Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Kathy Hogan's "Political Operatives" Idea Regarding Judge Teresa Carr Deni

Dear Kathy Hogan,

you've been copying and pasting the same message all over the internets. Have you noticed that no one is buying it? There's a good reason why. It's because your claims are ridiculous. I'm going to show how bogus they are by addressing them piece by piece.

The part of this story you don’t know is that this was a manipulation of the press by political operatives, who purposely fabricated a twisted version of the facts right before an election, to smear Judge Deni’s reputation for political reasons that have nothing to do with the case they used to launch the campaign against her.

Here's the thing, you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim about this all being the work of "political operatives" and you know what? Even if you did, it wouldn't make any difference as long as what they were saying is true. That being the case, do you have anything, anything at all, that shows Carr Deni did not throw out the sexual assault charges against Dominique Gindraw? Do you have anything, any sort of information from Carr Deni, that shows she did not say what she is on the record as saying? Have she even retracted those statements?

Once they got one paper to print their twisted version of the facts, the other papers piled on, repeating the false facts from the first story.

Nope. Several different sources have been used by the journalists and feminists speaking out about this idiot Carr Deni. The assistant district attorney and the victim and even the police have all backed up the facts as they've been described in newspapers around the world.

What you think happened is not what happened, and her political opponents knew they had her over a barrel, because the rules of judicial conduct prevent her from arguing the facts of a pending case in the press.

If Teresa Carr Deni cared about judicial conduct, she wouldn't have dropped the sexual assault charges in the first place. Secondly, even SHE doesn't think that judicial conduct prevents her from arguing the facts of a pending case in the press. SHE is the one who told a reporter that the victimized woman had sex with another man after Gindraw raped her and before she went to the police. By the way, that was a complete lie but I don't suppose you'd find that inappropriate for her to do either. Let me guess--the political operatives made her say that, right? By the way, did they also force her to say that this case "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped"? Evidently, Teresa Carr Deni has no problem commenting on the case when she wants to, so why should we see HER as the victim here?

Some people will not find it easy to accept that they were played.

And some people think that we should ignore the facts.

Others who know how politics are played in Philly will acknowledge that what I am saying has a certain familiar ring of truth to it.

You can take your "ring of truth" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine because all that matters here are the facts. Unless you can prove what you're saying, there's no reason why we should believe that all these people, including Carr Deni (whose own words convict her), are lying.

I have known Judge Deni for better than 30 years. I am telling you that what you read in the papers, and the firestorm that was created out of it, was a calculated political manipulation that had nothing to do with the truth.

Well, why didn't you say so? I mean, you are obviously more informed about this case than the assistant district attorney, the police officers, the victim, and the judge herself, right? Give me a break! You could have known Carr Deni for 100 years and it still wouldn't change the facts of the case. Do yourself a favor. Before you come back to my blog, make sure you have something intelligent to say.


Anonymous said...

Great answer.

She hasn't hit my blog yet, durnit. I haven't had a chance to not approve her message.

Blackamazon said...

Adopt me please cause i love you

bint alshamsa said...


you know it took me a long second to figure out exactly what you were saying. Your humor is unmatched!

bint alshamsa said...


Girl, you know I can't adopt you! How can a person adopt their own sister?


belledame222 said...

Well, I responded over there, too, and she (?) responded back. Apparently you're from Philly and just mad the judge won for political reasons, Bint.

I gotta say, I'm still not at all convinced Kathy Hogan passes the Turing test. I feel dumb to've been arguing with a 'bot; on the other hand, -if- there's an actual live person there...actually either way it's -really- creepy. I don't understand the Internets some days, I really don't.

Did you look at the other comments on that blog, though? Taxes are so high, we shouldn't have to pay for siedwalk repair, people should watch where they're going, and where are all the trashmen anyway? Kind of speaks volumes about the whole sorry thing.

belledame222 said...


Bint, great response to her at BnG. Did you catch this little gem, though? I missed it the first time through, but, OH. NO.

For women who proport to care about other women (ain’t I a woman?)

See, the reason I thought she was a bot is because I WANTED to believe it was a bot. Because the alternative is SO DEPRESSING. Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Man, if she thinks this is internet dogpiling, she should go yell at the transphobes on MWMF.

Bint, you're my hero. What you said to her, what you do. You don't back down and you'd never defend a woman who demeans a rape victim.


What I have trouble understanding is... if all that Kathy Hogan says is true... why hasn't Judge Deni responded by now? I think there is difference between discussing the details of a case and responding to allegations.

I also think that the quotes attributed to Judge Deni would have to be complete fabrications in order for me to accept Kathy Hogan's stance (and if so, why hasn't she responded to that?) I don't think those are quotes that could be taken out of context. In any context, they still bother me.

