This is who The Left Really is: Patricia Esparza

 

myth

Myths are funny things.  They persist in spite of all evidence to the contrary, fueled by imagination and people’s willingness – or better yet, determination – to believe them.  That’s how it is with the myth of the kind-hearted, benevolent leftist a.k.a. the “do-gooders,” and that myth is central to the Left’s ability to maintain power and influence; which means it’s long past time to debunk this myth one leftist at a time. First up:   Convicted killer, Patricia Esparza.

Esparza’s story was profiled on a May, 2016, episode of ‘Dateline on ID.’  She came from a poor family that moved from Mexico to California when she was a small child.  Despite poverty and claims that her father sexually abused her as a child, Esparza excelled in school and won a scholarship to a prestigious private boarding school in New Hampshire.  According to Dateline she probably could have attended her pick of Ivy League schools but chose to go to Pamona College “near her family’s California home.”

In 1995, while a sophomore at Pamona, Esparza was at a dance club one night when she met and exchanged phone numbers with a 24-year old man named Gonzalo Ramirez.  Esparza says he called her the next morning and went to breakfast with her and a friend, then offered to drive her back to her apartment.  Once there he asked to come in for a glass of water and then made sexual advances which she rebuffed, but he ultimately raped her.  She didn’t report this to the police, but the next day went to the campus medical center where she asked for and received the morning after pill.  She later claimed that she told the nurse she’d been raped, but that the nurse was indifferent and never reported the rape to police.  Records from that day make no mention of Esparza’s rape claim.

Three weeks after the alleged rape Gonzalo Ramirez was found dead after being brazenly kidnapped by two men in a white van who intentionally bumped into Ramirez’s car.  The next day his body was found dumped on the street.  He had been brutally beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver.

Under questioning (her phone number was found in Ramirez’s apartment), Esparza told police about the rape and said that two weeks after the rape she told her ex-boyfriend, Gianni Van, what had happened.  That was all she knew, she said.  Investigators discovered that Gianni owned a white van and other evidence pointed to his involvement in the crime.  With Esparza being the only link between the two men her testimony was critical to the mounting case against Van, but to the surprise and dismay of police Esparza suddenly up and married Van in Las Vegas before police could arrest him.  California is a state where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, and without the testimony of Esparza prosecutors had a weak case with no proof of motive.  So for the time being, thanks to the actions of Patricia Esparza, the murderers of Gonzalo Ramirez would remain free.

Esparza would later claim that Van “forced” her to marry him, and that she was terrified of him and never lived with him; but smiling photos with her sitting on his lap left me to doubt the true nature of their relationship.

While the family of Gonzalo Ramirez saw no one held to account for his murder, Patricia Esparza moved on with her life.  According to a sympathetic article in slate.com, “[Esparza] graduated from Pomona with a double major in psychology and women’s studies.  She went on to earn a Ph.D. at DePaul University in clinical psychology.  As a researcher, she focused on human resilience, studying how Latino and urban teenagers develop a sense of belonging and cope with loss and conflict.”

So Esparza didn’t seem to have any difficulty getting on with her life, in spite of her “forced” marriage.  She becomes a political activist, rubbing elbows with the likes of radical democrat socialist, Cornell West, as well as Hillary Clinton, naturally.  She meets neurobiologist and “distinguished scholar” Jorge Mancias while working on a political campaign (he 48, she 25) and, after years of “negotiation,” eventually divorces Van to marry Mancias.  They both get jobs in Geneva, Switzerland (she as a consultant for the World Health Organization, he with the Global Fund), and reside in neighboring France.  They have a daughter.  Tearing up, Mancias tells Dateline that he “admired [Esparza’s] desire to help people,” and her “honesty.”

Back in the U.S.A. police and prosecutors never forgot about Esparza or Gonzalo Ramirez.  When they learn that Esparza has divorced Van, they contact her in France and ask her to assist with the case.  She doesn’t respond.  Through additional witnesses Police ultimately learn that, on the night Ramirez was kidnapped, Esparza had accompanied Van and his friends to the nightclub he frequented and pointed him out to them.  With new light shed on her involvement, police flag her passport, and the next time she returns to the U.S. she is arrested.  She finally agrees to be interviewed and admits to identifying Ramirez for his killers.  She is offered a plea deal of three years for manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Van and allowed to return to France while Van is awaiting trial; but by the time she returns to the U.S. Esparza, her husband and her lawyers have concocted a plan, as leftists are wont to do.  “She would take her case to the court of public opinion,” according to the Dateline narrator.  Upon arriving she and the husband hold a press conference in front of the courthouse where, with her four-year old daughter beside her, Esparza goes on the attack against the prosecutor.  “It is unfortunate that he is willing to destroy a family, that he is willing to strip me away from my daughter knowing that I’m innocent…” she defiantly says to the cameras, painting the prosecutor as the bad guy and herself as the victim.

