Monday, March 23, 2015

African Immigrant Doctor Accused Molesting Over 31 Patients–MSM Calls Him “Charlotte Doctor"

Below are some of the headlines in the story of Dr. Fidelis Edosomwan (above) alleged sex criminal.

NC. doctor accused of sexually assaulting 31 people
CMPD: Charlotte doctor faces 16 additional sex offense charges
CMPD: 31 victims claim doctor sexually assaulted them
North Carolina Doctor Accused of Sexually Abusing 31 Patients
Police: Charlotte doctor accused in sexual assault of 31 patients
NC doctor accused of sexually assaulting patients to appear before
Local doctor charged with sexual assault to appear before judge

I’ll give you the some details from the New York Daily News version:

North Carolina doctor accused of sexually assaulting at least 31 people, cops say, By David Boroff, New York Daily News, March 20, 2015

A North Carolina doctor sexually assaulted at least 31 people, authorities say.

Dr. Fidelis Edosomwan turned himself into police on Thursday after he was charged with 16 counts of sexual battery and 16 counts of sex offense.

The Charlotte doctor had been busted in late January for the sexual assault of two patients.

According to the initial arrest warrants obtained by WBTV, Dr. Edosomwan exposed his private parts during the examinations of the victims. He also “lifted the (second) victim’s shirt and bra and then rubbed her breast during a medical exam without the victim’s consent,” according to the warrants. [More]

Now, what I want to know is, why do they think of Dr. Edosomwan (full name Dr. Fidelis Iguodala Uwensuyi-Edosomwan) as a “North Carolina” doctor, a “Charlotte” doctor, or if you’re a local Charlotte news provider, a “Local” doctor? Is he, in fact, an American doctor at all?

The answer is “Of course not.” Dr. Edosomwan is an African doctor, who happens to be practicing in America.

Although he did his Residency in Internal Medicine at   “Historically” black Howard University, his original training as a doctor was at the University of Benin Faculty of Medicine, Class of 1987. [Dr. Fidelis Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, Internist in Charlotte, NC US News Doctor Finder, no date]

That makes him an “African doctor”, a “Beninese doctor”, or an “immigrant doctor” for headline purposes, doesn’t it? Well, no.

You see, while I can find out that Dr. Edosomwan hails from Benin with the click of a mouse, none of the MSM sources have that information. A Google search for “Edosomwan and Benin” turns up none of the over 3000 stories about Fidelis Edosomwan in the news, it only shows news about other Edosomwans in Benin, where it must be a fairly common name.

So if I can find that out with the click of a mouse, what’s the Daily News’s excuse? Their computers don’t have mice?


The vicious RSPCA again

Give your donations to local animal shelters.  The RSPCA will just waste it on Leftist politics

A high-profile RSPCA prosecution of the renowned Cattistock Hunt in Dorset has spectacularly collapsed amid claims that the hunt was the victim of a politically inspired campaign, funded by a mystery backer.

The Cattistock's joint master Will Bryer has accused the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – which brought the prosecution – of co-ordinating a campaign of harassment and surveillance over more than three years, in a failed attempt to prove the hunt had broken the law.

He also claimed a wealthy anti-hunting businessman intent on landing a 'prize scalp' had bankrolled surveillance of him, his employees and hunt followers, saying: 'We believe the campaign is funded by a Dorset-based company.

Hunt saboteurs at our meets this year were all wearing T-shirts advertising the firm. We don't believe that to be a coincidence but a statement.'

The animal rights organisation, which has been criticised for spending £22.5 million pursuing animal welfare prosecutions last year, formally withdrew its case on Friday – after admitting it had no realistic chance of a conviction.

Mr Bryer, whose joint master of the Cattistock is one of the richest women in Britain, the Honourable Mrs Charlotte Townshend, claimed the campaign had been 'focused and sophisticated'.

He went on to say: 'Despite the endless footage taken of us by so-called covert investigators, this is the only time anyone associated with the Cattistock has ever faced a charge and now it has been dropped.

'I'm afraid the time has long passed when we thought these people were seriously interested in the law. As far as we are concerned, this is just another way of attacking people who participate in hunting.'

Yesterday, the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance said the RSPCA was at a crossroads, and would have to decide whether to continue to bring what it described as 'malicious' cases or 'embrace sanity and change tactics'.

Mr Bryer's solicitor, Jamie Foster, claimed that the case had been flawed from the start. He explained: 'There is video footage of my client laying legal trails before and after the alleged breach of the hunting ban which was not disclosed to us by the RSPCA.'

He said the laying of a trail, or a scent which the hounds can track rather than chasing a live animal, showed that the Cattistock had behaved responsibly, not recklessly as the prosecution claimed.

Cattistock chairman Robert Atkinson said: 'We are very pleased that common sense has prevailed and the case has been dropped. The hunt and all its staff, in particular Will as master, make every effort to hunt within the law and be seen to do so. We are glad that our stance has been so demonstrably and categorically vindicated by the court.'

The RSPCA has the power to bring its own prosecutions rather than rely on the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. However last October, a report commissioned by the charity recommended abandoning the policy and leaving the job to the CPS, which has more expertise.

Last year, The Mail on Sunday reported that the RSPCA had spent £22.5 million on prosecutions in two years, and had been obliged to take out an overdraft facility with its bank, Coutts, for the first time in its 190-year history.

Discussing the dropped prosecution yesterday, an RSPCA spokesman said: 'We have not at any stage been made aware of a trail being laid or of any alleged footage of such a trail being laid. But having considered all the evidence now available, we concluded there no longer remains a realistic prospect of securing a conviction.'

Addressing the Cattistock's claim that the RSPCA had mounted a campaign of surveillance, he said: 'This is an outrageous slur and completely untrue. We did not monitor this hunt. The RSPCA does not monitor any hunts.'

He went on to reject the claim that the prosecution had been effectively paid for by a wealthy backer, insisting: 'This prosecution was funded by the RSPCA.'

Philip Mansbridge, the UK director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare – which shot the disputed footage and provided it to the RSPCA – said: 'We are very disappointed that the case has been dropped. We do understand the reasons and the difficulties in getting these cases through the courts. But we stand by our evidence completely; this case was dropped, not lost.'

He went on to say: 'We have now reached the reluctant conclusion that having tried everything under the current judicial system, we now need to make changes to strengthen the Hunting Act. Time and time again, hunts flout the law and escape prosecution by using the false alibi that they were trail hunting. The pro-hunt lobby continually drag out cases and waste public and charity funds.'


Another devastating false rape accusation in Britain

They seem to come at a rate of roughly once a month on average

A businessman who spent three weeks in jail after falsely being accused of rape by a woman he met on the internet is suing the police for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.

Kayode Modupe-Ojo, a former boyfriend of David Beckham’s sister Joanne, said his reputation has been destroyed and he lost his business because police failed to investigate properly the woman’s fictitious allegations – including that he possessed firearms – or the glaring inconsistencies in her story.

The 28-year-old former spa owner was arrested at his home in Cheshire shortly after spending two days with the woman.

His accuser gave a harrowing but entirely false account of being tied up and moved around the north-east of England against her will, after a sexual encounter turned terrifyingly violent.

Mr Modupe-Ojo, who has lived in Britain since the age of three, was dragged from his bed by the police, handcuffed and questioned for three days without legal representation before being charged with multiple counts of rape and kidnapping.

On the basis of the woman’s lies, Durham Police declared he was ‘a danger to women’ and he was remanded in jail for three weeks.

Last week the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee called for people accused of sexual offences to be given anonymity. Mr Modupe-Ojo’s lawyer has referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Paul Schofield, of Farleys Solicitors, said: ‘It illustrates the flaws of a legal system that names and shames those accused of sex crimes, without giving them any protection when the accusations turn out to be untrue.

'Even though it was obvious in court that the woman lied and lied, she is still protected by the legal system because no criminal charges have so far been brought against her.

'As things stands she has a lifetime anonymity while my client remains tainted by the abhorrent stigma of a rape charge. It’s also clearly a case that would not have gone to trial if the police had done their jobs correctly. It was as if they couldn’t be bothered.’

Mr Modupe-Ojo was acquitted when his trial at Newcastle Crown Court collapsed last year due to glaring discrepancies in the prosecution case.

But he said that by then the damage had already been done. ‘The judge directed the jury to acquit me, but my reputation was left in tatters,’ he says. ‘There are people out there who think, “no smoke without fire”.

‘It is grossly unfair that my details have been in the media, while my accuser gets away without a blemish to her name. Rape is one of the most repulsive crimes there is.

‘A false claim not only ruins the lives of innocent men, but it damages their families. I did nothing wrong and yet this case almost destroyed me.’

He is supporting the demands of Tory MPs Mark Pritchard and Nigel Evans – both cleared after being falsely accused of rape – that the accused also remain anonymous, unless convicted.

What Mr Modupe-Ojo describes as ‘the most terrifying period’ in his life began in August 2013 when he responded to a ‘friend request’ on Facebook from a beautiful blonde woman he had never met before. The law prevents us from naming her even though the court found her allegations to be entirely false.

He says: ‘She was very attractive. We texted and Skyped each other before meeting. She was the driving force behind our meeting and I was flattered by her attention.’

During their time together Mr Modupe-Ojo took the woman to restaurants, a club and they stayed in two hotels which she booked and paid for. He also drove her home to pack an overnight bag and spent 30 minutes talking with her mother.

‘My accuser was alone in her room upstairs and could have used her phone to call for help if I had been the mad rapist she made me out to be,’ he added. ‘I told all of this to the police questioning me.

'I also gave them the passwords to my phone and laptop so they could check the correspondence between us.’

He still has text messages she sent after they parted. There were also numerous CCTV images of the pair cuddling, kissing and holding hands.

‘There was ample CCTV evidence and witnesses to prove she was all over me in public, but the police didn’t seem to be interested in proving my innocence. They seemed convinced they had their man,’ he says.

‘When the female officer told me I would be remanded because I was a danger to women and a flight risk, my legs buckled. I had done nothing wrong, yet I was facing a lengthy prison sentence if found guilty.’

Further charges for firearms offences and a threat to kill were dropped because no weapon was found in his flat.

Once Mr Modupe-Ojo’s case came to trial, alarming discrepancies emerged. The accuser claimed she had known her attacker for years. Yet in her opening message on Facebook, she admitted they’d never met.

She said she had been tied up and moved around against her will. Yet it emerged she texted her boyfriend to tell him she was OK.

‘She told the court I had stolen her phone and written the text,’ Mr Modupe-Ojo says. ‘But this fell apart when it was revealed she had also texted her friend to say happy birthday and called her mum while we were together.’

Incredibly, the police did not examine the outgoing texts or calls from her mobile. By the time the judge instructed the jury to acquit him, his name had been reported, his bank accounts frozen on order of the police, and he’d lost his salon.

‘I lost everything,’ he says bitterly. ‘I was even evicted from the gated community where I lived after women residents complained about living with a potential rapist.’

But what hurts him most is that the stigma of being a rapist still follows him ‘like a bad smell’. It is the key factor – along with his financial losses – in his decision to sue the police. ‘I want it made clear I did nothing wrong and I was the real victim.’

A spokesman for Durham Police confirmed there was ongoing correspondence but made no further comment.


The Prince of Wales is currently in the United States

And SteynOnline reader Mike Shull swung by to catch his act in Louisville

Prince Charles was in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky today. About an hour ago, he stopped by our downtown Cathedral, where I occasionally attend Mass, to give a brief speech. This is only 2 blocks from my office, so after a late lunch I walked over to see his arrival.

As a reader of your work, I had in mind your past comparisons between the British Royal Family's entourage and that of the president and other politicians. I nonetheless still amazed at the modesty of Charles' cohort.

The attached picture shows the moment he stepped from the car. And the car was not even a limousine. The entire motorcade consisted of only two police cars, Charles' towncar, and one additional vehicle. The other (empty) police cars visible across the street are not there for the prince. They are parked there every day because City Hall is just down the block.

As you can see from the picture:

1. they did not even close the street off for his arrival, not even for a few seconds. Motorists are still going by on the left.
His car stopping there made no more disruption to traffic that a pizza delivery guy or UPS driver parking on the curb for 30 seconds to make a delivery.

2. the sidewalk is not roped off at all.

3. there were no "advance guard" or phalanx of other cop cars that preceded him that simply are off camera. What you see is really all there was.

And the men who look like Secret Service there are actually just church parishioners who were helping direct what little traffic was there. I attended the Vice Presidential debate between Biden and Ryan in 2012 at Center College here in Kentucky. There were at least 50 police cars, maybe 100, and several "decoy" type black Chevy Suburbans for Joe Biden.

You are correct that the monarchy America rejected years ago is now practically Joe Lunchbox compared with the grandiose, prima donna treatment demanded by our elected "public servants".

Putting aside the fact that the President's 40-car motorcade is nothing to do with security - as we see everywhere from the Secret Service hookers in Cartagena to the vast entourage required to get Obama to Mandela's funeral only to stand him three feet away from a violent schizophrenic convicted of "necklacking"; and putting aside the ever more absurd impositions on the citizenry, such as maintaining the street's closure for hours after the Presidential procession has passed so that pregnant women and injured persons are not allowed to cross the thoroughfare to get to the hospital on the other side; and putting aside that I strongly dislike the Prince of Wales and regard his Grand Thoughts on "climate change" as witless and inappropriate; putting all that to one side for the moment:

One of the advantages of monarchy in a democratic age is that it comes with a built-in grievance factor: There's always a certain percentage of the people that is chippily resentful of even the most footling expenditure on the Royal Family's so-called pampered parasites - as a casual glance at the papers in Her Majesty's realms will reveal. So a prince or royal duchess can't go around closing streets and draining police manpower because some republican pol on the make will be all over the news whinging about it. That's very healthy, and one consequence of it is the entourage you saw in Louisville this week. HRH The Prince of Wales is the heir to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, Tuvalu, Belize, Papua New Guinea, etc, etc, but when he travels to Kentucky he takes only what he needs.

By the way, that's also way cooler - as my daughter pointed out when she and I saw the Queen in Glasgow in her Diamond Jubilee year. HM and the Duke upfront, and one car behind. And that handful of guys are on their game. Whereas, with a 40-car motorcade, only the Cartagena hookers are on the game.

But the bigger point is that a 40-car motorcade leads to a 40-car motorcade political culture - with a ruling class on the inside of the perimeter, and the rest of the schlubs on the outside. They don't live where you live. They drive through it, and you glimpse them through the glass darkly as you wait for the royal procession to pass and daily life to resume.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been entouraged to the hilt for almost a quarter-century, is a near parodic example of the entitlement this breeds. What length do you think the motorcade's going to be by the end of her reign?



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: