It’s Monday morning, tax day, crummy weather, and lots of work to do, so I’m not going to make things worse by posting here the photo that the New York Times splayed across the front of its Sunday Styles section yesterday, and that made me (and probably many of you) go ICK! EWWWW! EWWWW EWWWW EWWWW! At the very least, the photo, which depicts disgraced “fashion designer” Anand Jon in the company of two very, very young-looking models somewhere out on the party circuit, is the kind of woozy tableau that reminds you that the lower rungs of the fashion and celebrity world are saturated in vulgarity and creepiness whether or not actual crimes are committed. Of course, given the multiplying legal charges of rape and molestation that Jon now faces, the photo’s prominent placement, beneath the headline “The Designer Who Liked Models” and accompanying a spare-no-tawdry-detail article by Hollywood correspondent Sharon Waxman, makes for quite the indictment in the court of public opinion. It does so, in fact, to an extent that made me uncomfortable, though I’ll go out on a limb and say that this brother is clearly a grade-A, bona fide creep and I’d be highly surprised, given what’s coming out, if he was cleared of all charges.
Meanwhile the article has raised hackles in other quarters, as I discovered while checking our news page to see if anyone had posted it. Indeed: an anonymous tipster linked the story as “NY times ignorant report,” quoting this line from the piece: “Mr. Jon is well known in his native India, and national newspapers like The Hindustan Times and Calcutta Times follow every development with interest,” and commenting in response:
Actually he is unknown in India.The is no newspaper called Calcutta Times. And this Jon story has never appeared in The Telegraph. Indian media has not any given attention to Anand Jon.
Now the “Calcutta Times” thing tripped me up too; I chalked it up to shoddy Googling by Waxman to make a point that, while tangential to the story, might give it some extra oomph. I maintain that view, especially upon finding that “Calcutta Times” is the name of the Times of India’s Calcutta supplement (similar to those it runs in other cities); Waxman must have just grabbed something that ran there to support her claim.
But of course, the tipster had to go and assert that the Jon story has not even despoiled the virginal eyes of the Indian newspaper reading public, and that, of course, is a load of bollocks. In fact, the very Telegraph, which the tipster claims has never run a story on Jon, did exactly that on March 14, with a piece by K. P. Nayar that begins as follows:
Washington, March 14: Anand Jon, whose Indian-American success story is the stuff of dreams, is in a Los Angeles jail, arrested on rape charges.
So even if Waxman’s technique was shoddy, you can hardly fault her for claiming that Indians are paying attention to the case given this kind of treatment.
Anyway, this is inside baseball, and I would like to explain for the benefit of any mainstream media or bloggers coming here to find the “official” desi reaction to the latest developments in the Jon case, that the point I’ve just raised is totally tangential to the case itself, and that as far as I know, reaction among American desis remains the same combination of “innocent until proven guilty… I guess” and “EEEEWWWW ICK ICK ICK” that it’s been from the beginning.Meanwhile, Brother Jon and his crew aren’t above using a bit of Ho-rientalism in service of his defense. Here’s Jon’s attorney on why the story of one of the victims can’t be right:
“Why would she change into pajamas?†asked Mr. Richards, Mr. Jon’s lawyer. “Why didn’t she leave when she sees there’s no bed for her? Why didn’t she punch him in the face?†He noted that there were no signs of physical trauma. “My client is 5-foot-4 and 130 pounds. He’s a thin Gandhi-type guy. He can’t overpower anybody. Any girl would kick his butt. It’s not even a close call. That’s what’s so silly about this.â€
The preposterous insertion of the Gandhi reference has already made Gawker, by the way. And this is the same attorney who, earlier in the story, is quoted offering the universal blame-the-victim line: “You can’t fault a man if women throw themselves at him.”
And there’s the story of how Jon picked up a teenager on MySpace (his preferred hunting ground, apparently), offered her a chance to model, and flew to Dallas to meet her parents:
Mr. Jon told the girl’s parents, the father said, “I treasure the feminine being. I got all this spirituality from my grandmother and my mom.â€
Needless to say, there’s nothing spiritual about what happens next. Still, we learn that Jon embraces many religions: on one occasion, his sister/enabler Sanjana, “who works with him and by all accounts does much to soften her brother’s cruder edges,” says he’s unavailable to talk because it’s Passover, and he’s “in temple.” And the description of a possibly coerced sexual encounter with an aspiring model ends as follows: “Afterward she went to clean up. Mr. Jon sat and meditated.”
More from Lawyer Richards posted on TMZ:
Let’s take the oldest alleged victim, Katie S. She went on TV in Dallas on Wednesday night after the DA said none of the “victims” want publicity. She claims that in 2002, she went to LA with her mom and sister.
She claims that she was inappropriately touched when she was 14. She also claimed someone else did the same thing when she was 12. She told her mother that she was uncomfortable with Anand. Her mother advised her to loss his number and not contact him. Yet, according to her, when she was in Dallas, she allegedly snuck out of her house and went to see Anand at a condo.
Therefore, she claims she was raped. Why would a (14 year old) girl who claims a bad experience with someone sneak out to see him again? She blames Anand for her failure as a model. She is now a nobody who is seeking her 15 minutes of fame. TV appearances are like a drug for some people. They get a false sense of accomplishment. She tried to file a report in Dallas in 2006 but the police found her not credible like the LA DA did for the alleged victim, Natalie P., in 2005, Count One.
Many of these girls were contacted prior to making their complaints by other girls. The complaints were scripted. What are the odds of 12 girls who don’t know each keeping silent about serious crimes? ZERO. What are the odds of 12 C List vindictive part time models coordinating a smear campaign that got out of hand? Very High! Each of these alleged victims have serious markers of deceit or false statements.
Some admit they are great in entrapment, some are chronic coke heads, some have serious psychological issues, and most, are simply liars whose own conduct after these alleged assaults is entirely inconsistent with someone who has been raped. Rape victims don’t make demos, try on clothes, fly to other cities with the assailant, and continue to contact them looking for work.
Just as it is astonishing and incredulous that one 130, 5″4′ man could over power these woman, you need to realize that it is equally plausible but astonishing, that 12 low grade girls would get together to and script false claims as old as five years.
It is a sad comment of our society that anyone in this day in age would simply assume the accusations to be true. It is the sheer number of them that make them doubtful combined with the large amounts of EVIDENCE which contradict their contentions.
I have seen the cattle call with woman in the past who jump on the false claim band wagon. Not all stale claims are invalid but the facts of this case are unique. Now that Anand’s bail is not being tampered with or attemps to unfairly detain him pending trial have been defeated, I urge all of you to wait until you here the defense cross examination of each of these girls and judge for yourself.
Their little model games will evaporate in front of an experienced advocate who knows more about the facts than some of the sound bite shot callers who are simply posting nameless posts. If you were really assaulted by my client, post your real name up here and stop hiding, it is gross! I am looking forward to June 12, 2007, the next day we will start to have some justice in this case.
Posted at 12:15PM on Apr 7th 2007 by Ronald Richards, Esq.
i too was amazed at the unmitigated gaul of the attorney’s ghandi comparison …
and, even though the implication was a comparison of size and not moral code, it certainly had nothing to do with the stature of the accused serial rapist.
if you google “anand jon” images, you’ll see that the lawyer is either blind or so desperate for a defense that he’ll try anything. (Look at him standing by the 5’7″ nicki hilton – in heels).
the reason? anand jon is a muscular man, approximately 5’8″ 180 pounds, with the pecs and abs of a college wrestler.
we can only assume the defendant wouldn’t let his lawyer go for the gay, impotent and penis-less designer defense.
pity. that might have proven a tad more effective, if not entertaining.
I’m an Indian and I really don’t have much to say about the matter. But I must say that all the educated people in India know him. The news has been on T.V. several times.
Very useful many thanks, I believe your current audience might just want a whole lot more well written articles of this nature continue the good effort.