Whenever the story of my attack airs somewhere with an update, we get an inflow of traffic on our Foundation website and here (of course, this blog doesn't have a whole lot to do with anything and does not offer advice - it does address some things about my case until the online components such as survivor stories and blog are ready on STARS).
While I don't read much of the email feedback right away, I am always amazed by the one or two comments which are something like this: "so, what's the real story? Only the victim talks about the other rapists involved, so that must be a lie." Actually, if you read the AP articles regarding the case, it was brought up in Court by the prosecutor. Mr. Beebe's investigator is the one who unearthed the fact that others were involved. I certainly wish it weren't true. As a result of that and witness testimony and interviews, we do indeed know their identities. But, without more than strong circumstantial evidence, you simply cannot charge them. It's the realities of why many criminal cases are not ideal.
The piece that aired today, keep in mind, was taped almost over 18 months ago and the case progressed from there. I certainly didn't watch it, but I am hoping producers added the various updates. The public thirsts for knowledge that they simply cannot have.
Understand the media takes what it wants, bends and shapes it to make for good ratings. There is not time enough in 44 minutes to explain all of the subtle nuances of the story. Also, any rape survivor has the right to be upset when someone reenters their peaceful life in order to assuage his own guilty conscience. Rape is about power and control. It's scary to have "that person" enter your life, whether via letter, in person, email. No one can walk in a victim's shoes but the victim and what they decide to do is their right. Keep that in mind. And do visit theSTARS site often for updates!
Be well...
4 comments:
Liz,
I saw the Dateline piece that aired today, and yes, there was an update at the very end of the segment.
The update first showed a picture of Beebe with his new bearded look, the same one that you have on the blog, along with a caption that told of Beebe's recent release.
His picture was followed by a picture of you in your office, the one that's on the STARS page, along with the statement you released to the media about Beebe's early release.
You're absolutely right: the Datelline piece by itself certainly doesn't convey the whole story. By contrast, the Hook article and the article by Kristen give a much more complete--and much darker and more ominous--story of what happened.
Mario
Mario -
Thank you! I wish people understood that media does what media needs to sell. Nothing wrong with that. But viewers should not be left with more questions, right?
Liz,
Exactly!
Btw, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was slamming the Dateline piece, becuz I wasn't.
The piece was a good one *as far as it went*, but left out so much other info.
However, in all fairness to Dateline, as you yourself pointed out, they only have 44 minutes to tell the story, and therefore by necessity have to be selective-- *cautious*, which is why the piece never mentioned Dean Canevari's name or Ms. Quagliana's name.
Mario
So true - for some unknown reason, Legal would not, at that very very early stage in the case, allow NBC to publish names of those involved - only those of us who signed releases. God knows Canevari probably would not sign one. However, he did speak, I believe to the AP and The Hook.
Post a Comment