While the Navy did spread rumors about the sailor’s homosexuality, the Navy’s first, flawed, report did not accuse him of being gay, but simply of being suicidal. The navy apparently made a real effort to prove he was gay, going so far as to interview his wife about how often they had sex, but ultimately couldn’t even sustain the level of pretend necessary to falsify their report.
Second: at the time, the Navy’s criminal investigation agency was known as NIS. They became NCIS in 1992.
Anyone else a little surprised to see somebody being gay being treated as interchangeable with somebody being a child molester? The two are not the same thing.
Pretty much every incidence where somebody is testifying to it in court it’s going to be accused harassment or molestation of some sort, be it gay or hetero.
Serious question: all the guys say they were seventeen and older when sexual contact occurred. While Long is definitely not a a pedophile (into pre-adolescent children), I don’t think he is a hebephile either (preferring ages 11-14) but definitely in the ephebophile camp. So, this suggests any transgression would fall under his being a homosexual with a preference for really young (late adolescent) men. Seemingly, all these categories suggest one can’t be declared a simple homosexual predator until the subject of pursuit is 21 years old.
Noe of this negates the creepier grooming period aspects of the allegations, but I’m curious about what category this falls in. Certainly there is a line many draw (and should) between pedophiles and assuming those people are gay, but can anyone shed any light on this age range / predilection definition?
I’m not saying there’s a connection, only asking what the overlap is, in light of the fact some people are saying his alleged actions make him a pedophile (child molester)?
Have you read any of the allegations about the gifts, trips, etc., he gave them prior to the beginning of sexual contact?
You originally asked if any public figures had been accused “of being gay”. Then you changed that to “accused of being gay (and a sexual predator)”. Then you said you actually meant people who “molested or harassed them sexually”.
If I wanted to know about people who cheated on their spouses, I wouldn’t start out by asking what kind of car they drove. Some gay people may molest children but being gay has nothing to do with being a molester. Just like some adulterers may drive Toyotas but committing adultery has nothing to do with driving a car.
Meh. I have my sources. (Can’t believe I’m saying that to an Evil Captor.)
At this point, when it comes to public figures who are homophobes, I think it’s a pretty safe bet to assume they’re closeted homosexuals until they prove otherwise.
Like Little Nemo, I don’t see what molestation has to do with homosexuality, but here’s a partial answer to the question as it now exists (until it morphs into something else):
In 1993, Stephen Cook accused Chicago Cardinal Bernadin of molesting him. Although Cook had gone to seminary and may have met Bernadin, there didn’t seem to have been much opportunity for the abuse to have occurred. Eventually, Cook recanted and apologized to Bernadin – he was emotionally troubled and mad at the church over something. I imagine if other people had jumped on Cook’s bandwagon, Bernadin would have been toast, which would have been a shame – he was a great religious figure, and I am not a fan of religion in general.
There are also plenty of cases of multiple children falsely accusing day care workers of molestation. I was trying to find the famous California case where the children detailed ritual blood sacrifices and secret passages in the basement, for which there was no evidence, but the case rolled on and on anyway. Instead I found this Wikipedia entry describing several cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
Years later he made appearance at a famous gay club that attracts big bands as acts and did a performance where he referenced the case and seemed to strongly imply that actually the accusation was true (I know, I was there listening to him!).
My sister is a huge fan of the series NCIS, and keeps telling me I would enjoy it. And I’ve never watched it because I’ve heard of so many cases, particularly this one, where naval investigators are clearly told what results to find, and then go out and find them. It seemed to me that it was the worst investigative service in Federal Service, and I thought of NCIS as a propaganda tool to refudiate that reputation.
Later, I learned about the Army’s investigation of Abu Graib prisoner abuse, and I had to do some rethinking. But I also heard that at least some of the Army investigators resisted and protested how their investigation was limited, and I never heard anything similar about Navy investigators.
[/QUOTE]
Slight hijack: All CSI units do this. The prosecutor calls and says test this sample for X. We want to find X. They test for X. They do not test for Y or Z. Only X. And the response is yes or no.
Sorry, I wasn’t talking about looking for evidence per se. I was talking about conclusions. I was talking about deciding what the determinations of the investigation will be, before the investigation even begins, or by ignoring evidence that points toward any other conclusion.
It’s one thing not to look for evidence because you’re not looking in that direction. It’s another thing entirely to see contrary evidence and discount it because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. That is more or less how we got hoodwinked into the Iraq war.
I see your point. But it is very conclusion driven. A prosecutor says, I believe X did it. So test these three items to determine if there is evidence that fits within my conclusion. A state lab does NOT test for variables. They merely test items to determine if the results fit within the conclusion. This is a yes or no answer.
HRH Prince Edward has been repeatedly accused of it (without any specific evidence). Gyles Brandreth, in his Philip and Elizabeth: Portrait Of A Marriage, says that when he did business at TV-AM with Edward’s company in the 1980s, all concerned took it for granted that he was a closet screamer.
But a prosecutor wouldn’t necessarily be involved until somebody determined there was evidence a crime actually took place. Take for instance the Iowa explosion. IMO the naval hierarchy decided that acknowledging that old powder and/or inadequate safeguards might have caused a tragic accident would threaten the continued existence of their precious battleship, and so they cobbled together a cover story and hung the blame on a conveniently dead sailor.
that reputation.