There is a trend in the true crime community attempting to gain traction with hashtag use attached to posts regarding a recent case of sexual harassment involving one of the TCC's own, true crime investigative journalist and podcaster, Billy Jensen. The trend is called, #StartByBelieving. "Start By Believing" is a public awareness campaign launched in 2011 by the organization EVAW International (End Violence Against Women), and, according to its social media pages, focuses on "the public response to sexual violence." Part of this campaign initiative is teaching the proper response to accounts of sexual violence, which should include phrases like, "I believe you," "I'm sorry this happened," and "I am here for you." Such empathetic, supportive statements are entirely appropriate for one-on-one confidences between victims and their counselors or loved ones, but are in direct conflict to the required protocol human resource departments and law enforcement agencies are required to follow when investigating claims. The question as it pertains to the study of true crime is: SHOULD we believe?
Some victim advocates emphatically apply the principles of this social justice movement - which also endeavors to end the silence surrounding sexual assault by emboldening victims to report their experiences - to non-violent cases of sexual harassment and misconduct, as well. Incidents - like Billy Jensen's - that are typically handled through confidential mediation in the workplace are being publicized by champions of the movement, without regard for the privacy of the accused. The Fifth Amendment U.S. constitutional right to due process and the concept that "there are two sides to every story" are summarily dismissed by radicals who insist on standing by every woman who comes forward with a sexual assault allegation. Social media commenters expressing a dissenting opinion or suggesting a more levelheaded approach (such as, "let's see how this plays out with officials") are instantly attacked and accused of perpetuating the cycle of violence against women. One true crime group mandates in their rules that discussion of a particular case is permitted, but any remarks deemed as critical about an alleged abuse victim will result in a permanent ban; rules about speculating on the culpability of the suspect - as yet uncharged by law enforcement - are far more relaxed, however. One advocate even admonished "insensitive" comments about victimization because they could be potentially triggering to other sexual assault survivors reading a post. How are we supposed to educate, spread awareness, and have the discussions - as crusaders of various causes are always imparting - if benign, yet unpopular or alternative points of view are suppressed?
Though I have not participated - or been shunned - in any social media group discussions surrounding this topic, my personal solution is to take the issue to my blog, where no one will tell me what to believe and where I will freely express my opinion with the same conviction a victim is encouraged to have in sharing their truth. But most true crime enthusiasts don't use such a platform; they look to online community posts to learn and engage. They, too, are interested in contributing their own thoughts and receiving validation, but are often afraid themselves of being victimized by the intimidators who shut down insights which are anything less than blindly supportive of accusers. Even worse, the only reason I can even even write this article is I'm a woman; a man questioning a sexual abuse claim hasn't a prayer of surviving in an online community; he will inevitably be labeled a misogynist, an incel, a victim basher, or toxic in his masculinity. In this post-#MeToo era, men are terrified to participate in discussions about sexual harassment in the workplace.
As this issue pertains to the Billy Jensen case, a smattering of screenshots taken from various social media public posts regarding the still-developing news is posted below. (A little backstory: the Billy Jensen/Paul Holes podcast, The Murder Squad, went on hiatus last December during an internal investigation into a sexual misconduct allegation against Jensen by a co-worker. The investigation concluded with the firing of Jensen, followed by a lawsuit filed by the accuser against the podcast's parent company, Exactly Right Podcast Network, which is owned by My Favorite Murder podcasters, Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. The lawsuit, which did not depose Jensen, was settled through mediation. Exactly Right announced in May that Murder Squad was canceled, but offered no explanation or statement about Jensen, likely due to non-disclosure agreements. Rumors abounded, confusing allusions were posted via social media by community leaders, but nothing definitive was known until true crime podcaster, Jenn Tisdale of Too Many Jennifers, took to her microphone June 15 to address her insider knowledge of the Exactly Right mediation, as well as recount her own, separate, unreported sexual abuse incident with Jensen from 2019.)
The first hints of a brewing crisis began with this victim advocate's post on June 13, via Twitter; the suggestion of "Allegations should be enough to stop supporting those" harkens back to the Salem witch trials:
1.)
2.)
So, why shouldn't we automatically believe claims of assault in the true crime community? Researchers of the Ted Bundy case know the simple answer to this question: Rhonda Stapley. (Message me if you need enlightening.) For everyone else, if Depp v. Heard wasn't enough to convince the world that women are capable of both defaming their former partners with false abuse allegations, as well as being domestic violence aggressors themselves, here are a few other examples of female crime-fabrication at its finest: Sherri Papini, Susan Smith, Diane Downs, and Jennifer Wilbanks (the "runaway bride" from Georgia). Each of them - with the exception of Smith - intentionally (not mistakenly) purported false sexual or physical assault against them to authorities. Famous - and dramatic - cases aside, perhaps you've known a scorned woman determined to retaliate against her ex with manufactured assertions of spousal abuse, infidelity, embezzlement, or parental neglect. Even if she doesn't file charges with police or in a divorce/custody petition, she may launch a smear campaign in her and her former partner's community. How easy it is in the digital and social media age to damage a person's reputation with a few strokes of the keyboard. Hell hath no fury.
From Twitter, regarding the Jensen case; hats off to this user:
Skepticism is healthy. It's what inspires students of true crime to ask questions about the knowledge they've accumulated and investigate for themselves. Why would critical thinking and independent thought ever be discouraged in an environment of learning? The challenges and diversity that open-mindedness produces are beneficial to group discussion, as they provide color and context to a subject matter, and enhance the cognition of everyone involved. True crime groups insist on respectful treatment of all members, and differences of opinion are protected through debate moderation. Outside of group governing, however, such ethical practices are only sporadically observed on personal posts or in public forums, as the first sequence of screenshots above disappointingly attest.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lest we forget in the wake of #MeToo when accusations of sexual misconduct preponderated the news and powerful men fell from grace like dominoes, that women, too, can be sexual predators. Even as this article is being written, yet another school teacher has been charged with raping her teenage student in New York, and Ghislaine Maxwell has been sentenced to twenty years in prison as a convicted sex offender/child sex trafficker. In serial killer history, both Karla Homolka and Rose West actively participated in the sexual violence (and murders) of many young girls and women alongside their husbands. As it turns out, sexual predation by a female - to a lesser degree than the aforementioned cases - is the predominant theme in the he-said-she-said involving Billy Jensen and Jenn Tisdale.
There is a lot to this story, as well as other events which have transpired within the Jensen debacle. This article is not aiming to present a transactional report, but uninformed readers can gather more from several podcasts which have covered the scandal, as well as Reddit threads, which have been surprisingly thoughtful, organized, and educational. Briefly, after Tisdale (on her podcast) accused Jensen of slapping her during drunken foreplay in a hotel, Jensen released a statement on his website denying the slap and posting a wealth of text messages between the two friends (or amicable colleagues) which demonstrated a smitten Tisdale pushing for years-long, continued correspondence and meetings with Jensen after their hookup - not a traumatized assault victim harboring fear or resentment. (Tisdale admitted she forgave Jensen for the alleged slap after he - according to her - didn't recall it, but apologized anyway the next day.)
The incident itself isn't terribly relevant, especially when considering how it would have played out in court had Tisdale pressed charges or filed suit against Jensen (assuming the case wouldn't be thrown out). Tisdale would make an easy target for character assassination by Jensen's defense attorney. Her admitted, ongoing use of cocaine and prolonged, "feral" physical abuse of a former boyfriend that resulted in seven arrests would be introduced. Her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder - including its manifestation of emotional blackmail of guys to appease her abandonment phobia - would be crucified, supported by texts in which she attempted on multiple occasions to manipulate Jensen into spending time alone with her; (he repeatedly declined these invitations). Her morals would be suspect, substantiated by her admission of being "a horny gal" and the publicly accessible porn tapes she filmed with adult film star, James Deen, in which she is often slapped on her buttocks. She would be mercilessly grilled about her decisions to both a.) not lodge a complaint against Jensen soon after the incident, and b.) her motivation for publicizing it three years later, which was preceded by a Tweet proclaiming she was "champing [sic] at the ol' bit" to talk about her experience. As a former stand-up comic and now media personality who frequently parades her very personal matters, she would be portrayed as an attention-seeker in need of an audience.
But perhaps the most damaging line of questioning in this hypothetical cross-examination would concern Tisdale's texts to Jensen two days after the 2019 incident, requesting to come to his hotel room yet again, and for him to send her "a beanie pic for my spank bank." See, Tisdale was the director of a true crime festival, Death Becomes Us, where this hookup with a then-unknown Jensen took place. The root of any sexual harassment incident is power - when did Jensen have the power? After such annihilation in court, Tisdale would be vilified as the power-abusing aggressor, and - as is already the case - perceived as vindictive and opportunistic in coming forward, the impropriety of a nonconsensual slap, thus, invalidated. Perhaps during the next sexual misconduct drama to rock this community, advocates should trot out a more credible "victim" to prop up their hopeful initiative of sweeping the TCC with our own #MeToo movement.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The cult-like demands for blind loyalty by victim advocates who've pounced on the Jensen case are reminiscent of expectations in another, far more severe, crime from recent years in the TCC: Chris Watts. Though Watts was not a sexual violence case, community response was significant for its imbalanced treatment of victims and inflexible mentions of the dead. Students of this familicide experienced backlash not from community leaders, but from fellow, amateur participants who were aghast at any criticism leveled at Shan'ann Watts. Comments about Shan'ann's emasculation of Watts; her hypochondria and possible Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; her excessive spending that landed the couple in financial bankruptcy; and her questionable decision to keep her children in daycare for approximately eight hours a day while she worked her multi-level marketing scam - er, job - from home, were tantamount to blaming Shan'ann for her own death. Community members refusing to address such elements in the couple's marriage missed out on a great deal of understanding about Watts's criminal psychology. Shan'ann, for all her faults and mistakes in this world, became a saint in death, to be revered as nothing less than a shining icon of domestic perfection. This hero worship of the victim was surpassed only by rabid, vengeful calls for justice - specifically, the arrest of this horror story's villain, the evil harlot, Nichol Kessinger. A figure never charged with a single offense in this case, Kessinger was nonetheless subjected to such unabashed vitriol, doxxing, and threats, she changed her name, went into hiding, and hasn't been heard from since 2018 - that would include an "impending" arrest predicted by most case followers. There was no "Start By Believing" hashtag rally for Kessinger, even though she did qualify for and receive victim support services from the state of Colorado.
Furthermore in this example of how filtering speech about victims can be unreasonable and taken to extremes, the mission to silence Shan'ann's critics has recently evolved into a large-scale lawsuit spearheaded by Shan'ann's family. Circumventing YouTube policy which proved unfavorable to them, the Rzuceks have retained a British law firm specializing in Internet law with the hope of shuttering YouTube content creators who are financially compensated for inventing conspiracy theories about the Watts case. The Frankie Rzucek, Jr., "Stop Being Mean To Me!" campaign also endeavors to threaten legal action against social media users who post hateful remarks against his sister. Apparently inept at simply powering off his computer, Frankie, Jr., says the relentless online "torment and slander" has caused the Rzuceks unbearable suffering. He wants it known that he doesn't wish to trample on free speech rights nor impose stricter governmental controls, though. You, too, can donate to this unending fundraiser for attorneys' fees, the goal of which is £25,000 - no wait, it's £45,000; my bad - it's now £75,000.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In the cases of murder and violence we as a community study, of course we empathize with victims (and their families); we seek to understand the psychology of perpetrators, but never condone their crimes. In fact, nothing seems to offend or unite us more than the stereotype that we're all dangerous and mentally ill like the criminals we research. Though the majority of true crime cases conclusively identify victims, sexual harassment isn't always a definitive criminal or prosecutable offense. In such polarizing cases, a deference to the law, rather than alliance to a "side," may be the prudent choice for the uninvolved periphery:
1.) Sexual harassment, though not always a crime, is litigable in civil court.
2.) Americans are afforded a presumption of innocence, as well as a protected guarantee, under the Sixth Amendment, to confront one's accusers in a criminal trial (a right equalized for victims with the allowance of victim impact statements during a sentencing hearing).
3.) Both assault and libel are punishable offenses. So rather than "#StartByBelieving" or blasting conjecture, gossip, and personal drama across social and content-creation networks, leaders should advise accusers and suspects alike to proactively pursue resolution through mediation or arbitration.
Victims are in the best possible position in history to receive judgments in their favor; the #MeToo movement forced most companies to revise their sexual harassment policies and case management procedures.
(Though not obvious in his reply here, the verified red-circle user has exploited the Jensen case to vocalize his own bitter, professional grievances against Jensen throughout the TCC.) The replies from the yellow-circle user are the incisive ones worthy of spotlighting; from Twitter:
1.)
.jpg)
Sexual harassment - particularly when the lines are blurred between "assault" and "violation" - is a difficult, touchy subject matter to cover, and one that will likely - if this article is even read - ignite controversy amounting to the same ambivalence about writing it. As much of a train wreck as Jenn Tisdale is, other rumored instances of sexual misconduct attributed to Billy Jensen - plus the disingenuous, deceitful apology he issued regarding his anonymous co-worker's claim - culminate in a portrait of him as an equally reprehensible sleazebag. I have no horse in this race and am not attempting to absolve Jensen; for the record, slapping anybody - female or male - is wrong. Some TCC members believe a responsibility to warn the community about predatory behavior is incumbent upon those in the know. However, in this cancel culture, the ease with which anyone can take to their social media platforms to impair another's life, rejecting official avenues of confrontation and solution, is outrageous. Reiterating, defamation and cyberbullying are criminal offenses just like sexual abuse; they require as much cowardice from offenders as sexual predation on the physically weaker, younger, and subordinate does. I can only wonder if extremists would so passionately defend alleged victims who were accusing and slandering their own fathers, husbands, brothers . . . . . or sons.
Copyright © (2022) Cynthia Walker. All Rights Reserved.
