Monday, June 30, 2008

In "he said-she said" dispute over whether sex was consensual, his side doesn't count -- he's suspended

A man accused of a crime is presumed innocent of the charges -- in judicial proceedings only. In the real world, a young man's entire life is often destroyed on the basis of nothing more than the accusation of rape by a female. It doesn't matter that the young man claims the so-called rape was nothing more than consensual sex. It doesn't matter how strong his defense is.

In the story below, college football player Jerrard Tarrant was considered a potential starter for Georgia Tech, but all that is on hold because a young woman alleged he raped her and he has been suspended. There are apparently no other witnesses to the alleged rape, and likely no other evidence. It is her word against his.

The shelf-life of a college football player is brief. If the charge isn't cleared up quickly, he may forever lose his chance at stardom. His life surely is in turmoil right now.

When will we, as a society, realize that there is something terribly wrong with a culture that allows any female to claim she's been raped and, before a single fact has been adjudicated, the male's life is unraveled for the world to see? She, of course, retains her anonymity while his humiliation is a national news story. For what other crime do we hand one class of private citizens (generally young women) the unbridled power to destroy the lives of any member of another class of people (e.g., virtually any male, but generally young men)?

Georgia Tech, you can take the claim "seriously" without punishing the young man prior to a determination of guilt. This suspension is punishment for merely being accused. Or are you bowing to political pressures?

The fact is, a female can transmogrify one of the most basic and profound human acts -- the consensual sex act -- into a vile crime merely by characterizing it as such. And the male is presumed guilty pending the outcome of the case.

Why does this not frighten -- and outrage -- many more men?

Georgia Tech player Tarrant charged with rape, suspended from team

ATLANTA — Georgia Tech cornerback Jerrard Tarrant has been charged with rape and has been suspended from the football team.

The alleged victim said she was raped at an on-campus dormitory April 25 and reported the incident to police that morning, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday.

Charles Lea, a lawyer representing Tarrant, said his client is not guilty of the charges.

Tarrant, 19, was released Saturday on US$40,000 bail, the newspaper reported. The six-foot-two, 185-pound redshirt freshman from Carrollton, Ga., was considered a potential starter at cornerback.

Tarrant has been suspended indefinitely from the Tech football team pending the outcome of the case, Yellow Jackets coach Paul Johnson said in a statement.

"These charges filed against Jerrard are something that we take very seriously. He has been suspended from the team indefinitely, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings," Johnson said.

Georgia Tech campus police said the arrest report was not available Monday afternoon.

Tarrant was competing with Mario Butler for the spot opposite Jahi Word-Daniels. Tarrant also practised as he fifth back and on special teams.

Lea said Tarrant's side of the case will be presented at the proper time.

"We maintain that any sexual activity that took place was entirely consensual," he said.

A whopper of a feminist double standard: Women don't lie about rape, except when they recant a rape claim

One of the most disturbing canards of the sexual assault counseling industry is that women don't lie about rape. Exposing this lie, and injecting false rape claims into the public discourse about rape, is the principal purpose of this Web site.

But equally disturbing is the related assertion of some in the sexual assault counseling industry that when women claim they've been raped and then recant, it's "often" the case that the recantation shouldn't be believed and, in fact, the women really were raped. See, e.g., here. ("Separating rape racts from fiction: . . . .Women lie about being raped. Fact: It is assumed that when a woman recants a report of a rape or sexual assault that the original report was false. Often, an individual recants because she feels threatened or is intimidated by the legal process. Law enforcement may drop cases because there is a lack of physical or corroborating evidence." Cite: Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 4, 2008.)

The assertion that the recantation is suspect is typically posited without any supporting authority beyond the writer's serene ipse dixit. It is, of course, impossible to engage in constructive dialogue with persons who purport to refute facts with assertions that cannot be tested. (It is akin to their "proof" that far more rapes are occurring than are reported. How do we know that? Well, rape is "the most underreported of all crimes," they chant with zombie-like repetition. How do we know it's underreported? We know it's underreported because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring. Which proves, of course, that rape is rampant. Get it? Neither do I.)

In Professor Eugene Kanin's landmark 1994 study about false rape claims, he found 41% of all rape claims over a nine year period in a Midwestern U.S. town to have been false -- all of the fasle claims in the study involved recantations. Professor Kanin expressly dealt with the question of the reliability of the recantations. "Although we certainly do not deny the possibility of false recantations, no evidence supports such an interpretation for these cases." See the study here

Nor is there any evidence for the sexual assault counseling industry's blanket assertion that recantations are often lies.

