Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that no charges are being filed against Greg Kelly's accuser. Mmmmmm. I smell a rat

What's with all the horse-faced women in New York?

FWIW,I don't think she was raped.

But the low bar tab that keeps getting mentioned, it's local TV celebrity Greg Kelly.

The server bought them a round.  The table of middle-aged paralegals who think Greg's cute bought them a round.  Bartender bought them a round.  Off-duty cops who recognize the boss's kid bought them a round and so forth.

End result 6-7 drinks apiece but the bar tab only shows 2 drinks.

Not saying that's what happened, but its not out of the realm of possibility.

As a dude, Kelly shoulda known better than to:

#1 - fuck her (a relative stranger) bareback
#2 - cum inside her

There's no evidence she didn't take the contents of the rubber and inject it with a turkey baster. There are plenty of stories where a woman goes off to the bathroom after having sex with a famous man to entrap him. I flush mine down the toilet each and every time.

lol

At the risk of being labeled a misogynist, as this woman's story strains credulity at best, there is no hard evidence as to exactly where he came.  Okay, she got pregnant at some point--there is no proof whatsoever that it was Kelly's.

Perhaps the information as to where he came is contained in DA's interviews.  I don't know, but I do so look forward to those details being released!

There's also no hard evidence that he didn't.

See how that works!

Oddly, I do see how that works.

Thanks for proving my point.

you had a point?

if you were nicer, maybe people would be less misogynistic! don't you see how other people's behaviors are all your fault? 

Warning: Misogynistic comments ahead!

It appears that you think that, because people express their total skepticism of the veracity of this woman's implausible story, this is misogyny.  If a man had come forward with a story with this many holes as this one, he would be called out on it just as vociferously by the folks around here.

If you would actually like people to be less mysogynic, you might tone it down.  It's a tactic with which Republicans are intimate--engage in all the bad behavior you want, and when anyone calls you on it, cry misogyny (or liberal elitism).

Aw thanks Concern Troll, so you think people would be less misogynistic if I expressed myself in a more pleasant tone? Is that it? If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to "ask nicely." 

There are plenty of people here who are saying they doubt her story, but are articulating their opinion in a way that is not misogynistic. My comment was not for them. My comment, instead, was for the people who are adhering to this ridiculous double standard by calling for her to be charged–if there wasn't enough evidence to charge Kelly, how is there enough evidence to prove she's lying? It's a case of He Said vs. She Said, and many people here are claiming that his word is somehow better than hers. And it's not.

"My comment, instead, was for the people who are adhering to this ridiculous double standard by calling for her to be charged–if there wasn't enough evidence to charge Kelly, how is there enough evidence to prove she's lying?"
What??? You do realize that it is quite possible for that to happen, right?  I mean I get it: you've got to fly your flag; a woman said something therefore it is law that she is telling the truth and the man is lying.  But logic-wise, again, what???

Come on man, don't do that. There's no security footage of the incident, and everything we've heard about these supposed text messages have come from a tabloid's anonymous sources. This whole thing has become a huge pissing contest, a game of He Said vs. She Said. So how would you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she's lying? You can't. 

I didn't say that I could.  I agree with the people (and your posts seem to say that you are in this camp) that say no one has actually seen any of the evidence that led to this decision.  Yet you assume that this evidence (which, again, you admittedly have not seen) couldn't possibly be used to prove she is lying. Again: what???  There are any number of ways to prove that in any case of this type.  Whether they work in this specific scenario we may never know.

My real problem is that every time the far left sees a woman accuse a man of a sexual crime they assume that the man is guilty, and if he is not found guilty then the system has failed.  

Let's assume, just for argument's sake, that this case played out exactly as it should have.  Woman got drunk, cheated on boyfriend, got knocked up, cried rape in a desperate attempt to save herself.  In 2 years, everyone forgets who this woman is, and she goes back to being an unattractive spoiled brat w/ enough cash to blow on hair, clothes and make-up so that she can find a man.  And everytime someone in this city sees Kelly, from this day forward, the first word that pops into their head will be "rape".  It's fucking bullshit, and you know it.

The DA said the case was dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Meaning, there isn't any evidence, or any they could actually use to make a charge stick. So yeah, with this particular case, logic says they can't prove she's lying.

And the system failed the moment they released Kelly's name—which they absolutely should not have done. I never condoned that. The system failed a second time when they released the woman's name, because bashing an alleged victim (what you're doing right now, with your superficial judgments of her) makes other real victims think twice before reporting their own rapes—when the majority of rapes already go unreported. Yes, I do think the system failed, but I also think you're misunderstanding my arguments. If you actually read my comments, you won't see a single one placing blame on Kelly.

Concern Troll?

All I'm saying is, you're not helping your case any.  And that most of what you're calling misogyny is not, in fact, misogyny.

I don't happen to think that charging her should be ruled out, but that is because of her almost total lack of credibility, not because she is a lying bitch woman. (Although it's beginning to look like it's a permanent state, before you get your panties in a twist, that was a joke.) 

And, like it or not, the credibility issue de facto makes his word better than hers.

What credibility issue? The DA said her story was consistent, there just wasn't enough physical evidence to bring on charges. That's it. That doesn't hurt her credibility, it just hurts her case.  To say that she has lost credibility because the DA decided not to press charges based on a lack of evidence is total bullshit.