“This is not America.  This is not justice.  This is abuse of power.  The persecution of an innocent woman who has never harmed anyone.” cried the husband.  Poor, poor Patricia Esparza.

And then the snowflakes came out of the woodwork for Esparza.  Thousands of people signed a change.org petition on Esparza’s behalf.  They carried their signs.  They wore their t-shirts.  But the prosecutor said it best:  “I knew that she had hundreds if not thousands of supporters who had never read a single police report, never listed to a single taped interview.”   But ignorance of the facts never interferes with the Left’s activism.

Feeling emboldened Esparza rejects the three-year plea deal and opts for a trial instead.  While awaiting trial she complains in an interview with Dateline that she’s been re-traumatized every time she talks about her “ordeal.”

Did I mention that Gonzalo Ramirez was chained up, beaten and hacked to death with a meat cleaver?

In her interview she admits to Dateline that she watched as Van and his friends rear-ended Ramirez’s truck and then kidnapped him when he got out of his truck.  She admits that she waited in a nearby bar afterwards, until someone came and took her to the transmission shop where Ramirez was being held.  She sees him chained up and beaten.  Ramirez was “not in good shape,” according to Esparza.  She claims to have been terrorized.  “I never wanted Gonzalo Ramirez to be harmed,” she says.  She calls herself a victim.  Asked if she now wished she had gone to the police, she answered:  “I wish that at some point this whole cycle had been stopped either by an adult or by myself…”

Esparza was 20 years old when the crime occurred.

When Esparza rejected her plea deal Diane Tran, wife of one of Ramirez’s killers and witness to the events that took place, took her own plea deal, telling prosecutors that Patricia Esparza wasn’t forced into anything, that she took part in planning the murder, that discussions about retaliation began immediately after she told Van about the rape, and that Esparza was present when they talked about murder.  According to Tran, Esparza knew about the plan to kill Gonzales and encouraged it.

With Tran prepared to testify and prosecutors undeterred by the bullying campaign on her behalf, Esparza lost her nerve and took a plea, except the offer was now for six years instead of three based upon Tran’s testimony.

I hope you’ll excuse me for the length of this story but the details are necessary to expose Patricia Esparza for the cowardly, cold, calculating liar she is and her supporters for the attention-craving, amoral ignoramuses they really are.

We don’t know if Gonzalo Ramirez actually raped Patricia Esparza because she didn’t report the rape to the police when it allegedly occurred.  Why not?  She didn’t want her family to know, she says.  Well isn’t that brave of our courageous leftist?  If he truly was a rapist, I guess this student of women’s studies and purported sympathizer of women’s struggles was okay with him being out on the street, free to rape other women.  Someone please explain that one to me.  Where are the champions of civil liberties to condemn Esparza and her friends for meting out their own justice?  Where are the leftists who routinely protest the death penalty as “cruel” when a man has been tortured and hacked to death without the chance to defend himself in a court of law?  At every turn this case reveals how phony the Left are, and to what extent their reputations for courage and compassion are myths conjured up in their own diseased minds.

Whether she was raped or not I personally don’t believe Patricia Esparza ever reported the rape to the nurse or other medical personnel who administered the morning after pill she requested.  After seeing the multitude of lies that she told and coming to understand her character (or absence thereof), it seems far more plausible to me that the nurse’s account is the truth.  Why is this important?  Because Esparza threw this poor nurse under the bus when she claimed that the nurse ignored the rape charge and failed to report it, with no concern for how such a charge might damage the nurse’s reputation or endanger her job.  Contrary to the myth, the little people never matter to the Left.  They are expendable.

Perhaps one of the most disgusting aspects of this case was the way Esparza used her “little daughter” to buttress her victimhood persona.  Again and again she wonders aloud what will happen to her little daughter, but never does she acknowledge the two little daughters of Gonzalo Ramirez, now grown, whose father was taken from them and is never coming back.  According to one report Esparza’s husband told the local City News Service:  “The first thing my wife said after she was handcuffed was to please take care of our daughter and shield her from the pain of this experience.”  Really?  Then why did she parade the girl at the news conference where she announced she would fight the charges against her, and why did her husband bring the girl to the courthouse when Esparza finally plead guilty to manslaughter?  Maybe “shield” means something different in leftist speak.

Finally, let’s talk about Esparza’s attempt to shirk accountability for her actions by trying to intimidate prosecutors with public support, while still pretending to be courageous.  Is this how justice is supposed to work, that he or she with the most friends wins?  That’s the mentality of the Left.  The rules of the system never apply to them.  Keep in mind that prosecutors initially offered her a sentence of just three years in exchange for testifying against those who carried out the actual killing.  But Esparza says she didn’t want a conviction to jeopardize her career.  Frankly I don’t understand why she’s worried.  A murder conviction makes you a hero to the liberals who run the world’s universities.  She’ll be promoted to chair of her department as soon as she’s released.

That’s who Patricia Esparza really is, just in case you ever encounter the mythical version.

Up next:   The myth of Hillary Clinton.

 

~CW



Categories: Political

Tags: , ,

11 replies

  1. Quite the story, CW. I had never heard about this person or case. I think you get to the lies right away in her story. There is no way she would have stayed that close to home for college if her father abused her. My stepfather abused me and there was no way I was going to go to college anywhere near my home. I do not see it. I think her story is a lie from the get go.

    Like

    • Your thinking is exactly the same as mine, Patrick. In the interests of brevity I didn’t delve into how odd it seemed that a woman who was abused would opt for a college close to the abuser rather than any number of Ivy League schools farther away. That was the first thing that smelled funny about her story, and I’m glad to know I wasn’t the only one who thought so.

      I only heard of Esparza recently, and I know that there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to the Left but it bothered me to think that she would be anyone’s cause célèbre.

      Like

      • No reason to delve into all those details. I think the way you tell the story is fantastic and it leaves it up to the reader to speculate over her motives.

        Liked by 1 person

      • CW:

        It is not uncommon for rape victims not to report the crime and I can understand why she would have wanted to stay closer to home, to family for college, even thought her rapist was in the area.

        There is, however, no excuse for her actions, as you detailed. And those actions lend support to your charge that she may have, dishonestly, thrown her nurse under the bus.

        A series of unethical and unnecesary choices that she made.

        If you’re raped, report it. I suspect that the rape was real in this case and am very sorry for her horror. I can’t imagine why someone would make that up and then orchestrate the murder of an innocent “non rapist”.

        Like

      • I appreciate your comment, Dudley.

        The reason I wondered about Esparza’s decision to opt for a college close to home and family is that she contends that she was sexually abused by her father. You wouldn’t think someone would want to stay close to that if they had other good options. It goes to the whole notion of her credibility.

        It is certainly possible that she was raped, but because of her actions we’ll never know for sure. I could also envision a scenario where she was persuaded to have sex and then regretted it, evolving the story into a rape when she told it to the ex-boyfriend. Again, we’ll never know.

        The point of the essay is to cause readers to question the presumption of goodness that seems to go along with anyone described as an “activist” for the Left. All too often when you look beneath the surface what you really see are people who are selfish and cold, and who won’t make the personal sacrifices they are often credited with. If Patricia Esparza was raped by Gonzalo Ramirez, then the admirable thing to do was to report it and help put him away. When her friends wanted to exact their own vigilante justice, the admirable thing to do was to stop them. If they harmed him anyway, the admirable thing to do was to report them. And in light of what transpired the admirable thing would have been to tell the truth and to bravely face the consequences. Esparza never did any of that and is STILL not doing any of that, and I just want her admirers to see her for who she really is.

        Like

  2. Good stuff, CW. What a piece of work that woman is. She is the poster child for the workings of the left – nothing she says can be depended on as being truthful and she’ll do or say anything to get what she wants. She has no scruples or morals or character or any other saving grace – she is truly a worthless human being. Anyone who has caused the brutal torture and murder of someone else – even a rapist – and still can act as if nothing happened has no soul. She is repugnant and ought to be exterminated for the good of society.

    Like

    • And I thought I was tough!

      I can’t disagree with you, Garnet. You’re right on with your description of Esparza. I’m not expecting miracles when it comes to liberal mythology. I’d be satisfied if they would at least stop treating her like some sort of tragic heroine.

      Like

  3. Great piece, CW. Sometimes it takes a long story to connect all the dots.

    Regular myths are usually stories pertaining to a particular sect that are handed down and embellished over generations.

    The same pertains to liberal myths, except that theirs are constantly repeated falsehoods and most always motivated by arrogance and selfishness, of which Patricia Esparza is a shining example.

    Like

  4. I do believe this MYTH series might need to show up as a book.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: