AP Reporter Shamefully Suggests Child-Rapist/Genital-Multilator Patrick Kennedy Might Have Been Innocent

Reporting that it took 20 months for the victim to identify her step-father has her attacker, while failing to mention the mountain of evidence against him.

And, by the way, they got even that factoid wrong -- while she did originally claim to have been raped by two strangers, she did accuse her stepfather of the rape to a family member almost immediately. And she told her mother who the actual culprit was 3-4 months after the event.

A long time, to be sure, but not 20 months as AP claims.

I do understand concerns about child rape accusations leading to rushes to judgment, which put innocents behind bars (or worse). It's happened before, of course. (Read about the harrowing McMartin case in California, or watch the very good James-Woods-starring Indictment from HBO films about that travesty. Geraldo Rivera makes a real-life costarring appearance. And of course on the wrong side.)

But AP could have generally raised this concern without falsely suggesting that the cocksucker in this particular case was factually innocent of the crime.

Which he's not.

Here's some fairly graphic evidence he'd raped her. Having raped her so viciously he tore her vagina so that her anus was partly perforating through it, he had a blood problem to take care of.

Police also found that petitioner made two telephone calls on the morning of the rape. Sometime before 6:15 a.m., petitioner called his employer and left a message that he was unavailable to work that day. Petitioner called back between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. to ask a colleague how to get blood out of a white carpet because his daughter had “ ‘just become a young lady.’ ” Brief for Respondent 12.

At 7:37 a.m., petitioner called B & B Carpet Cleaning and requested urgent assistance in removing bloodstains from a carpet. Petitioner did not call 911 until about an hour and a half later.

His daughter had "just become a young lady." Wonderful. Girl, you'll be a woman soon. How's just after Mom leaves work for you?

I predicted yesterday that the MSM would attempt to downplay this story so as not to rile the public against runaway bleeding heart judicial activism. And so the cocksuckers at AP play this card -- pretending the decision is actually about the facts, and that he's simply an innocent man sprung by the court, rather than a categorical ban on the death penalty for all such monsters (oh, and, ps, he's guilty as fuck).

Who can be against overturning the death penalty wrongly imposed on an innocent man? Well, no one at all.

But that's not what happened here, AP's shameless intimations to the contrary.

posted by Ace at 07:11 PM

| Access Comments