In any event, according to these paid sexual assault counselors, we must by default believe the woman when she alleges she's been raped, but mirabile dictu, the moment she recants, she loses all credibility.

That's called "having it both ways," and it's not merely intellectually dishonest, it's immoral -- immoral because it could be cited to keep an innocent man or boy in jail following a recantation. We see from the numerous false claims we report on this Web site that when women do recant, the recantations typically have the ring of truth. Women often admit that the initial false claim was made as an alibi to "explain" or to cover up an illicit consensual sexual relationship from a parent, a husband or a boyfriend. Usually they recant only after the police have discovered serious, often fatal problems with their story. Typically the target of their wrongful accusation isn't the man or boy with whom they were having illicit sex, but some other innocent man or boy who just happened to be in the neighborhood. Often the women don't get to the point of naming a specific individual, but they cast aspersions on a hypothetical and, according to white middle class mores, "scary" stranger -- often a black or a foreign man. The point is that the recantations ring far truer than the initial rape claim.

A recent news story vividly illustrates this peculiar and immoral double standard of the paid sexual assault industry where women must be believed if they cry rape but must be disbelieved if they recant. You recall that recently we reported on the death of Cathleen Crowell Webb, the infamous false accuser who recanted her lie that nearly sent a young man away to prison for decades. Here is another article that provides a detailed account of Ms. Webb's lie and its aftermath. One interesting tidbit from that story reports on what a member of the sexual assault industry said after Ms. Webb recanted:

"Meanwhile, many did not believe Webb's story that she had never been raped, including 57 percent of respondents in CBS 2's poll. Some became concerned the case could have a negative impact on women's rights. 'As a therapist, I think that part of what is happening – and this is speculation – but I think that Cathleen has for years denied the terror and the tragedy and the trauma of what happened to her,' said Dickelle Fonda of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault. 'I think that she has carried a great deal of guilt and shame and embarrassment, as many rape victims do, and never had the opportunity to resolve that. Had she had that opportunity – had victim services been available at the time – perhaps none of this would have happened.'"

Did you get that? First, note the emphasis on "women's rights" as opposed to, oh, say, "justice" and "honesty" and "innocent until proven guilty." Never does it occur to these shills that innocent men and boys have rights that deserve to be protected. Just another manifestation of how the crime of false reporting has become subsumed in the radical feminist sexual assault metanarrative, which is replete with half-truths and outright lies and which never expresses concern for protecting the rights of innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape. The disingenuous hallmark of that metanarrative is that false rape claims are a "myth."

Second, and most troubling, is that a so-called "expert" went on the record in a public forum to espouse rank speculation that was intended to lead people to believe that the accused young man was guilty of a terrible crime. It wasn't possible that the woman lied when she cried rape; by recanting, she just proved she's in denial about the terrible trauma she experienced. This "expert" borrowed a page from the Salem witch hunt playbook to paint an innocent young man as evil based on her supposed superior knowledge as an "expert." Ms. Webb's initial lie must be believed (because it accused a male of rape), but her recantation should not be believed (because it would exonerate the male of rape). This expert's admitted speculation was an exercise in serious gender stereotyping -- male bashing gussied up to look like an educated assessment. In other contexts we'd call what this "expert" espoused "prejudice," but of course according to radical feminists a woman can never be accused of unfairly treating a member of the oppressor gender.

Ah, right.

Fortunately for those of us outside of the fairyland of Women's Studies classes, that nonsense is actually considered for what it is -- nonsense.

How did the Dobson story turn out? Again, according to the story:

"But early in 1988, the semen that had been discovered on Webb's underwear was subjected to DNA testing. On Aug. 15 of that year, authorities announced that the testing had determined the semen did not belong to Dotson."

So the "expert's" speculation was as wrong as it could be. Of course.

I have never seen any indication that the sexual assault industry has the slightest regard for the rights of innocent men and boys. Never. Their position is that the system is stacked against accusers and is geared to protect men and boys accused of rape, and they dishonestly assert that false claims are a "myth." While it is true that some rapists are never punished, it is also true to some innocent men and boys pay a heavy price -- sometimes forfeiting the best years of their lives -- simply because women have deigned to accuse them of a crime they did not commit. The sexual assault industry has no concern whatsoever for these innocents. Its sole raison d'ĂȘtre is to jack up the conviction rates of men and boys accused of rape, and to panic the nation about the supposed prevalence of rape, a supposed prevalence that the vast majority of Americans don't buy -- because, let's be honest, it's not true. (E.g., one-in-four college women supposedly are raped, which would make college campuses the most dangerous places in the world -- Baghdad would be far safer! If that statistic were true, according to Heather MacDonald: "Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely.") And these sexual assault counselors are paid by tax and tuition monies that come mostly from men. Of course.

