The editorial said Mr. Fairfax’s “unusual persistence” was striking, as if refusing to confess to rape were itself exculpatory. He “brought a lawsuit” against CBS, as if politicians can prove their innocence by suing media outlets that cover their alleged misconduct. He passed a “lie-detector test,” though these notoriously unreliable tests are legally inadmissible in every relevant jurisdiction.
The editorial said there are “inconsistencies” (but didn’t identify any). The editorial called Gayle King’s questioning of Ms. Watson “sympathetic” (demeaning both women). Does anyone wonder why Ms. Watson hasn’t given more media interviews?
“Most notable,” the editorial proclaimed, was Mr. Fairfax’s assertion that a “witness to the Duke incident” can “corroborate his claim that the sex was consensual.” This unidentified “witness” has ignored media inquiries and hasn’t come forward to confirm or deny Mr. Fairfax’s account.
The editorial ignored evidence corroborating Ms. Watson’s accusation, including what she told me and documents showing that she named Mr. Fairfax as the alleged perpetrator years ago. It also ignored Ms. Watson’s Feb. 19, 2019, op-ed, “I’m willing to testify in public. Justin Fairfax should, too.”
Why is The Post defending a powerful politician twice credibly accused of sexual assault? That’s what’s “troubling.”
R. Stanton Jones, Washington