The Imposter
- Episode aired Aug 30, 2013
- Unrated
- 57m
YOUR RATING
Photos
Storyline
Featured review
The Imposter
Jeffrey Marsalis is many unpleasant things: a jerk, a liar of Baron Münchhausen proportions, a con man, but is he a serial rapist? Although after three trials he was convicted of one rape, he was clearly sentenced on the basis that he had committed the other rapes for which he was tried and acquitted in a different state. Curiously, that state is Pennsylvania where a certain Mr Cosby has also been accused of the multiple aggravated rapes of women, many of whom as with Marsalis went back to him time and time again.
The woman Marsalis was eventually convicted of raping claims to be a lesbian, although she has had consensual sex with other men, so is he a monster, or is this really a case of hysteria, buyer's remorse, Hell hath no fury...?
Marsalis never took the stand at any of his trials, perhaps if he had the third time he would still be a free man. It is clear though that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that he drugged any of his alleged victims, unless the drug concerned was alcohol. The women he duped were not only high class but highly intelligent, one of them was a lawyer. Are we really expected to believe that a woman of that calibre would willingly continue to date a man she believed had raped her? Sadly, so-called expert evidence to this effect is now allowed in Pennsylvanian courtrooms, which means that along with the feminist-inspired continually expanding definition of rape, soon the mere allegation will be considered proof of the foul deed, something that has as good as happened this side of the Atlantic already.
The woman Marsalis was eventually convicted of raping claims to be a lesbian, although she has had consensual sex with other men, so is he a monster, or is this really a case of hysteria, buyer's remorse, Hell hath no fury...?
Marsalis never took the stand at any of his trials, perhaps if he had the third time he would still be a free man. It is clear though that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that he drugged any of his alleged victims, unless the drug concerned was alcohol. The women he duped were not only high class but highly intelligent, one of them was a lawyer. Are we really expected to believe that a woman of that calibre would willingly continue to date a man she believed had raped her? Sadly, so-called expert evidence to this effect is now allowed in Pennsylvanian courtrooms, which means that along with the feminist-inspired continually expanding definition of rape, soon the mere allegation will be considered proof of the foul deed, something that has as good as happened this side of the Atlantic already.
helpful•00
- a_baron
- Jul 22, 2016
Details
- Runtime57 minutes
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content