I suppose it helps them sleep better at night if they convince themselves that false claims are a "myth" and that women who recant "often" were actually raped. Perhaps they need these lies just to live with themselves. But it is a travesty that only the innocents of one gender have lobbyists -- unwittingly paid for largely by men -- looking out for them. The innocents of the other gender must fend for themselves and hope and pray that they are not wrongfully accused, and if so, that their wrongful accuser recants, and that such recantation is believed.

Another rape lie by a teen

Another teen lied about rape. The frightening thing is the detail with which she described her imaginary attacker. Mid-30s, blond hair, goatee -- and a possible hand injury.

Teenage girls are often very effective liars, at least when it comes to rape. It is not far-fetched to suspect that the men in the area where the alleged incident occurred who bore a resemblance to the composite sketch probably were shaving their faces and dying their hair before her lie was brought to light. It's the degree of verisimilitude that is so frightening.

But, of course, false rape claims are a "myth." Ah, right.

Police say teen lied about church rape

By Ben WinslowDeseret News
Published: June 27, 2008

Clearfield police said a teenage girl's claims that she was raped in the middle of a church parking lot in broad daylight are false.

In a statement sent to the Deseret News on Friday, Clearfield Assistant Police Chief Greg Krusi said laboratory test results and other evidence analyzed did not match up with the girl's claims about being attacked.

"The juvenile was formally interviewed again by investigators at which time she admitted to fabricating the story due to personal issues occurring in her life," Krusi wrote.

The alleged rape was reported in May when the girl said she had dropped off a friend at a nearby apartment complex. She pulled into the church parking lot at 1985 S. Main to pick up some things that had fallen off a seat in the van she was driving. That's when she said a man entered her car, overpowered her and raped her.

The rape claim had police frantically searching for the man. They even released a police sketch of a man they described as in his mid-30s, with blond hair and a goatee. The girl said the man may have sustained a hand injury in the attack.

Now the girl faces criminal charges.

"Clearfield police detectives screened this case with the Davis County Attorney's Office and they will be charging the female juvenile in juvenile court with filing a false police report, a class A misdemeanor," Krusi wrote.


Picture from this link:

"After saying 'no' to him 15 times, she joined him on the bed and removed her clothes" -- and that was rape?

When will we, as a people, realize that there is something terribly wrong with a culture that encourages women to take completely normal human sexual interactions -- the same sorts of interactions that have been going on since pre-history -- and transmogrify them into the most vile crime of rape solely because the women decide in some after-the-fact, ex post facto, false and belated hissy fit of regret that they should not have consented to sex?

We don't know what happened in the case reported in the news account below. The story notes that the alleged victim told the accused male "no" fifteen times. But then, according to the news account, she says she joined the young man on her bed and removed her clothes. She claims she was "scared," but the story furnishes no factual basis in support of such fear. He was not physically constraining her, apparently.

When she came to the bed, absent threats of physical coercion, a reasonable person in the position of the male had every right to assume she had assented to sex, and it wasn't rape. Period. Ah, but that's not how the sexual assault counseling industry, in conjunction with the radical feminist agenda, characterizes rape: Forget her objective manifestations of assent that reasonably led the man to believe she assented to sex -- her subjective, after-the-fact emotions trump any semblance of rationality. This, of course, leaves men of good will who would never dream of raping a woman (which is the vast majority of men) utterly clueless as to whether their conduct will be metamorphosed into an alleged felony merely because a woman later decides to cry rape.

Putting aside the alleged victim's characterization that she was "scared" (for which the news account provides no supporting factual basis), the facts set forth could just as easily be read as a garden variety instance where a male came on strong; the female may have been conflicted at first, but he persisted; and she finally gave in.

Newsflash: this is precisely how men and women have interacted since the beginning of time. And guess what? It doesn't matter if she was conflicted before she consented to have sex by coming to the bed and removing her clothes; and it doesn't matter if she was conflicted after she had sex. From the account set forth in this news report, it sounds as though the woman simply regrets having sex; she was angry that she gave in to the male's persistence, and now she's going to teach him a lesson.

But from this news account, it does not sound like rape, and it's not fair that this woman is dragging the guy through hell -- with his name plastered all over the news while she retains her anonymity.

A woman's after-the-fact regret should never be sufficient to send a young man to prison. Sadly, this is where the "rape culture" manufactured by radical feminism is leading us.

And it has to stop.


