The Eleanor Williams case in the UK has been getting some minor traction in this country, although nowhere near the coverage of the country of origin, and like the Johnny Depp, Marilyn Manson and Moira Donegan libel cases, when the accused actually fight for their due process rights, the credibility of their accuser’s cases tend to stumble, since when actual evidence is demanded, it all tends to fall within the “believe all women” mantra because, particularly in cases of sexual assault accusations, the only evidence in a vast majority of cases is a woman’s claim that it did happen, and how convincing she is in retelling her story, or how unsympathetic the accused is.
Thus sexual assault and abuse claims are the “exception” to due process rights;
“believe all women” is essentially a perversion of due process and the
presumption of innocence: the accused is the one who must prove that they
are innocent, since the “presumption” is that they are “guilty.”
Or at least that has been the case until recently. The people pushing the “believe all women” line who assumed that this narrative would be taken for granted have suffered a series of shocks of late, and people have started to ask “How many of these people are lying?” Even when “evidence” is produced, people are quick to point out that there are other explanations that produce “reasonable doubt.” I dug up this old photo comparison that showed Amber Heard’s alleged facial bruising looks exactly like the filler bruising on another woman, strongly suggesting that Heard took photos not necessarily of alleged abuse from Depp (which not a single witness claims to have actually seen—in fact even her sister only testified to seeing Heard hit Depp in that “famous” staircase incident) but random “natural” occurrences that she would find useful later…
…as she did with those photos of Depp napping, which didn’t “prove” anything except that, well, he was napping:
And of course we have seen Heard’s 2016 TRO cheek “bruise” magically reappear while in Spain in 2022 (is she still there?). But as Andy Signore pointed out on Popcorned Planet, the Williams case is in its details an even more appalling case of false accusations. Perhaps more appalling is the reaction to it by gender activists.
First a synopsis of the Williams case. In May 2020, Williams was “discovered” by police near her home on Walney Island, part of the constituency of Barrow, on the west coast of the UK near the Scottish border. She appeared to have injuries in which she claimed were inflicted after she was “kidnapped” after accepting a “ride” from some men, taken to a house where she was allegedly gang-raped by ten men. Later she posted on Facebook images of herself with terrible-looking bruises inflicted by an assailant with a hammer…
…and claimed that she was trafficked as a sex slave by an Asian gang in Amsterdam, having meant to be sold by a local merchant named Mohammed Ramzan at “auction” before the alleged “buyer” backed out. Besides accusing two local Indian Muslim men, she also accused a white man named Jordan Tengrove of rape; Tengrove’s house had the word “Rapist” spray-painted on it afterwards. Police found a hammer with her DNA and blood. Williams also provided names of other alleged victims of sex trafficking. The locals erupted with outrage; the Indian Muslim populace, a tiny minority of a 97 percent white community, was immediately under attack and the accused and their family members received various threats to their lives and livelihoods. A white supremacist named Tommy Robinson also appeared to take advantage of the racial animosity toward the minority community. All the accused were arrested and jailed, and there were reports of attempted suicide over the charges.
Eventually the truth won out. A pathologist cast doubt on Williams' account of how she was injured, judging the injuries to be self-inflicted. Video from a local store showed her purchasing the same hammer the police found:
She also used two cell phones to send and receive messages from women which she then used to create the appearance of them being trafficked by the accused. When contacted by police, the women confessed to being “surprised” by the claims that they were being sex-trafficked and didn’t even know the accused. Williams' sister claimed that she was with her in Amsterdam and she was never out of her sight, let alone being “sex-trafficked.”
Neighbors of the alleged gang-rape house stated that the property had been unoccupied for two years and they never saw anyone who was Asian near the place. When police questioned her about her inconsistent timelines, Williams merely replaced one lie with another. It was noted that Williams’ trafficking tale was similar to that of the film Taken, which stars Liam Neeson—who himself has a track record of making racially-insensitive and anti-immigrant commentary.
With her house of toothpicks crumbling down, Williams eventually confessed that her story was all lies, that she (like Donegan and her “Shitty Media Men” post—or for that matter Heard and WP op-ed or Evan Rachel Wood and her documentary) didn’t “know” that anyone would make such a fuss about her accusations, and apparently she was just looking for “attention,” and she would never be taken for account for her lies.