Anonymous said...


Found this blog after reading bout your spat with Hogan.

She keeps on deleting your comments in her blog and trying to hide what happened.

Looks like you were right.

Anonymous said...

Bint is suspicious, others have said I'm a bot, about why I would post on this blog, as if I somehow "invaded" it.

I posted here in response to comments I read on this blog about Judge Deni. I posted ABOUT Judge Deni. I thought it was ok to do that. Was I wrong to think that?

It wasn't like I came onto your blog and posted my views about global warming.

Apart from all this, I volunteer to host a small town community blog for local residents to post notices of local interest, like cake sales, senior citizen events, car washes, concerns about pot holes, and such.

You can mock this if you want, but these are decent hard working people, and I'm honored to provide a space for them to post notices and local concerns.

Bint, you also think the small town community blog is suspicious.

I am not hiding anything. Local residents aren't interested in a controversy about a ruling by a judge before an election in Philadelphia.

You are interested in this subject, so am I, but it's not a subject local residents are interested in.

I belong to other blog sites, some about the environment, lots of different subjects, and none of those topics would be appropriate to post on the community blog site either.

As for why Judge Deni does not respond to the attacks against her, she's not allowed to. The rules of judicial conduct prohibit her from explaining or discussing her ruling.

Some people don't know this, or they don't believe it, and they accuse her of "hiding." She's not hidng, I'm not hiding, nobody's hiding.

The fact that she is not allowed to respond makes some people even madder, and they say all sorts of nasty things about her that aren't true, but she can't respond to it.

One rumor is that she let the defendant go. That's not true. He's sitting in jail, facing a 5 to 10 year mandatory sentence if convicted, and the charges could change as more evidence is discovered.

Another rumor is that she doesn't think prostitutes can be raped, and that is absolutely false. Some people have even gone so far as to claim that they "heard her say" that in her ruling, and that is a flat out lie, but some people are ready to believe the worst.

I'd never make it as a judge. I wouldn't have the discipline or the temperament to keep my mouth shut if people were attacking me for things I didn't do.

That newspaper article was a total hatchet job.

It's going to be very hard to prove the defendant held a gun to the victim's head, but if the prosecutor can prove it, I hope the jury convicts, and that he gets a maximum sentence, and mandatory jail time.

I mentioned on another blog, look at the murder trial of the music promoter, Phil Spector, who shot his lover in the head. A whole bunch of his ex's got up and testified at the trial that he held a gun to their heads, too. Even with all this, the prosecutor still couldn't get a conviction.

The prosecutor can bring as many different charges before whatever judge he wants, but the important thing is to bring the charge that you can get a conviction on.

Al Capone killed a lot of people, still, they didn't "get him" on a murder charge, they were able to finally put him away on a charge of tax evasion.

You want the charge that gives you the best chance of a conviction, and it's not always obvious what the best charge is.

I hope this prosecutor will go after the other men who were allegedly involved. It would be great if other women rumored to have been victimized by these same men would come forward for the prosecution.

It used to be if the victim of a crime was a sex worker, forget it, you could almost never get a conviction. This is no longer the case, but it's still hard for a prosecutor to get members of a jury to set aside their negative attitudes, and base their verdict on the evidence.

You believe, I believe, that this woman was victimized by these men. What matters is what charges and accusations the prosecutor can prove. The process is never easy, and the outcome is never predictable.

The victim in this case was not at all disadvantaged by Judge Deni's preliminary ruling, and I don't think many people know that. The prosecutor can bring as many charges before as many judges as he wants to. It's done routinely.

In the end, it's not what charges you bring, it's what charges you can prove.


The only thing that makes it hard for me to believe this... are the quotes attributed to Judge Deni. I can understand if she is not able to discuss the case or her ruling, but if she was actually misquoted she should at least be able to respond to that. Even if only to admit or deny the quotes. Not explain, just admit or deny.

I think she should at least be allowed to say "I have been misquoted".

If those quotes are in fact accurate, it's hard for me to believe your side of the story because:
a) She has already been discussing the case in the press.
b) The quotes - in almost any context - disturb me and make me question your claim that she perhaps ruled in that way to ensure a conviction (which I'd almost agree with in the absence of such inflammatory statements).

The quotes I am referring to, among others, are:
1. "She consented and she didn't get paid . . . I thought it was a robbery."
2. "Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it? . . . I thought rape was a terrible trauma."
3. A case like this "minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that these quotes were fabricated or at least heavily twisted. However, until someone makes that claim (you have been defending Deni but not refuted the accuracy of those statements) I will find it difficult to believe your version of events.

And I really do want to believe you because I don't want to think that there's just another biased judge out there, still in office.