15 times 'no,' rape accuser testifies

Kutztown U. ex-athlete to face court in alleged on-campus sex attack.
By Chris Reber Of The Morning Call
May 28, 2008

She said no ''15 times.'' But, the alleged victim in a Kutztown University campus rape case tearfully testified on Tuesday, that didn't deter her attacker.

''He was too much for me,'' the woman said.The person charged, former Kutztown University athlete James Vanderbeek, 19, of Telford, is headed to court in Berks County Court on charges stemming from the alleged March 25 incident.

District Judge Gail Greth of Fleetwood approved rape and aggravated indecent assault charges, and the addition of a sexual assault charge.

The trial is scheduled for June 25. With no prior convictions, Vanderbeek could face a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

At one point during the hearing, defense attorney Maureen Coggins asked that all charges be dismissed based on the alleged victim's testimony.

''Did you have sexual intercourse with Mr. Vanderbeek?''

Coggins asked the alleged victim. She replied that she had not.

Coggins then asked that the charges be dismissed. Greth denied the motion. Coggins then asked that the alleged victim take the stand again for a clarification.

The alleged victim then testified that she had engaged in sexual intercourse, but that it was not consensual.

Both Vanderbeek and the alleged victim have left Kutztown University since the incident. He is free on $20,000 bail. Coggins said the two-sport athlete had not yet made a decision on the fall semester.

On April 16, the preliminary hearing was postponed after the alleged victim failed to appear to testify. Coggins said the woman had not received a subpoena from the district judge.

The alleged victim's testimony on Tuesday corroborated most of the sequence of events presented in the affidavit filed by Kutztown University Police.

On March 24, the woman testified, Vanderbeek and another student were signed into her apartment at University Place to work on a class project.

The group shared a bottle of vodka, with Vanderbeek drinking the majority, she said. The woman said she took two shots of vodka and Vanderbeek drank the rest. She said she later escorted the males out so she could continue her work.

When she returned to her room, she said, she discovered that Vanderbeek had followed her. He sat down on her bed as she did her work.

She testified that after denying his advances and saying ''no'' to him 15 times, she joined him on the bed and removed her clothes.

''I was scared,'' she testified.

She could not recall how long she was on the bed with Vanderbeek. She said she eventually left him in the room and found a friend to take her to university police.

Vanderbeek was arrested early on March 25.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

'I was raped by a woman . . . who used the threat of a false accusation to commit' her crime

Reader James Landrith writes to bring to our attention his personal experience -- Admitting it: When a Woman is the Rapist. In this terrible story, which he's included in his own Web site -- -- a woman was able to rape him because she threatened to make a false rape claim against him.

The awful lesson one should draw from the following story is this: As horrible as the rape was, Mr. Landrith allowed it to occur -- because the prospect of a false rape accusation obviously, and quite reasonably, struck him as worse. And that is a very important lesson for those who denigrate the suffering of falsely accused men by characterizing false rape claims as a "myth."

Admitting it: When a Woman is the Rapist

This blog entry contains a warning that usually does not accompany my writings. If you are a rape/CSA/SA survivor and are in a bad place right now, you may wish to stop reading this entry until you are feeling better. If you continue, you do so by your own choice and at your own risk. Thank you.


I've recently been coming to grips with the fact that I was raped by a woman - a pregnant woman. If you are laughing right now or saying to yourself "sure you were" or "I'd love that to happen to me" or "can't rape the willing" then I'm not sure you should continue reading as you are part of the problem. Scratch that - perhaps you should continue reading...

If you don't mind, I'll get right to it.

On a Friday night in the early 1990s, after a night of drinking, dancing and relaxing with a friend for several hours at a popular club in Jacksonville, North Carolina - said friend disappeared for the night and left his female friend (stranger to me) without a ride and about 35 miles from home. I was plastered, and not going to drive as the club was next to a motel. She asked for a ride and I agreed to drive her home in the morning as she was about 6 months pregnant, but I was going to have to get a motel room for the evening as I was not driving in such a state. We decided to split the cost of the room and both agreed that sleeping was all that was going to take place. She was pregnant and I felt the "typical" male compulsion to protect her in that delicate state. At the time, I thought I was in love with a woman attending UNC-Wilmington and was not interested in sleeping with this stranger. I seem to recall we even had separate beds.

I woke up about 2 hours later - still destroyed by the alcohol - to find my clothes removed from the waist down, penis erect and the woman on top of me - boldly raping me. She had apparently brought me to erection - not hard as I'm one of those men who can hold one for hours, awake or asleep, sober or drunk. She told me everything was okay and to go back to sleep and despite my best effort to the contrary, I was unable to speak coherently in my still very inebriated and half-conscious state and did fall asleep again quickly. I have no idea how long she continued on top of me as I remained unconsious for the remainder of this first attack.

