors,” which several critics said promoted pedophilia. The Levine book was sold by one of Stanley’s Web sites, which praised it as an “important and compelling book” debunking “myths that … adult attraction to children is a serious and pervasive threat.”

Read the whole thing, and then carefully read my post from January of this year, “Rush Limbaugh Is Right: The Academic Pro-Pedophile Movement Is a Real Danger.” You can say whatever you want, but don’t try to tell me the danger is not real, when one of Lawrence Stanley’s fellow contributors to Paidika, Theo Sandfort, is now a professor at Columbia University.

Don’t try to tell me that people like Lawrence Stanley and Theo Sandfort aren’t cheering the fact that the ACLU and the tax-exempt 501(c)3 Purpose Foundation have taken up the “Free Kate” banner.

Don’t tell me such creatures are not smiling in satisfaction at the incremental arguments that excuse an 18-year-old fingering a 14-year-old in a toilet stall as “high-school romance.”

Don’t tell me that people like that aren’t pleased that a Republican state senator in Florida is now proposing to “revise sex offenses law, offering protection to 18-year-olds like Kaitlyn Hunt.”

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”

Appeals for leniency for Kaitlyn Hunt are one thing, but people will have a hard time finding any defensible grounds on which to fight to have the charges dropped altogether, as the Purpose Foundation specifically demanded in its “Free Kate” petition. And if Florida state Sen. Thad Altman thinks he can “revise sex offenses law” to protect Kaitlyn without actually making 14-year-olds more vulnerable to sexual exploitation, he’s suffering under a tremendous delusion.

The argument has been made by some people that because the age difference in this case (44 months) is not so extreme, and because the younger girl’s age at the inception of the affair (14 years, 8 months) is not so young, that this case should not be subject to prosecution as a felony.

OK, fine: How young is too young, and how great must the age difference be, before felony charges can be applied to consensual sex?

You are free to answer that question however you like, but it would be difficult to imagine a law that would decriminalize Kaitlyn Hunt’s actions without also potentially permitting 16-year-olds to cruise the middle-school parking lot on the prowl for seventh-graders.

Misdemeanor? You’re telling me that the parents of a 14-year-old who discover their daughter missing, as Jim and Laurie Smith did, and then learn she’s been having an overnight dildo romp with an 18-year-old, should be told that this is only a misdemeanor?

Homosexual Activists and Their Lefty Supporters
Have Been Going All Out to Defend Pedophilia

Rather a provocative headline by Donald Douglas, but where is the legal line that any of these people would draw and permit it to be strictly enforced, even against cute green-eyed blondes?

Lies deceive and sophistry confuses, and people are more easily deceived and confused when the cultural elite tell them stories carefully constructed to enlist their sympathies. Speaking of which, our film correspondent Dan Collins has news from Cannes:

#FreeKate Wins the Palme d’Or
[T]his year’s Palme d’Or for best film went to a movie that represents the lesbian love relationship between a 15-year-old girl and an older woman, which the NY Times casts as an “awakening.”

Take that, you godbag christofascists! John Hayward at Breitbart.com hopes life doesn’t imitate art as much as art imitates life:

Sounds like a great film to catch after spending the afternoon at a “Free Kate” rally. Hopefully they allow a bathroom break while this three-hour saga grinds on. And hopefully the bathrooms will be supervised.

Another top contender at Cannes? An S&M flick by Roman Polanski. Obviously, he should have gone with a “not rape-rape” theme.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Crime, Culture, Kaitlyn Hunt, Sex

Comments

44 Responses to “#FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment”

Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:21 pm

But Kate’s a cheerleader?
Dana
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:38 pm

Our esteemed host wrote:

Don’t tell me that people like that aren’t pleased that a Republican state senator in Florida is now proposing to “revise sex offenses law, offering protection to 18-year-olds like Kaitlyn Hunt.”

Actually, such a “Romeo and Juliet” law already exists in Florida, which protects adults under 24 in sexual relationships with minors no younger than 16. The lovely Miss Hunt would have been protected by that law, had her victim been 16 or 17 years old. One wonders if the initial report that the victim was 15, rather than 14, was designed to make it look like Miss Hunt had missed protection by just one teeny-tiny year, rather than two.
BobBelvedere
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

RT @smitty_one_each: TOM #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment http://t.co/bu4sbz4k2a #TCOT
Dana
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

What if we are a little more . . . understanding . . . and say that sex is OK with a 14 year old? Then, soon enough, we’ll have a case involving a 13 year old, and, well, gosh, that’s just one little year, and can’t we be more sympathetic here? So, we’ll make it 13.

Next case: a 12 year old.
Koncerned Citizen
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

This goes hand in hand (pardon the pun) with the heartbreak homosexual adult males claim to be suffering over the boy scout’s decision not to allow them in the hen house
Dana
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:53 pm

The Boy Scouts can allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters if they wish, and then wind up with Boy Scout Troops of zero members. Even our liberal parents will think twice about allowing their 14 year old sons to go out camping in the woods with people they know are homosexuals.

Oddly enough, being a concerned parent will trump being a liberal.
Dana
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:55 pm

And concerned parents might have a few protective thoughts about sending their 13 year old sons out on camping trips with 15 year old openly homosexual fellow Scouts.
Matthew T. Mason
May 27th, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

Robert, if you have been following my “Don’t Free Kate” page on Facebook I have absolutely asked the question of whether those who founded and run that group are for the sexual abuse of children. I have provided evidence of such.
robertstacymccain
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:02 pm

Actually, Florida law — in light of the “Romeo & Juliet” loophole — is more lenient than in some other states. But what people are missing in the Kaitlyn Hunt case (as I’ve pointed out more than once) are the aggravating circumstances. First, sex in a toilet stall, then the runaway episode in January. The prosecutors offered a deal that would have let Hunt avoid prison, and would have left it up to the judge at sentencing to decide whether sex-offender registry would be appropriate, and the Hunts rejected that deal.

Now they’ve got this huge nationwide public relations campaign going, intended to pressure the prosecutors into dropping the charges altogether or, failing that, to so prejudice a jury in Kaitlyn’s favor that she would be acquitted at trial.

Meanwhile, as I have said, they’ve actually convinced some people that the real problem is that Florida law is not lenient enough!

Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
Prophet Mohammed
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:07 pm

I say nine is just fine!
MPinteractiv
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

Nadine Smith ( another Smith ,no family ties with the parents of the 15 yo ) appears to be the one pulling the strings of that show , while gambling with Kate future ( by not taking the plea deal ) to make a statement and to make Kate a martyr of the LGBT cause :

if you dont know who she is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Smith

please read the following article very very carefully :

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/kaitlyn-hunt-becoming-symbol-in-vero-beach

it gives a lot of context.
LN_Smithee
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:31 pm

*Shudder* I didn’t know Theo Sandfort was a professor at an American university. Sandfort was the lead author of the “scholarly” book Male Intergenerational Intimacy, co-authored by the late Edward Brongersma, a former MP in the Netherlands who actively and fervently promoted “boy-loving” as normal and healthy. Sandfort’s at Columbia? Well, that figures, seeing that the NYC Ivy kept its collective lip zipped as one of its professors (married to another Columbia prof) was caught boinking his own daughter (not his step-daughter — his daughter.)
Dianna Deeley
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

When the jury actually hears the facts of the case, though, this is going to turn out to have been a very bad strategy.
Kevin Trainor Jr.
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

Kevin Trainor Jr. liked this on Facebook.
LN_Smithee
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

BTW — The San Francisco Public Library’s copy of Sandfort & Brongersma et al’s Male Intergenerational Intimacy was donated to its Gay & Lesbian wing by a famous gay writer not usually associated with pedophilia. There was at one time an acknowledgement of this writer’s gift on the inside of the front cover of the book. It is no longer there, and I have not been able to find my Xerox copy of the acknowledgement. But I guarantee you that if I mentioned this writer’s name, you would know it. If I can find it, I promise to provide the evidence.

Another blind item regarding that book: One of the benefactors that helped publish Male Intergenerational Intimacy is an independently wealthy heir who formed at least two Southern California foundations dedicated to amateur sports involving young men.
Matthew W
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

Damn straight !!
oncefallendotcom
May 27th, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

http://once-fallen.blogspot.com/2013/05/if-we-truly-want-equality-then-register.html

If the message is truly about “equality,” then either prosecute Kate, or stop prosecuting male 18-year-olds when they do the same thing. Enough with the double standards!
Matthew W
May 27th, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

I suspect a plea deal will be reached before this goes to trial.
The parent’s blew it big time.
Ogie Ogilthorpe
May 27th, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

My god are you people fucking morons.
LN_Smithee
May 27th, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

No. We’re not. If you still buy the Hunts’ baloney, you are.
Andrew Norris
May 27th, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

Putting aside all other issues, the fact that she rejected a plea might be because of other, sane reasons. Putting aside the issues, how many of you read exactly what the DA offered?
the charge would have been CHILD abuse. How’s that any better than not being on the sex offender registry?
(Side note, I have no problems with Hunt doing time. She was 18, the classic rule is half +7, 16. Not 15, not 14 and 8 months. Stat. Rape seems ideal for this… no?)
Finrod Felagund
May 27th, 2013 @ 10:25 pm

That rule is from xkcd, actually; the “it’s not creepy to date them if they’re older than x/2 + 7 (where your age=x): http://xkcd.com/314/

Note how this rule presumes people don’t date under the age of 14. Someone at 14 years 8 months would have an age range of 14 years 4 months to 15 years 4 months available to them, by this rule.

For another example, Fred Thompson at age 65 marrying a 41-year-old is ok: 65/2 + 7 = 39.5 < 41.
Andrew Norris
May 27th, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

I first learned of the rule when I was 11. RAH’s Number of the Beast. *smiles*
(And I never said I agreed with it, it’d be 27 here.)
I’m pretty sure the rule’s older than even that. (read I am sure, but I have no idea where it came from)
However, it doesn’t really change the facts. She admitted she did the action, she did the crime.
However, I can tell you this, I would NOT accept a plea that involved the words “child abuse” “child molestation” or similar. What’s the point of being off the sex registry with those convictions?
So, her lawyers MIGHT have advised her of the long term punishment involved with the plea. She might have made the rational decision, if she was to be nailed with that, what’s the point in not going to jail? She’d be as screwed if she was on the sex offender list.
Finrod Felagund
May 27th, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

Yeah, I’m always hesitant to proclaim judgement in cases like this, simply because it’s highly likely there are significant facts not known to the public.
Andrew Norris
May 27th, 2013 @ 10:39 pm

Exactly. Which is why I’m amused at Mccain’s view her not taking the plea, was a stupid idea. Frankly, with any conviction involving the word “child” in it? Can’t be a teacher. Forget medical and law school.
Forget psychology or most other medical fields.
most businesses won’t hire her period, even after the 7 year clock runs out.
Not accepting the plea might be the rational choice… in the sense of “If I go down, I’m screwed ethier way, might as well roll the dice”… or wait for a plea that gets something like stat. rape, and the R/J law imposed.
I’d take time on that, over any child conviction
Finrod Felagund
May 28th, 2013 @ 12:22 am

Different people have different standards of judgement; I try not to get into the weeds discussing that, since often it just comes down to a difference of opinion, and gentlemen can disagree agreeably.

What I saw as possibly a reason they didn’t take the plea deal was because there was no guarantee that she wouldn’t end up on a sex offender registry if they took the deal.
K-Bob
May 28th, 2013 @ 12:58 am

Indeed.
We the United Saps of America! | The Pink Flamingo
May 28th, 2013 @ 5:59 am

[…] #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment […]
Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » “I asked my three teenage daughters what they thought.”
May 28th, 2013 @ 7:13 am

[…] May 28: #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment […]
Pablo
May 28th, 2013 @ 8:25 am

“Old enough to pee, old enough for me!” – The Prophet
Ric the Magnificent
May 28th, 2013 @ 10:46 am

Cannes award for teen lesbian move + Europeans repeatedly tweeting support for Free Kate + Congressman seeking to insulate 18+ year olds from predatory sex on minors = making underage sex legal for adult European travelers to Florida, US. Is this all coincidence? It’s seemingly more difficult not to connect these dots. Many Europeans vacation in Florida, certainly underage sex is on the mind of some of them. I’m not necessarily saying I believe it, merely positing the theory
Melody Warbington
May 28th, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

