I believe Vanessa Tyson for a couple of reasons. One of which is...

[Ms. Toad]

74. The facts on which you premise Tyson's "obligation" to press charges

are incorrect.

She shared the information privately with friends in Virginia when it appeared he might become Lt Governor, so that her friends could make an informed decision about voting for someone who had abused her.

Years later, in October of 2017, I saw a picture of Mr. Fairfax accompanying an article in The Root about his campaign for Lt. Governor in Virginia. The image hit me like a ton of bricks, triggering buried traumatic memories and the feelings of humiliation I’d felt so intensely back in 2004. Prior to reading the article, I had not followed Mr. Fairfax’s career and did not know that he was seeking public office. Unsure of what to do, I felt it was crucial to tell close friends of mine in Virginia, who were voters, about the assault.

When it appeared he might be elevated to governor, she shared information - again - with friends.

That night I vented my frustration on Facebook in a message that I wrote as a private post. I did not identify Lt. Governor Fairfax by name but stated that it seemed inevitable that the campaign staffer who assaulted me during the Democratic Convention in 2004 was about to get a big promotion. It was not my intention in that moment to inject myself into what has become a much larger political battle.

(At least) one of her friends outed her before she had made the decision to go public.

Over the weekend, I was undecided about whether to speak out publicly. I knew that if I did so, I would immediately face accusations about my motives and be branded a liar, as is routinely the case when women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against prominent men.

On Sunday night, before I had time to decide on a course of action, an online publication published a screenshot of my Facebook post, identified me by name, and posted pictures of me.

Once outed (i.e. control as to whether to go public taken from her), and facing lies by Fairfax about why the Post did not publish the story, she responded with a single statement that she says will be her sole statement on the matter.

In response, at 2:55 a.m. on February 4, 2019, Mr. Fairfax issued a statement further escalating this matter by calling me a liar and falsely characterizing the reasons The Washington Post decided not to run a story about my allegations. The Post was forced to repudiate Mr. Fairfax’s statement that there were “significant red flags and inconsistencies with the allegations” which led it to decide not to publish a story about my account. Rather, as is often the case in situations where sexual assault by an acquaintance occurs behind closed doors years earlier, it is difficult to corroborate either the victim’s allegations or the accuser’s denials.

. . .

My only motive in speaking now is to refute Mr. Fairfax’s falsehoods and aspersions of my character, and to provide what I believe is important information for Virginians to have as they make critical decisions that involve Mr. Fairfax.

No survivor, ever, is obligated to subject herself to torment of the the court system. That applies even when she chooses to speak out publicly against her abuser - and especially when she speaks out publicly only after third parties publish her story without her consent, and in response to public assertions she is a liar.

To insist otherwise is insensitive to rape survivors, and antithetical to the principles of the #metoo movement.

(Note: She did approach the Post earlier with her story, which it declined to publish. That approach did not result in a public statement against Fairfax. The recent publication of the accusation was, ultimately, without her consent; her first public statement was a direct response to Fairfax's response to the third party (unauthorized) publication, and to his announcement about the earlier non-publication by the Post)