Instead, Williams was found guilty in a UK court for perverting justice, and sentenced to 8.5 years in prison, which some people regarded as “light,” including Tengrove, who is also appalled that Williams still receives support despite the evil thing she did.
Williams, perhaps not surprisingly, doesn’t feel she is “guilty” of anything. Her mind just wasn’t “right.” She has plenty of support in that “reasoning.” In Glamour UK magazine, which is all about superficiality and personal vanity, Faima Bakar says her false accusations should not be an excuse to not “believe all women,” and she cites a so-called report that during a period where 161 rape cases were prosecuted, only one was in “error.” The reality of course is that rape allegations are nearly always assumed to be true up front, and if the accused cannot “prove” they are innocent, then they must be “guilty.”
Then there is Helen Pidd of The Guardian, who frequently comments on gender issues (and frankly, there are too many women whose only “qualification” as “journalists” is that they have tunnel-visioned activist “opinions” on gender). In her piece “Why did Eleanor Williams frame innocent men for rape and trafficking?” Pidd goes on a bender about “PTSD” and “childhood trauma” that was "speculated" without, admittedly, any actual proof by a female psychiatrist, and evidence of such not found by a second psychiatrist, who happened to be a man. Pidd tells us we should ignore his “opinion” because
A male psychiatrist, Dr Martin Lock, commissioned by the prosecution, was not able to diagnose Williams with any psychiatric disorder. Bacon (the female psychiatrist) suggested this may be because he was a man, and that Williams had refused to engage with some male healthcare professionals in prison.
Pidd goes on absurdly about “speculations” that Williams got in bad with some bad characters, that she was a “drug mule” without offering one shred of evidence this was the case. School acquaintances thought she acted “strangely” on occasion, and sometimes skipped classes. But there was no documented evidence that she lived in an abusive home as a child. She was known to be a drug user, and possibly ran into “debt.” But how the hell was this supposed to change by making false rape accusations which had nothing to do with her life issues? She expected someone to start up a GoFundMe site?
The judge in his sentencing statement noted that the lack of evidence about Williams’ motivations and her refusal to “explain” herself means that we will “never know” until she does talk. But one of the accused, Ramzan, dryly noted that given all the support Williams was still receiving, would anyone believe her if she did tell the truth? Would her supporters only believe what they wanted to believe? That is the same question Tengrove is asking, frustrated that after all he went through, Williams is still being treated as the “victim” by many parties.
What do I think? I remember a John Oliver show about Brexit, and how it was largely motivated by anti-immigrant racism. An interview of a white woman on a local television news show gave her opinion on the state of “society,” and Oliver noted that racism doesn’t sound any less ignorant in a British accent. Anti-immigrant bigotry is on the rise in the UK in response to economic and social welfare issues, which immigrants and non-white citizens are largely scapegoated for.
In regard to Indian Muslims such as the ones targeted by Williams, Smriti Singh in the Independent writes that not just white Britons, but Hindus like the current prime minister and the past two Home Secretaries from the conservative Tory party have become the safe “face” of anti-immigrant prejudice and policies, and they need to own up to it, especially in regard to Indian Muslims. Overall, anti-immigrant sentiment in the constituency that Williams lives in is “average” per the country as a whole, which an Unherd poll last month indicated anti-immigration vs. pro-immigration sentiment was 3 to 1.
So why, outside of Tengrove, were the men Williams accused of beating, raping and trafficking her Muslim and “Asian”? I mean, it can’t be that “coincidental.” They were accused because it was easy to believe given the social and cultural climate in the UK. So why don’t we just admit the only logical motivation for Williams’ accusations? It doesn’t matter if she did it because she is a racist, or picking them as her victims because of their religion and “ethnicity” would likely bring more people to support her. White Britons were clearly more likely to believe her if the ones she accused were “different” or “strangers.” People who “know” each other don’t automatically assume all are “guilty”—unlike “strangers” who may all be “guilty.”
Thus the “explanation” for Williams’ actions can be just as simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment