Accusing the long-dead

[unicorn]

Dolores Huerta, a 96 year-old labor activist who worked with the more famous labor activist César Chavez, has waited until 33 years after his death to accuse the decedent of raping her 60 years ago. Supposedly, one of the incidents (1966) was forcible rape in the back of Chavez's car. She also described an earlier encounter in August 1960 in which "she felt pressured to have sex with him in a hotel room during a work trip in San Juan Capistrano". Apparently both of these trysts resulted in childbirth, and both were adopted and not made aware of the alleged circumstances of their conception until now. 

Almost overnight, municipalities and other organizations have removed artwork made to commemorate Chavez. No one has waited to even test the two to find out whether the accusation of unwanted sexual activity is even plausible. Of course, we'll never hear Chavez's version. I have to wonder why Huerta is bringing this up now? Does she want César Chavez Day to be renamed Dolores Huerta Day? (I can see that happening) I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how quickly people can rush to judgment--a kind of mob mentality.

https://apnews.com/article/latino-leaders-speak-out-about-chavez-allegations-f1b24d3c6bdf71b326b63d51f80ea957

Memorial in Fresno being covered up:

Statue in San Fernando being removed. It seems it was important to cover it up before being removed:

Mural being covered in Santa Ana:

Statue being removed in Denver:

All of these accusations made decades after a person's death feel rather unseemly to me. I also find the rush to judgment disturbing. 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

Dolores Huerta, a 96 year-old labor activist who worked with the more famous labor activist César Chavez, has waited until 33 years after his death to accuse the decedent of raping her 60 years ago. Supposedly, one of the incidents (1966) was forcible rape in the back of Chavez's car. She also described an earlier encounter in August 1960 in which "she felt pressured to have sex with him in a hotel room during a work trip in San Juan Capistrano". Apparently both of these trysts resulted in childbirth, and both were adopted and not made aware of the alleged circumstances of their conception until now. 

Almost overnight, municipalities and other organizations have removed artwork made to commemorate Chavez. No one has waited to even test the two to find out whether the accusation of unwanted sexual activity is even plausible. Of course, we'll never hear Chavez's version. I have to wonder why Huerta is bringing this up now? Does she want César Chavez Day to be renamed Dolores Huerta Day? (I can see that happening) I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how quickly people can rush to judgment--a kind of mob mentality.

https://apnews.com/article/latino-leaders-speak-out-about-chavez-allegations-f1b24d3c6bdf71b326b63d51f80ea957

Memorial in Fresno being covered up:

Statue in San Fernando being removed. It seems it was important to cover it up before being removed:

Mural being covered in Santa Ana:

Statue being removed in Denver:

All of these accusations made decades after a person's death feel rather unseemly to me. I also find the rush to judgment disturbing. 

There used to be a principle of innocent  until proved guilty!

[Mavica]

I have a personal connection to the UFW and knew Chavez way back when. I'm conflicted about these reports and haven't yet decided what to believe, and not.

[unicorn]

8 minutes ago, Mavica said:

I have a personal connection to the UFW and knew Chavez way back when. I'm conflicted about these reports and haven't yet decided what to believe, and not.

At this point, obviously there's no way to really know. Even if it happened, what's the point of bringing it up now, decades after he died? It's one thing to bring these matters up promptly, so the perpetrator can be apprehended and prevented from repeating noxious behavior. What can the accusations accomplish at this point--other than tarnish his reputation? 

[Pete1111]

Any file created when J Edgar Hoover ran the FBI might lack a degree of credibility.

I also question why wait 60 years to accuse?  It's peculiar.

Perhaps the New York Times should double their focus on our modern offenders, e.g. diaper Don.

[jimmie50]

1 hour ago, Pete1111 said:

I also question why wait 60 years to accuse?  It's peculiar.

Perhaps the New York Times should double their focus on our modern offenders, e.g. diaper Don.

I am like you.  I don't understand the importance or significance of bringing this up now.  We have far more pressing issues that deserve immediate attention...such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, constitutional rights...all of which are under attack by the current regime.  Is the NY Times that desperate for new articles?!?   

[vinapu]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

 

All of these accusations made decades after a person's death feel rather unseemly to me. I also find the rush to judgment disturbing. 

 

you are not alone

[Mavica]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Even if it happened, what's the point of bringing it up now, decades after he died? 

Victims want acknowledgement of what they were subjected to, whether or not the alleged perpetrator is alive.  They want to tell their story.  I can't relate completely because I haven't been sexually victimized. 

[Patanawet]

6 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

There used to be a principle of innocent  until proved guilty!

Innocent until proved dead.

[Lucky]

If the allegations are true, Huerta is responsible  for many women becoming victims because she did not speak out earlier.

[caeron]

 

This thread is why victims don't come forward. They don't get believed, they get accused of having motives and lying, and they get blamed for their own victimization. Apparently, they're also responsible for abusing other women too.

Powerful men get away with shit while victims get re-victimized.

I believe them. If evidence comes to light that disproves their claim, then I will change my mind. But, you get nothing but grief for coming forward. You don't do that without a strong reason to.

 

[unicorn]

On 3/21/2026 at 4:19 PM, caeron said:

 

This thread is why victims don't come forward. They don't get believed, they get accused of having motives and lying, and they get blamed for their own victimization. Apparently, they're also responsible for abusing other women too.

Powerful men get away with shit while victims get re-victimized.

I believe them. If evidence comes to light that disproves their claim, then I will change my mind. But, you get nothing but grief for coming forward. You don't do that without a strong reason to.

Obviously, neither you nor I has enough (nor will we ever have enough) information to believe or disbelieve the accuser. It's certainly problematic when one has the mindset that the accused has to "disprove" allegations in order to be considered possibly innocent, especially among those whose minds is already set. That's the definition of mob mentality (and many have been lynched because of it). How would you like it if you were accused of a crime, and told no one would believe you unless you could "disprove" the allegations? I guess that still happens in some countries--one would hope not advanced societies. 

Accusers get plenty of sympathy, not grief, especially from those close to them. It also wouldn't surprise me if Cesar Chavez day were renamed Dolores Huerta Day. At this point, one is deluding oneself if one thinks one knows the truth. It's really unknowable at this time. One can only wonder: why bring up these accusations now? If it were true that bringing up the accusations results only in "grief," there would be no motive. 

No one is accusing her of lying. There's no way to tell either way. There have certainly been examples of false accusations, including the blatant lies discovered in the Duke Lacrosse players' case, which ruined innocent men's lives. While not as clear-cut, the Kobe Bryant case was probably another such case. I can only wonder why Huerta is bringing this up over six decades later, and over three decades after Chavez's death. I find the overnight rush to take down his statues and murals troubling.

[caeron]

 

Perhaps you might wish to read the NY times pieces that investigated and broke the story. I find their vetting valid, and I believe the victims.

 

[Keithambrose]

4 hours ago, caeron said:

 

Perhaps you might wish to read the NY times pieces that investigated and broke the story. I find their vetting valid, and I believe the victims.

 

We had a well-known case over here in the UK that is indicative of the difficulties. A man told the police that he had been to gay orgy parties at which young boys had been used for sex, and a couple, killed. He implicated leading figures, including politicians, an army general etc. The police spent several million pounds investigating this, having said that following their initial investigations,  they thought it was a valid claim. The alleged perpetrators were all arrested, under caution, interviewed, etc. There was a lot of publicity, homes searched, etc.

Subsequently the allegations were proved to have been completely fabricated, and the man who made the allegations was eventually prosecuted and sent to prison. The police did not seem to realise that the man, Carl Beech, was himself a paedophile. 

[PeterRS]

@Keithambrose mentioned the Jeremy Thorpe case in these columns just a couple of weeks or so ago. Am I not correct in suggesting this was a case where the various organs of law enforcement including the police, the defence counsel and even the judge were so biased and accepting of a whole multitude of lies that a fair trial was impossible? And are we not to some extent now witnessing the result of the same lack of enthusiasm for having explored all the evidence that must have existed for decades against alleged crimes committed by the now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

[unicorn]

12 hours ago, caeron said:

...I find their vetting valid, and I believe the victims.

The point is that you simply choose to believe the alleged victims (in fact, you label them "victims" rather than "alleged victims," totally discounting any possibility you might be wrong). The human tendency to believe victims should be tempered by a willingness to examine facts, and not just statements. Currently, there is zero supporting hard evidence. One would be hard-pressed to even estimate the chance that these accusations are true (or false). At least if they were to test the out-of-wedlock children's DNA, they could show that the odds aren't zero that Huerta is being truthful. Of course, this wouldn't show whether or not the sex was consensual--just that sex between the two did happen.

The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know whether these allegations are truthful. Is she just trying to cast herself as a victim? Trying to improve her reputation after giving up two out-of-wedlock children for adoption? One piece of fact that makes me a bit uneasy at taking the accuser at face value is the fact that she claims two episodes of unwanted sexual intercourse (though in one case she says she was "manipulated" into consenting), and became pregnant each time. Even if Chavez was extremely unlucky, and happened to time the sex (both times) during the 1-2 days before ovulation, there's still only a 10-30% chance of pregnancy resulting in a live birth each time:
AI Overview
The probability of pregnancy from a single act of unprotected intercourse with a fertile woman varies significantly based on timing, ranging from nearly 0% outside the fertile window to approximately 10-30% during the most fertile days (1–2 days before ovulation). On average, the likelihood is about 3-4% per act of intercourse over a full cycle. 
The New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199512073332301

So even if we give the most generous interpretation of the data, that he happened both times to have sex with her during her two fertile days per cycle, and that the odds are 30%, not 10%, that still gives the odds of becoming pregnant both times to be 30% X 30%, or 9%. Outside the peak two days, or if we take the middle range of estimates, the odds drop dramatically. 9% is simply the maximum odds, with the most generous interpretation of the data, of two episodes of sexual intercourse during the fertile window resulting in live births. (I should also note that Huerta was in her 30s both times, hardly a woman's most fertile years)

Even if the out-of-wedlock children are shown to be Chavez's, these data would make one have to consider the likelihood that his two children are more likely to have resulted from multiple (presumably consensual) sexual acts, rather than from two unwanted ones. There is little disincentive to falsely accuse, as prosecutions against those who falsely accuse are rare. In Huerta's case, the odds are zero, since she didn't make these accusations under oath, so could not be prosecuted for perjury. This article describes a rare case in which the false accuser was prosecuted:

https://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/99-of-false-accusations-go-unpunished-center-for-prosecutor-integrity-asks-why/

"99% of False Accusations Go Unpunished.... Nikki Yovino of New York falsely accused two football players at Sacred Heart University of rape. The woman later admitted that she had lied to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend. As a result, Yovino was sentenced to one year in prison, plus two years of probation... One of the falsely accused men, Malik St. Hilaire, sadly recounted, “I went from being a college student, to sitting at home being expelled, with no way to clear my name. I just hope she knows what she has done to me. My life will never be the same. I did nothing wrong, but everything has been altered because of this.”...False allegations are widespread in the United States. A national survey sponsored by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity found that 8% of Americans — 11% of men and 6% of women — report being falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The 8% figure represents 20.4 million adults (2)...".

[Keithambrose]

46 minutes ago, unicorn said:

The point is that you simply choose to believe the alleged victims (in fact, you label them "victims" rather than "alleged victims," totally discounting any possibility you might be wrong). The human tendency to believe victims should be tempered by a willingness to examine facts, and not just statements. Currently, there is zero supporting hard evidence. One would be hard-pressed to even estimate the chance that these accusations are true (or false). At least if they were to test the out-of-wedlock children's DNA, they could show that the odds aren't zero that Huerta is being truthful. Of course, this wouldn't show whether or not the sex was consensual--just that sex between the two did happen.

The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know whether these allegations are truthful. Is she just trying to cast herself as a victim? Trying to improve her reputation after giving up two out-of-wedlock children for adoption? One piece of fact that makes me a bit uneasy at taking the accuser at face value is the fact that she claims two episodes of unwanted sexual intercourse (though in one case she says she was "manipulated" into consenting), and became pregnant each time. Even if Chavez was extremely unlucky, and happened to time the sex (both times) during the 1-2 days before ovulation, there's still only a 10-30% chance of pregnancy resulting in a live birth each time:
AI Overview
The probability of pregnancy from a single act of unprotected intercourse with a fertile woman varies significantly based on timing, ranging from nearly 0% outside the fertile window to approximately 10-30% during the most fertile days (1–2 days before ovulation). On average, the likelihood is about 3-4% per act of intercourse over a full cycle. 
The New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199512073332301

So even if we give the most generous interpretation of the data, that he happened both times to have sex with her during her two fertile days per cycle, and that the odds are 30%, not 10%, that still gives the odds of becoming pregnant both times to be 30% X 30%, or 9%. Outside the peak two days, or if we take the middle range of estimates, the odds drop dramatically. 9% is simply the maximum odds, with the most generous interpretation of the data, of two episodes of sexual intercourse during the fertile window resulting in live births. (I should also note that Huerta was in her 30s both times, hardly a woman's most fertile years)

Even if the out-of-wedlock children are shown to be Chavez's, these data would make one have to consider the likelihood that his two children are more likely to have resulted from multiple (presumably consensual) sexual acts, rather than from two unwanted ones. There is little disincentive to falsely accuse, as prosecutions against those who falsely accuse are rare. In Huerta's case, the odds are zero, since she didn't make these accusations under oath, so could not be prosecuted for perjury. This article describes a rare case in which the false accuser was prosecuted:

https://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/99-of-false-accusations-go-unpunished-center-for-prosecutor-integrity-asks-why/

"99% of False Accusations Go Unpunished.... Nikki Yovino of New York falsely accused two football players at Sacred Heart University of rape. The woman later admitted that she had lied to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend. As a result, Yovino was sentenced to one year in prison, plus two years of probation... One of the falsely accused men, Malik St. Hilaire, sadly recounted, “I went from being a college student, to sitting at home being expelled, with no way to clear my name. I just hope she knows what she has done to me. My life will never be the same. I did nothing wrong, but everything has been altered because of this.”...False allegations are widespread in the United States. A national survey sponsored by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity found that 8% of Americans — 11% of men and 6% of women — report being falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The 8% figure represents 20.4 million adults (2)...".

Carl Beech, see above, was given an 18 year sentence, though he was also convicted of other crimes. He was released, on licence, after 7 years.

[Keithambrose]

8 hours ago, PeterRS said:

@Keithambrose mentioned the Jeremy Thorpe case in these columns just a couple of weeks or so ago. Am I not correct in suggesting this was a case where the various organs of law enforcement including the police, the defence counsel and even the judge were so biased and accepting of a whole multitude of lies that a fair trial was impossible? And are we not to some extent now witnessing the result of the same lack of enthusiasm for having explored all the evidence that must have existed for decades against alleged crimes committed by the now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

It is true that the case against Jeremy Thorpe was badly handled. He was an establishment  figure, and the Judge was certainly  biased in his favour. Thorpe had managed to marry the Countess of Harewood, a concert pianist, whose former husband  was first cousin to the Queen! That helped.

 

The police enquiries were also suspect.  They had been told many times of Thorpe 's homosexual leanings and activities, but took no action. Interestingly,  these were noted on his MI5 file. Thorpe also had a brilliant Defence counsel, George Carman QC, one of the finest advocates of his generation. He destroyed the prosecution  witnesses in cross examination, helped by the judge. Thorpe was acquitted of conspiracy to murder, but it was admitted that he had, in effect, at the least, plotted to harm Norman Scott, his lover. He was never charged with any lesser offence, even though the alleged potential assassin, Andrew Newton, shot the dog of Norman Scott. The general view after the trial,  was that Thorpe had got away with murder, so to speak!

Private Eye, our satirical magazine, founded by Peter Cook, occasionally produced a short vinyl record with the magazine.  They did after the Thorpe  trial, it was narrated by Peter Cook, as the Judge. It started:-

 

"Ladies and gentlemen  of the jury, before you retire to consider your verdict  of NOT guilty...."

 

...and went on from there. I wish I still had it!