Daniel Smith, quo vadis?

Local feminists have been demanding maximum penalty for Daniel Smith because he had sex with their Nicole, I had repeatedly emailed most of these feminists requesting for confirmation: I emailed Gabriela, Senators Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Kiko Pangilinan, Chiz Escudero, Nicole attorney Evalyn Ursua, others, the following:
“Early in the Nicole rape case, I read in a publication that within minutes of meeting in a bar, Nicole sat on the lap of Daniel Smith, lap-dancing [face to face, crotch on crotch] the drunken soldier. I have written to all concerned to please confirm or deny that this information is in the court records. You are involved enough to discover if this came out in the hearings. I would appreciate your sharing with me if it is on record, if you know. Thank you. Dahli Aspillera, opinion columnist, Malaya.”
No one replied to my emails. I would have liked to receive from these senators and others a “Yes, it came out in the hearing that Nicole lap-danced Daniel within minutes of meeting,” or, “No, that issue did not come out in court” or “I don?t know.” These Nicole-protectors are swift to exhibit and publicize their feminist stance, but were passive about digging up the truth, what really happened.
It was Gabriela which convinced Nicole that she is immaculate, 100 percent victim. Gabriela assigned their pawn a nom de deshonra: Nicole. Gabriela propped Nicole up everyday; surrounding her with the big “G” protective respectability shield despite her hysterics and lies. In the process, destroying a naive, ignorant 21-year-old, unoriented with the ways of Subic bars. Most 21-year-old males who would succumb to a drunken, flirty female in a bar are gullible.
Congratulations to Gabriela for a job well done!
Would the chaste, moral, devoutly pious General Gabriela Silang (March 19, 1731- September 29, 1763) have approved of a drunken Filipina lap-dancing a drunken America soldier she had just met?
“{Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Benjamin Pozon} disregarded the evidence presented by the defense that would have proven Daniel Smith’s innocence. I really don’t think Daniel was guilty. The judge took every bit of word of the prosecution as if it were gospel truth, but did not give credence to the words of the defense. Smith didn’t rape Nicole; what they had was a consensual sexual act.” – Fr. James Reuter SJ, Catholic Church’s National Office of the Mass Media.
“Women should be taught that womanhood is precious and noble, so it is not right for them to be flaunting [their femaleness] around. They should not make themselves appear cheap, practically inviting to be violated by men.” – Archbishop Oscar Cruz, Lingayen-Dagupan Archdiocese.
“Most everyone I talked with, and most of them were women, came down hard on Nicole. They decried her drunkenness, her demeanor, even the fact that she was in a bar at all. No one, and I mean no one ever denounced Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith and his cohorts. Everyone seemed to find it inevitable, even natural, for an American Marine or any man for that matter, to take advantage of a young woman who was so smashed she couldn’t even walk straight….” – Rina Jimenez-David, columnist.
(This column was written even before Nicole recanted her rape charge against Cpl. Smith.)

2 Replies to “Daniel Smith, quo vadis?”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *