Post: #1

One of those stories that surprised me but not really.


GAMERGATE’S MERCEDES CARRERA ARRESTED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF A YOUNG CHILD

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/7/19 AT 11:16 AM

Quote:Adult film actress Melinda Smith—or Mercedes Carrera, as fans know her—was arrested Tuesday, along with pornographic films producer and director Jason Whitney, for alleged sexual abuse of a young child, CBS Los Angeles reports. Police have reason to believe Smith and Whitney may have sexually assaulted additional victims.

The Rancho Cucamonga Police Department were first made aware of the alleged sexual assault on a minor on January 31. Smith and Winston stand accused of “inappropriate touching, oral copulation and digital penetration.” After searching Smith and Whitney’s home police found evidence corroborating their extensive interview with the young girl, finding two loaded handguns and a bedroom “set” for recording pornographic videos. The abuse allegedly occurred over a four-month period.

On Wednesday, Whitney and Smith each plead not guilty to eight counts of sexually abusing a child under the age of 10. They were denied bail and are still in custody.

In addition to her career in pornography, Carrera is also a well-known figure in the right-wing Gamergate movement. Prompted by false allegations made by an ex-boyfriend of game developer Zoe Quinn in 2014, Gamergate activists harassed women game developers and video game analysts. While adherents claimed Gamergate was a crusade against journalistic bias they saw in games journalism, several of their principal claims were false, including that a game developer had sex with a game reviewer in exchange for a favorable review (the site ran no review of her game).

Carrera became a star in the movement and with the far right more broadly, appearing on programs hosted by right-wing conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson and Gavin McInnes, founder of the violent extremist group the Proud Boys.

“We all get to make the choice every single day about who we want to be.” Carrera said in a Daily Caller profile, railing against feminists and “SJWs,” or social justice warriors—an intended insult widely used by conservative social critics against feminists, Black Lives Matter and other civil rights activists.

Police have released photos of Smith and Whitney because of the possibility that other children have been abused under similar conditions and ask that victims call the Rancho Cucamonga Detective Bureau at (909) 477-2800, extension 2850.

These are the facts according to the MSM. Of course they bring up her politics, Gavin and the Proud Boys, etc.

Mercedes has released a statement on the charges:

Quote: “Last week, my husband and I [were] arrested on charges of molesting my nine-year-old daughter, the absolute worst crime I can imagine. The charges were filed by her father, my ex-partner (a fundamentalist Christian). He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life. I am so worried for her. Her life is shattered. Life will never be the same for any of us. We are struggling to make sense of this nightmare. This is a no-bail offense, so we are stuck in jail until we are cleared. We are facing decades in prison and do not even have money for a lawyer. We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.”

So far, this issue seems far from cut and dry. Both sides seem to have some merit:

Guilty:

Mercedes is a degenerate porn star known for fucking her fans for money. She worked as an escort in college. She's married to a man in the porn business. The likelihood of kids being abused increases exponentially when they live with a man who is not a biological relative. Meth was apparently found in the house. And most damningly, the police claim they found evidence the girl was abused. Who knows, maybe she was pimping her daughter out for cash. Wouldn't be the first time a meth-head did that.

Not guilty:

Basically what Mercedes claims about her ex husband. He could have coached their daughter what to say in order to gain full custody. Plus with Mercedes' political affiliations, she has a lot of enemies. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

My thoughts:

Whether or not there was abuse, a nine year old doesn't belong in a home with porn performer, meth-using parents. This situation should have been rectified years ago, but I'm guessing that the family courts give more rights to a crackwhore mother than a Christian father.

I remember when Mercedes did a fundraiser for an ex porn star who got home invaded and gang raped, she seemed like a pretty decent human. Iunno, maybe her demons finally caught up to her.

Post: #2

The real victims here are the proud officers of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department who have to serve no-knock warrants while shouting Rancho Cucamonga Police Department!!!

Post: #3

(02-09-2019 11:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The real victims here are the proud officers of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department who have to serve no-knock warrants while shouting Rancho Cucamonga Police Department!!!

Post: #4

Read somewhere that she used to be an aerospace engineer before and has Aspergers. Anyway, I don't see why me or anyone should give a shit about this.

Post: #5

(02-09-2019 12:18 PM)No More Mr. Soy Boy Wrote:  Read somewhere that she used to be an aerospace engineer before and has Aspergers.

Girls with aspergers have HUGE difficulties showing warm affection (or feeling empathy) to other humans, even their own children.

These are the women that in the olden days used to be called "refrigerator mothers".

Post: #6

I think she's guilty.

There's an excellent book called "I Know You Are Lying," someone may have even mentioned it in another thread months back.

The author, Mark McClish, gives a crash course in lie detecting by looking at statement analysis, which is the manner in which someone writes a statement like Carrera's, to uncover clues that indicate deception.

The number one point he makes is that people rarely tell an outright lie. They will instead hide crucial information, word things in a way as to leave themselves out, or speak in abstractions or theoreticals. But rarely will someone who is guilty come right out and say "I didn't do it." According to Mark McClish, that's a strong denial, and in general when someone makes a direct denial we should believe them.

What's immediately telling when you look at Carrera's statement is that she never makes a firm denial! She's accused of molesting her own child, you would think the number one thing an innocent person would do is to clear their name by firmly denying the crime. Carrera doesn't do so, instead listing a bunch of truths about the situation, but not leaving a firm denial. Examples:

He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life.

Here she describes the situation as it stands, and everything she says is true. The statement makes perfect sense if she's guilty- of course her ex husband is trying to take custody, she molested his daughter.
Which charges exactly are false, and which are horrifying? Carrera doesn't specify, and this is a prime example McClish references where people use vague language to cover something up. We are meant to assume that Carrera is referring to all the crimes she's accused of, but she doesn't directly state it. Instead, we should take what she says at face value and not place our own assumptions. Since we can't know exactly which charges she thinks are false (didn't happen) and which ones are horrifying (could have happened), we can surmise that Carrera is hiding something.
Lastly, her final sentence in the bolded above makes sense if she's guilty. Obviously the ex would want his daughter taken away from Carrera forever if she's guilty.

The closest Carrera comes to a denial is in her last sentence- "We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.”

"We do not know what to do"- Because they are guilty, and can't see a way out?

"But I ask that you all know me for who I am"- Fine example of using vague language; Carrera doesn't tell us who she is, nor whom she wants to know her.

"Know that neither I nor my husband...let alone my beloved daughter"- Carrera makes a very weak denial here. Notice that she never mentions what it is she and her husband would never do to a child! We are meant to assume, in the context of the statement, that she's referring to the child abuse crimes she's accused of, but since she never tells us this, we shouldn't assume it. Also, she states a conditional situation- she would "never, ever, ever do something." This is still a weak denial, since people do things all the time that they never thought they would do or be capable of.

Notice the stark difference between her weak denial above and a direct denial: "I didn't molest my daughter." Something so simple to say, yet according to McClish, most people don't actually lie, so most of the time a guilty person would not be able to make such a direct, strong denial.

Post: #7

(02-09-2019 12:23 PM)Caduceus Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 12:18 PM)No More Mr. Soy Boy Wrote:  Read somewhere that she used to be an aerospace engineer before and has Aspergers.

Girls with aspergers have HUGE difficulties showing warm affection (or feeling empathy) to other humans, even their own children.

These are the women that in the olden days used to be called "refrigerator mothers".

Aspberger's + abusive childhood + years in the porn biz + drug addiction = molesting or allowing the molestation of her daughter.

Anyone remember the movie Boogie Nights? Julianne Moore's character lost custody of her kid because of her porn career. But that was set in the late 70's/early 80s. Different times.

Post: #8

Because a single paragraph public statement said "The charges are false" instead of "I didn't molest my daughter", you think she's guilty because of something you read in a book once?

Jesus Christ. I hope if I'm ever charged with a crime, my lawyer keeps you the hell off the jury.

Post: #9

(02-09-2019 12:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Because a single paragraph public statement said "The charges are false" instead of "I didn't molest my daughter", you think she's guilty because of something you read in a book once?

Jesus Christ. I hope if I'm ever charged with a crime, my lawyer keeps you the hell off the jury.

Agree, SBR.

I won’t weigh in on the thread topic, but to suggest that guilt or innocence can be determined only by verbiage, vernacular, or sentence structure is ludacris at best.

Post: #10

(02-09-2019 12:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Because a single paragraph public statement said "The charges are false" instead of "I didn't molest my daughter", you think she's guilty because of something you read in a book once?

Jesus Christ. I hope if I'm ever charged with a crime, my lawyer keeps you the hell off the jury.

Heh. I fully admit I may end up eating my words, I'm more doing the analysis for fun, to apply what I read.
However, McClish is a trained U.S. marshal who's been detecting lies professionally for a long time. He provides many examples of high profile cases where the defendant's language betrayed them.
It's worth checking out his book, or googling some of his high profile examples. Very interesting stuff.

Post: #11

I don't think it is definitive in every case, but I do think liars tend to give slippery denials, and honest people tend give more straight out, clear cut denials. We all recognize the value of reading people as an important part of game. There are certainly patterns that can be read in the case of judging guilt and innocence. We don't have to limit ourselves like a court of law in deciding what we think happened.

I would say that the child was almost certainly exposed to sexual degeneracy with her porn star mother and porn producing step dad. I would also say she was exposed to hard drug use.

The quoted article tries to smear the biological father for being a fundamentalist Christian, when in fact such a man is likely to be the salt of the earth, a man who is desperate to save his daughter from a degenerate situation.

Taking all the available information into account, I think the porn star mother's statement is not trustworthy, and is likely hiding lies of omission at the very least.

Post: #12

Heard about this via Twattersphere. Let's see...the news said:
* she's "right wing": checked
* was involved in GamerGate movement: checked
* is supposedly a "Free Speech" and gun rights advocate: checked
* makes a living by getting fucked using all 3 holes in different directions on camera: checked

The whole thing reeks "setup" by someone with an agenda. Who - or what group - reported them to or tipped off the police? I don't know what to believe due to lack of information.

From the Daily Mail:

Quote:...
Detectives believe the couple may have more victims.

Anyone who has additional information is urged to contact Rancho Cucamonga Police Detective Bureau at 909 477 2800.

Police's looking for additional information? More victims? So...in other words, they are still searching for evidence or proof.

Post: #13

(02-09-2019 01:31 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  I don't think it is definitive in every case, but I do think liars tend to give slippery denials, and honest people tend give more straight out, clear cut denials. We all recognize the value of reading people as an important part of game. There are certainly patterns that can be read in the case of judging guilt and innocence. We don't have to limit ourselves like a court of law in deciding what we think happened.

I would say that the child was almost certainly exposed to sexual degeneracy with her porn star mother and porn producing step dad. I would also say she was exposed to hard drug use.

The quoted article tries to smear the biological father for being a fundamentalist Christian, when in fact such a man is likely to be the salt of the earth, a man who is desperate to save his daughter from a degenerate situation.

Taking all the available information into account, I think the porn star mother's statement is not trustworthy, and is likely hiding lies of omission at the very least.

I wonder how a "salt of the Earth, fundamentalist Christian" wound up marrying someone who fucks on camera for money.

Custody disputes are awful things, false accusations are common, and there's no way at all to tell from this distance who's telling the truth.

Post: #14

(02-09-2019 12:31 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  I think she's guilty.

There's an excellent book called "I Know You Are Lying," someone may have even mentioned it in another thread months back.

The author, Mark McClish, gives a crash course in lie detecting by looking at statement analysis, which is the manner in which someone writes a statement like Carrera's, to uncover clues that indicate deception.

The number one point he makes is that people rarely tell an outright lie. They will instead hide crucial information, word things in a way as to leave themselves out, or speak in abstractions or theoreticals. But rarely will someone who is guilty come right out and say "I didn't do it." According to Mark McClish, that's a strong denial, and in general when someone makes a direct denial we should believe them.

What's immediately telling when you look at Carrera's statement is that she never makes a firm denial! She's accused of molesting her own child, you would think the number one thing an innocent person would do is to clear their name by firmly denying the crime. Carrera doesn't do so, instead listing a bunch of truths about the situation, but not leaving a firm denial. Examples:

He is trying to take custody of our child from me. The charges are absolutely false and horrifying, and a last ditch effort to keep me from contact with my daughter for the rest of my life.

Here she describes the situation as it stands, and everything she says is true. The statement makes perfect sense if she's guilty- of course her ex husband is trying to take custody, she molested his daughter.
Which charges exactly are false, and which are horrifying? Carrera doesn't specify, and this is a prime example McClish references where people use vague language to cover something up. We are meant to assume that Carrera is referring to all the crimes she's accused of, but she doesn't directly state it. Instead, we should take what she says at face value and not place our own assumptions. Since we can't know exactly which charges she thinks are false (didn't happen) and which ones are horrifying (could have happened), we can surmise that Carrera is hiding something.
Lastly, her final sentence in the bolded above makes sense if she's guilty. Obviously the ex would want his daughter taken away from Carrera forever if she's guilty.

The closest Carrera comes to a denial is in her last sentence- "We do not know what to do, but I ask that you all know me for who I am, and know that neither I nor my husband would ever, ever do anything like this to any child, let alone my beloved daughter.”

"We do not know what to do"- Because they are guilty, and can't see a way out?

"But I ask that you all know me for who I am"- Fine example of using vague language; Carrera doesn't tell us who she is, nor whom she wants to know her.

"Know that neither I nor my husband...let alone my beloved daughter"- Carrera makes a very weak denial here. Notice that she never mentions what it is she and her husband would never do to a child! We are meant to assume, in the context of the statement, that she's referring to the child abuse crimes she's accused of, but since she never tells us this, we shouldn't assume it. Also, she states a conditional situation- she would "never, ever, ever do something." This is still a weak denial, since people do things all the time that they never thought they would do or be capable of.

Notice the stark difference between her weak denial above and a direct denial: "I didn't molest my daughter." Something so simple to say, yet according to McClish, most people don't actually lie, so most of the time a guilty person would not be able to make such a direct, strong denial.

Or it is lawyer speak.....

Not sure how much we can extract from a basic loaded statement.

I usually take the middle road or assume the truth is in the middle.

I have no idea if she touched her kid or not but likely she has been a shitty mother overall.

I have no doubts she is likely a cold and shitty mother but the accusations sounds like an easy and quick way to be sleazy in a nasty chid custody situation.

Also, firm denials don't mean shit. Bill Clinton denied outright he didn't anything with Monica and it was BS. I am more inclined to believe a 'Lawyer speak' statement with lots of grey versus someone lying out of their ass and denying.

She is apparently based and too damn smart for her own good. Lots of asperger girls go into work because they are devoid of any soul and and logically connect thier hotness to money compensation.

I give her alot more credibility then most women. The ability to be honest in that your looks can get you paid and be logical about it. She took it to the extreme but she does not operate like your typical woman who hamsters her way through life.

Post: #15

(02-09-2019 01:26 PM)KeepMovingForward Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 12:42 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Because a single paragraph public statement said "The charges are false" instead of "I didn't molest my daughter", you think she's guilty because of something you read in a book once?

Jesus Christ. I hope if I'm ever charged with a crime, my lawyer keeps you the hell off the jury.

Heh. I fully admit I may end up eating my words, I'm more doing the analysis for fun, to apply what I read.
However, McClish is a trained U.S. marshal who's been detecting lies professionally for a long time. He provides many examples of high profile cases where the defendant's language betrayed them.
It's worth checking out his book, or googling some of his high profile examples. Very interesting stuff.

The problem is that police officers have a strong incentive to perceive their suspect as lying, since juries tend to accept the subjective opinion of an officer: "When he told me he didn't do it he seemed nervous and his eyes kept darting around..."

Watch the youtube video on "don't talk to the police", he mentions that subjective testimony from the police is a way you can inadvertently make your case worse by talking to the police and giving them material to work with. It's the same bullshit as polygraphs, you get the target agitated and then you can claim he's being shifty and thus as an "expert" you believe him to be lying.

Post: #16

(02-09-2019 11:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The real victims here are the proud officers of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department who have to serve no-knock warrants while shouting Rancho Cucamonga Police Department!!!

Leonard knows funny...

In Cucamonga the cops say:

You have the right to UNGA BUNGA.
You have the right to a WAKA WAKA.
If you cannot afford one, you can BOOGALOO!

Seriously though, pedophilia is wrong.

Aloha!

Post: #17

-


Looks like she has hit the wall harder than a formula 1 racecar at top speed

Post: #18

^^^^^
Meth is a helluva drug

Post: #19

(02-09-2019 03:17 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 11:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The real victims here are the proud officers of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department who have to serve no-knock warrants while shouting Rancho Cucamonga Police Department!!!

Leonard knows funny...

In Cucamonga the cops say:

You have the right to UNGA BUNGA.
You have the right to a WAKA WAKA.
If you cannot afford one, you can BOOGALOO!

Seriously though, pedophilia is wrong.

Aloha!

I learn from the best.

Funfact. I almost typed Aloha! at the end of that post.

Post: #20

Damn, no one dared to post a pic? I remember when RVFers raced to post a pic of a girl.

Post: #21

I'm not one for porn scenes featuring girls in prison cells, but I applaud her commitment to method acting.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #22

Forney's show today was all about this:

Post: #23

If she is actually guilty (all the while a porn star).
I for one won't be surprised necessarily.

A key step to fixing society, is to end cycles of abuse (mental or physical).

Post: #24

Let the due process bring the whole thing to light. If she is guilty may she and that man get the full penalty.

Post: #25

(02-09-2019 01:39 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  The whole thing reeks "setup" by someone with an agenda.

(02-10-2019 07:04 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Let the due process bring the whole thing to light. If she is guilty may she and that man get the full penalty.

This is gross any way you look at it. That girl was already messed up, and now this? Anyways it ends hopefully she gets helped out of her terrible situation.

If true this is the worst kind of crime IMO and should always carry a max sentence. Same is true for false accusations, but in this case everyone involved is already guilty on many levels.