No doubt in the leftists’ world, all pedophiles are model citizens.
Dana
May 28th, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

That, Mr Ogilthorpe, is not an argument. Do you believe that the parents of adolescent boys wouldn’t have concerns about sending their sons out in the woods with an openly homosexual Scoutmaster?
VIDEO: Saint Kate of the Blessed Finger: ‘Beat Her F–king Ass! Get That Bitch!’ : The Other McCain
May 29th, 2013 @ 7:53 am

[…] May 27: #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment […]
richard mcenroe
May 29th, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

Role model citizens, anyway.
Free Kate | Junior Ganymede
May 29th, 2013 @ 10:52 pm

[…] from a society that encourages and applauds her for preying on a 14-year old girl. […]
Quite Possibly the Most Eloquent Sentence of My Entire Journalism Career : The Other McCain
May 29th, 2013 @ 11:39 pm

[…] May 27: #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment […]
sysadminwatdo
May 31st, 2013 @ 1:08 am

Alleged victim. Just as you have the right to speak your mind about her in a public forum, provided you believe it to be based in truth, she has the right to a presumption of innocence.
Melody Warbington
May 31st, 2013 @ 1:34 am

Presumption of innocence is a legal right in court. We’re under no such obligation to presume Kate innocent now or even if she’s found not guilty in court. Further, by her own admission, she knew what she was doing was wrong, and her parents further victimized the 14 year old girl by publicizing the family’s names.

I still believe O.J. did it, too.
Dana
May 31st, 2013 @ 10:46 am

She has already admitted to having had some form of sex with a 14 year old; since the 14 year old is unable to consent, she is a victim.

You don’t even have your terms straight. If someone is murdered, the person who is arrested for the murder is the alleged killer until convicted, but the person who was murdered is not somehow only allegedly dead.

As for Miss Hunt’s presumption of innocence, the law and any jurors selected must give her that presumption of innocence; those of us unconnected with the actual legal proceedings may believe anything we wish.
sysadminwatdo
May 31st, 2013 @ 10:59 am

In a murder case, you’d be correct. Those who claim to be victims of sexual assault are generally alleged victims. It’s more a semantics issue than a legality issue, I suppose, specific to those making claims. That aside, many people have admitted to many things both under duress and otherwise. Admission != conviction. Surely you’ve heard of the Innocence Project? Without false confessions being a legitimate problem, they’d have far less to do.
Dana
May 31st, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

So, what is your position? Is it your position that we do not know if Miss Hunt actually had sexual contact with the 14 year old, or that the 14 year old isn’t necessarily a victim even if such contact occurred?
sysadminwatdo
May 31st, 2013 @ 2:20 pm

First, we do not know the truth at this time, and data is still becoming available. Even for the jury of public opinion to make a decision would be premature at this point.

Second, even if we knew her confession to be true and correct, as well as voluntary, and we knew that events occurred as described, the 14 year old is not automatically a victim by definition (putting aside the letter of FL law for a moment). The existence of the relationship did not make her a victim just because there was a four year age gap. It’s common for freshmen and seniors to date, and that’s essentially what this boils down to.

Further, with regards to the law itself, I’m inclined to believe (not 100% certain, need more data) that the law would NOT be applied in the same way to a heterosexual couple with an ongoing relationship. A one night stand, maybe, but it’s still less than likely. The state always has an option whether to pursue a case, and the orientation of the parties is likely a significant factor in their decision to do so. It’s also likely a significant factor in the (terrible) plea bargain she was offered.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But based on what I personally know from reasonably trusted sources (legitimate news organizations, for instance), I believe I am correct.

It’s also interesting to me that the parents of the alleged victim in this case are an interracial couple. It was not all that many years ago when marrying across racial lines would have been punishable by “unofficial extradjudicial proceedings” involving a rope, the bumper of a truck, and a tree. Even after that mostly stopped, it was still quite illegal in many places. If those laws were still in force, you can bet these fine folks would be the first to allow themselves to be made an example of in order to attempt to impose social change. Only partially relevant, but interesting and may or may not have bearing on their motives.
She Blinded Me With Pseudo-Science : The Other McCain
June 9th, 2013 @ 12:27 am

[…] May 27: #FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment […]