In the interest of full disclosure, I watch "Today in New York" each morning at 5 AM, so I do like Darlene Rodriguez in her role as anchor. I don't feel like typing a novel right now, but here are the facts about her husband's recent arrest:
1) David (her husband) is a New Rochelle Police Officer
2) he was sent to a home on a domestic violence call
3) he arrested a 35-year-old man for roughing up his 17-year-old live in gal pal
4) Officer Rodriguez allegedly returned to the home hours later and raped the girl
5) The DA's office in Westchester doesn't take this lightly and issued a warrant
6) the victim was able to identify the perp's distinctive, um, "member"
7) there is some DNA evidence, according to reports
Here's the deal - generally, and I said GENERALLY - if you arrested for something, especially if you are one of the boys in blue, they undoubtedly have good reason for it, because face it, they do protect their own.
Darlene Rodriguez has stopped appearing in Court by her husband's side. She has staunchly defended him in the past, dismissing all the claims and evidence as "lies". Go, Tammy Wynette. But, get this: Rodriguez's defense attorney is claiming that - wait for it - his client has been identified and charged due to his "wife's celebrity". Please, this is not Kobe Bryant. Isn't there something better, like "consensual sex" that this guy can come up with?
Darlene - you do what you feel is right, but do NOT continue to live with a man who could be a rapist and is making you look like a fool.
Also, scroll down to those comments to see some shocking stuff. You see how far rape accusers get with the general public? Nice. We always lie, don't we? Cops are always good, aren't they? Watch, she won't testify as she's young and scared and he'll be free to rape again. Allegedly.
8 comments:
The comments were enough to make me lose my appetite. What a world we live in.
Liz,
Wow, I wasn't aware of this at all, and I am familiar with her program.
Unfortunately, cops do protect their own. I hope this isn't true but from what you have informed us of, it doesn't look good.
While my rapist was not a cop, I sure had the delightful experience of dealing with some pretty insensitive ones. I'll never forget the day a Manhattan SVU cop came to the ER to take my statement and said "Well Ms. Smith.... when we question him, he's gonna have quite a different story."
NO SHIT. Traumatized as I was, does he think I am so ignorant as to believe that my rapist and Scott Peterson's and OJ's of the world are going to come out and say yep officer, I killed Ron and Nicole, I killed Lacy. PLEASE.
I am still waiting for Alex Kelly to say he raped Hillary and Adrienne. Hell will freeze over and the devil will go ice skating before we ever see that day. I hope this girl does testify. Crooked insensitive cops and cops who commit crimes need to be dealt with.
Liz,
Or whoever you are..your "facts" are anything but..
Darlene has NOT stopped appearing at her husband's side, the "victim" did NOT identify anyone's "member" and there is absolutely NO DNA evidence...and that's just for starters. It's incredibly irresponsible for you to put such harmful, inaccurate information out there like that and until you have the credentials to call yourself a journalist, you should probably stop incorrectly using the term "allegedly".
Anon:
As I've stated in my blog posting, I enjoy Darlene and find her talented. She is not under fire. However, if you are a public figure and you speak about this, you come under fire, whether intentionally or not. It had been widely reported she was no longer accompanying Officer Rodriguez to court dates. I am sure I'd do that same. The secondary victims in many cases are the spouses of the accused.
However, do spew vitriol at the alleged victim and infer she is lying is wrong right now. It may be true or false. If you read my blog, you'll note that I found nothing is more offensive than a false rape claim. We are fair and just in our opinions, but to dismiss this accuser right now is premature. As I've said - and I learned this from being a complaining witness in the system before - if you are arrested, especially if you are a cop, there is usually enough probably cause for a warrant. It takes a lot to get a warrant. Usually.
All of the information I have on the case is what's been already published and no speculation is made here. If you have differing information, I am happy to print it and even do a separate blog posting. You'll find this is a friendly place where survivors and others come to air their thoughts. What's at issue? When victims don't report crimes for fear of the system grinding them down. Read the blog more and we'd like to hear more from you!
It has not been widely and certainly not accurately reported that Darlene stopped making court appearances. She missed just one, and it was not a court appearance, but a DNA test.
If you're going to report things that are "widely published", then you should take the time to actually REPORT which means gather news facts and information yourself. Just like you are able to repeat whatever you read without verifying the credibility of every source, so do many other bloggers and writers and that doesn't make any of it true. And by the way, in your post, all you do is speculate, although you just said otherwise. Saying that cops always protect their own and the sex was consensual IS speculation. Calling her Tammy Wynette and saying she looks like a fool is downright offensive.
But here are some facts, since you're not a journalist, reporter or anyone with any ethics:
-as of today, there is NO DNA evidence linking Rodriguez to this case. nor are there any witnesses.
-as of last week, the "victim" has already begun the process to sue the city of New Rochelle. I'm sure it's not about the money, or anything to do with Sgt. Rodriguez's wife's celebrity right?
There is no vitriol being spewed here, THOSE are facts...you should check them out.
Anon:
You are missing my point. And by the way, you used the word "victim". I've said "alleged victim", or, at times, complaining witness.
To be clear, if one is not a journalist or reporter does not make them without ethics. Surely, I am an extraordinarily ethical person. If you read the entirety of this blog, you will see that we reiterate - as is legal - only things that have been of the public record. We do not speculate.
That said, you make a compelling and obviously "close to the source" argument as you are no doubt friends of the couple and care very much for them. As I've said before, while we slant towards victims, real ones, we also give space and time to the wronglfully accused. Why? Because it makes our own cases, those of us telling the truth, much harder to prove.
DNA isn't needed to prove a case. It's a fairly recent and very important phenomenon. It has helped solve many cold cases. My own case did not involve DNA, but it is the lynchpin, certainly, in most cases these days. That there is no DNA has not been reported and is key. Thanks for clarifying.
Since the days of William Kennedy Smith and Kobe Bryant, anyone suing is automatically viewed as a "golddigger". On the contrary, when one cannot gain criminal remedy, it is up to the complaining witness to decide to sue civilly because the standards of proof are a bit lower and more humane. It is very difficult - almost impossible - to get a rape conviction in the U.S. I am sure the alleged victim is indeed suing the city as part of the whole package. It could have nothing to do with Sgt. Rodriguez's wife.
I personally don't feel that Mrs. Rodriguez is a fool; I only know that frequently, spouses are the last to know and will stand by blindly no matter what the situation. For example, if you read the Josef Fritzl posts, we take his wife to task a bit. In general. We want our secondary survivors (and those include significant others of the perps) to be strong and clear-eyed. I am sure this is a difficult time for her and she handles herself with grace and aplomb on the air.
As I've said before, this is a place of comfort for survivors and a healthy and lively discussion for all. You will notice that I am happy to publish your comments and invite the dialogue. However, when you accuse the blogger of "having no ethics" or "whoever you are", you taint the mood of the blog.
I completely understand this case involves those you probably love, so you are, of course, speaking out because you care. That is admirable. Hopefully, the alleged victim has advocates for her as well. Our Court system, while not perfect by any means, will hopefully find the truth. I am sure we can agree on that.
Wow, I didn't know that by having a blog you are automatically pretending to be a journalist. Good to know. I will keep that in mind next time I am BLOGGING.
Also, what journalist ever gets this 100% correct 100% of the time? Do you write them nasty letters, too?
Just wow.
Liz,
Thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your comments and thanks for publishing mine.
Post a Comment