After most of my drunken stupor wore off in the morning, I awoke again to find her on top of me - angry and hostile. I immediately remembered waking up at least once prior during the night to find her on me and felt my body freeze up at the realization I was being raped. This wasn't a dream. This wasn't a fantasy. This wasn't consensual.

She sternly warned me to "be quiet" and "not be forceful" and made it clear that she would accuse me of raping her if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her off me and into next week, but I was not willing to risk harming her child or her to protect myself. Further, I took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.

I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, 6 or 7-month pregnant, locally raised, college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I'm sure several people saw me leave with her. I was pretty much fucked - in more than one way - at that point.

I complied by lying still - as everytime I moved she screeched at me to be still - while she continued to warn, taunt and threaten me for what seemed like an eternity. I still can't comprehend the anger and hostility she conveyed while she raped me. How do I wrap my brain around what this woman did? How do I make it make sense?

I don't really know how long this second rape continued as I eventually succeeded in disconnecting my mind from the situation. Eventually, she orgasmed again and got off me. Further, I have no idea how many times she had actually raped me that night - at least twice.

As a small favor, she turned out to be disease free.

Prior to accepting the facts and removing the veil of delusion, I'd always tried to pretend it was nothing or played it off like an uncomfortable memory of a wild night that ended weird whenever the memory surfaced. Pushing it to the back of my mind or deluding myself into believing I was somehow to blame had become an art form after so many years.

I am posting this now, because after nearly two decades of pretending, the floodgates opened last month, triggered by a friend, and it has been extremely difficult to deal with as my denial was swept away. I am in therapy as I have a lot of work ahead in order to heal after the band-aid was so dramatically and unexepectedly ripped away. As you can imagine, this was very difficult to admit, not only publicly to you, but to myself and to my wife as well. However, I cannot and will not hide this any longer. If my own story can help inspire someone else to seek assistance sooner, I am happy to be the catalyst that kicks off the healing process.


Contrary to the ugly falsehoods spread by some men and women who deny that women can be predatory, rape is about power and control - not gender. She had power over me that night, even though I could have easily physically stopped her. Her pregnancy and threat of a false allegation against me were the only weapons she needed to have her way that night - and she used them with the manipulative skill of someone experienced in such tactics.

I am left with the knowledge that she took something from me that night. I can't get back those hours with her, erase the memories or pretend it didn't happen anymore. However, I can alter my own response to the memories, flashbacks, sadness, anger, rage, and anxiety that years of denial have thrown at me all at once - and I will.

She won't win. I will heal. However, I will not be the same man at the other end of this process. That is not to say that I am now tragically flawed, a freak, or damaged goods. No, I am just going to be different in ways detectable and undetectable. I believe that human beings are all products of our environments, upbringings and experiences. This is just one more experience, albeit a powerful one, that constitutes the being known as James.

With the assistance of my wife and several friends who have been indispensible during this time, I am buoyed when I can't keep my head above water on my own.

I am not going to go quietly. I'm not going to cower in the corner. I'm going to be vocal. I'm not going to be anonymous or sheepish in my language. I'm going to attach my name to everything I say with regard to the healing process and not allow anyone to force me into silence. I'm going to be sad. I'm going to be angry. I'm going to be confused. I'm going to feel ashamed. I'm going to blame myself. I'm going to cry. Then I'm going to let it flow out of me as I heal.

I didn't fight her then, but I am going to fight her now. She won't win. She can't win.

I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor (in training). So fuck her. I get to win now.

Rape charge is dropped: after-the-fact regret about sex is not tantamount to rape

See the story below. A police officer's career, in fact his life, are in shambles because a woman deigned to cry rape after an evening of sex she later regretted. The woman had been flirting with the accused man and was heard to ask him for oral sex before the alleged rape. She initially said "no" but then "played hard to get." For anyone who has never thought about gender relations, this has been the custom between the sexes since pre-history. The man and woman eventually had sex, and afterwards, she slept in his bed, wore his sweatpants and sat in his lap.

The prosecutor handling the matter "outlined 22 concerns about the alleged victim’s credibility, and suggested the woman might have had consensual sex with the man, then regretted it." And charges were not dropped sooner -- why?

This case is typical of a false rape claim. All the evidence in the world of ex post facto regret is not tantamount to the absence of consent at the time the sex act occurred.

Why is a man arrested, taken into custody, and forced to leave his job over a disputed allegation of consensual sex? Is he a threat to the community? Wouldn't a protective order for the woman be every bit as effective to "protect" her? Does such arrest signal to women's groups that the police force is taking rape "seriously"? Bingo. What about false rape claims, do the police take them just as seriously? Few police forces could plausibly assert that they do. When a woman is raped, the feminists regard it as an attack on all women, even though men are probably victimized by rape more than women. Why don't men similarly view the crime of false reporting as a gender crime against males? Why do we tolerate treating innocent men as if they were rapists while doing nothing to punish and deter the liars?

And how can we make people realize that there is something terribly wrong with a system where virtually any female can have virtually any man or teenage boy deprived of his liberty merely by saying the word? A false rape claim often is enough, in and of itself, to destroy men's lives. The woman's anonymity is preserved forever; in contrast, the man's name is splashed all over the news and his reputation is tarred, possibly forever. “I think the biggest thing was the embarrassment that I would even be accused of something like that,” the man said, “but I knew I didn’t do anything wrong.”

At the end of the story, the man's attorney talks about restoring his reputation. That's going to be the difficult part. In fact, it probably will be impossible ever to get it back to where it was.


Special prosecutor drops rape case against ex-cop
Writer:David Frey
Byline:Aspen Daily News Correspondent

GLENWOOD SPRINGS — A special prosecutor has dropped the rape case against a Parachute police officer who lost his job as a result of the allegations.

Tammy Eret, the chief Mesa County deputy district attorney who was brought in to handle the case, said she questions the credibility of the alleged victim. In a motion to dismiss the case, she outlined 22 concerns about the alleged victim’s credibility, and suggested the woman might have had consensual sex with the man, then regretted it.

Magistrate Lain Leoniak on Wednesday agreed to dismiss the case.

The defendant, Kristopher Duncan, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran, said he hopes to return to law enforcement, but he hadn’t decided where. His lawyer, Greg Greer, of Glenwood Springs, said it remains “unanswered” whether or not his client can sue Parachute for being fired in the wake of the incident.

“I think the biggest thing was the embarrassment that I would even be accused of something like that,” Duncan said, “but I knew I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Duncan was arrested after a woman alleged that he raped her when she came with friends to his Battlement Mesa apartment on April 17 and was sleeping in his bed.

The woman said she didn’t fight off Duncan because of his strength and his position as a police officer. She sent a text message to a friend saying she might have been raped, and reported the alleged incident to police. A hospital rape exam showed no sign of trauma.

“I knew it wasn’t true,” said friend Caryn Sigmon, of Rifle, who was at the apartment that night. She said she was “very shocked” when she learned the woman had accused Duncan of rape, and when Garfield County sheriff’s investigators never asked her for her account, she came forward. She accompanied Duncan at the hearing.

After an initial investigation, Eret wrote, further investigations into accounts like Sigmon’s cast doubt on the alleged victim’s story, as friends who were at the apartment that night painted a different picture. They described the woman as flirting with Duncan and said she asked him to perform oral sex on her, then sat on his lap after the alleged incident.

“Simply saying ‘no,’ but then requesting oral sex” would suggest she consented, Eret wrote.

In a telephone call police set up between the woman and Duncan, Duncan allegedly acknowledged the woman initially said she didn’t want to have sex, but later seemed to be playing “hard to get.” Investigators said Duncan told her he would have stopped if she had asked, but she didn’t ask.

The woman said she was worried about Duncan’s strength, but Eret noted the two were close to the same size. The alleged victim is five-feet-five-inches tall and weighs 140 pounds. Duncan is another inch taller and about 20 pounds heavier.

Witnesses told investigators that the two were “flirting with each other, laughing, tickling and having a good time.” Instead of leaving, they said, the woman went to sleep in Duncan’s bed and never called for help, even though Duncan’s roommate is also a police officer. Afterwards, they said, she slept in the same bed, wore Duncan’s sweatpants and sat in his lap. That would be unusual for a rape victim, Eret noted.

“The interaction between the two … supports two people comfortable with each other and the acts that just occurred,” Eret wrote.

She added: “It would not matter how exhausted one may be — if they were just raped, the last place they would go would be to the bed where the crime occurred and the place where that person was sleeping.”

The woman also apparently sent a text message to her boyfriend saying she had been raped by “a black guy,” although Duncan is white. That also cast doubts about her credibility, Eret said.

Greer praised Eret’s decision to drop the case. “Our challenge now is just to restore his good reputation,” Greer said.


British county police believed 45% of all rape claims 'hadn't taken place'

On it's face, the story reprinted below is a silly, politically correct piece about a silly police department being pressured to treat rape "more seriously." A silly police officer makes inane comments about how the department treats rape like murder (except, sir, murder is by any objective measure a far more serious offense, and the only reason you would equate rape with murder is in a bow to women's groups). And he parrots an unreliable number about under-reported rapes. (You know the canard: there must be under-reporting because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring, thus proving that rape is rampant. Right.) On and on it goes.

But read between the lines of this silly story and, I am sure unintentionally, the silly police officer confirmed something that that Prof. Eugen J. Kanin, the Purdue sociologist, demonstrated in his landmark false rape study in 1994. The story says: "Between April 2006 and March 2007, 240 allegations of rape were made in Dorset and 132 of these allegations were recorded as crimes." What does that mean? The police officer quoted in the story tells us what it means: "If it was thought that a reported rape hadn't taken place, it wasn't recorded as a crime."

Did you get that? So, of 240 allegations of rape, the police department thought 108 hadn't taken place. Hmm. That's 45%. Remember Professor Kanin's famous study: in a Midwestern town of 70,000, 41% of 109 rape complainants eventually admitted to police that no rape had occurred.

Isn't it ironic that in a piece intending to show how pro-women and anti-rape the police force is, it also shows that the police force itself believes a significant percentage of rape claims are false?

And thus the necessity for this Web site.


Care plan for rape victims

By Paula Roberts

Detective Superintendent Mark Cooper, head of Dorset Police's public protection unit, said under Operation Opal the force now has specially trained officers who deal with investigations of rape.

"If someone reports a rape it is dealt with utmost importance. It is treated like a murder incident as one of the most serious crimes that has been committed," he said.

Between April 2006 and March 2007, 240 allegations of rape were made in Dorset and 132 of these allegations were recorded as crimes. Of these, 35 were detected, a 26.5 per cent detection rate.

And in the same period the following year, 255 allegations were made in Dorset and 210 were recorded as crimes. Of these, 38 were detected resulting in an 18.5 per cent detection rate.

Det Supt Coooper said that previously, if it was thought that a reported rape hadn't taken place, it wasn't recorded as a crime. But that has since changed and every report is crimed and investigated.

"It is not that we weren't taking rape seriously before, it is just that we have improved the way we deal with rape investigations," he said.

On average, 240 allegations of rape are made in Dorset each year but the British Crime Survey states that the reported figure only equates to between 15 to 25 per cent of the rapes that happen - so up to 1,000 rapes could be taking place in the county.


Man spent 23 years in prison for rape he didn't commit because woman 'thought' he looked like her assailant

Another tragic misuse of lineup evidence to convict an innocent man.


Texas Appeals court officially clears wrongly convicted man

AP 2008-06-11 22:44:36

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The Texas state criminal appeals court has officially exonerated a man who spent nearly 23 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed Wednesday with a lower court ruling that DNA evidence proves Thomas Clifford McGowan is innocent of the 1985 rape of a Dallas-area woman.

This step clears his record and makes it possible for McGowan to pursue financial compensation from the state.

McGowan was convicted in separate trials in 1985 and 1986 of rape and burglary. He was sentenced to life in prison both times.

McGowan is one of 18 Dallas County men since 2001 to have his conviction cast aside because of DNA testing. That is the most of any county in America, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions.

Thirty-two people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high, according to the Innocence Project. That does not include at least three recent cases that will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Court of Criminal Appeals issues rulings.

McGowan's wrongful imprisonment began in 1985 when a woman happened upon a burglary in progress at her apartment. After tying her up, a man raped the woman at knifepoint and loaded his car with several items stolen from her apartment, according to court documents.

The victim eventually picked McGowan from a photo array of seven men, telling police she "thought" he was the attacker. Police pressed her, saying she must be certain and not "just think it was him." That's when she decided he "definitely" was the attacker, the woman testified in court.McGowan and his attorneys have said he was a victim of eyewitness misidentification. Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck said police initiated a "forced-choice response" from the rape victim.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Girl falsely accuses ex-fiance of rape because he supposedly kissed another girl

Here's a disturbing news story (set forth below). A 19-year-old female, upset over an unfounded rumor that her 20-year-old ex-fiance kissed another girl, dumped him and waited several months before making a false rape claim against him.

She claimed that he forced his way into the home they once shared, pushed her down on the sofa and sexually assaulted her. The next day officers came into the pub where the young man worked as a bartender and arrested him. "I was arrested at work in front of colleagues and customers. It was awful," the young man said.

Police held him for questioning for almost 24 hours. Solely on the basis of a vindictive lie. This underscores a painful truth: Virtually any female can have virtually any man or teenage boy deprived of his liberty, at least for a time, solely by making up a terrible, terrible lie that he raped her.

The accuser's story fell apart, and the young man was released. Police charged her with wasting their time. The remorseless young woman has now pled guilty. And she "may" face jail time.

Get that? The young man already served jail time for her lie, not to mention the humiliation he experienced of being arrested in front of his colleagues and the anxiety of years in prison hanging over his head. His confidence has been affected, and he's unable to trust women. And she may, or may not, serve jail time?

Excuse me?

The young man said, "I would love to see her in jail." So would we all. Only when women are punished fairly for such lies will the lies stop. As it is, women have very little incentive not to tell these life-altering prevarications.

But women don't lie about rape, remember? Right.


Teenager who falsely claimed her boyfriend raped her after he kissed another girl faces jail

A teenage girl who falsely accused her ex-boyfriend of rape after hearing that he had kissed another girl now faces jail.

Gemma Capon, 19, claimed that her former fiance Graham Tysoe, 20, forced his way into her home and attacked her after their five month relationship ended.

She told police he pushed her down on the sofa in the living room of the home they once shared and sexually assaulted her.

The next day officers arrested the bartender at the pub where he was working and he was held for questioning for almost 24 hours.

But he was later released after police confronted Capon about discrepancies in her story and she admitted that she had lied.

Now the teenager has been warned she could face up to a six month jail sentence for wasting police time.

The couple met through the internet last year after attending the same primary school.

They got engaged earlier this year and moved in together to a flat in Shoebury, Essex.

But Capon threw him out of the flat in April after she was told that her fiance had kissed another girl.

Mr Tysoe said: 'We were engaged, I gave her a ring. 'But the break up was quite dramatic. I went out with my mates one night and someone said they had a video of me kissing someone else but nothing happened.

'There was no video but Gemma wouldn't believe me.

'I was in love with her once. When it finished I was sad but I thought we would meet occasionally and say, 'hi'.

'I hadn't seen her and three months down the line I got this.'

Capon told police that the attack took place on June 4 this year, but police discovered that Mr Tysoe had been at a friend's house at the time.

She also claimed that a mutual friend of the former couple had been present during the attack, but it later emerged that he had an alibi. This week Capon pleaded pleading guilty to wasting police time at Southend Magistrates Court. The court heard that officers spent 136 hours investigating the false claims.

Chair of the bench Christopher Catchpole, warned Capon that she may be sent to prison when she is sentenced next month.

Capon showed no remorse in court, but on her webpage she recently posted a new motto: 'Never create hassle, it only comes back to bite you.'

The blonde-haired teenager who lists acting amongst her interests, also said she was looking for friends and possibly a new partner.

Speaking after the case, Mr Tysoe said the ordeal had left him unable to trust women.

The former pupil at King Edmund School in Rochester said: 'I was arrested at work in front of colleagues and customers. It was awful.

'They said my ex-girlfriend had accused me.

'I just thought, 'oh god, no, this can't be happening'."

'My colleagues and family know me and knew I couldn't have done anything like this.

'I was hurt that she could do this to me.

'I have no idea why she did it, it must have been some twisted attempt at revenge.

'She is a fantasist. I would love to see her in jail.

'I don't understand why anyone would do something like this. It has affected me at work and in myself.

'I'm less confident and I don't trust women anymore.'

His mother Sharon added: 'Women who do this sort of thing are so vindictive it makes my blood boil.

'It's nasty and they don't realise what they put the accused through.'


Sex offender registry vilifies teens who've had consensual sex with other teens

Fact of the day: Georgia’s sex offender law is so strict that it would exile all registered sex offenders -- approximately 500 -- from an entire county (DeKalb County). "Some are genuine predators, but most are men who as teenagers had consensual sex with younger girls."

Citation: (Emphasis added.)

Friday, June 27, 2008

Woman falsely cries rape so her boyfriend won't break up with her

The motivations for false rape claims are of infinite variety. The most prominent motivation, as we see from the reports on this Web site, seems to be a desire to "explain" an illicit sexual relationship to a parent, husband or boyfriend. A woman or, as is often the case, a girl will lie that she's been raped rather than admit she's having an affair. And this often leads to disastrous results for the poor male she's lied about, sometimes even fatal.

Sometimes, as in the case reported below, the motivation is to garner attention from someone. Specifically, in the news report below, the woman didn't want her boyfriend to break up with her. (Because, of course, nothing says "I love you" better than falsely accusing another guy of rape.)

In one sense, there is altogether too much emphasis on discerning the motivations of someone who commits the crime of false reporting of rape. News report after news report seeks out these motivations as if they were critical to the story. In contrast, there is, of course, no interest in discovering the motivations of an accused rapist. Sexual assault counselors insist, without bothering to ask the accused rapist, that his motivation was not sex but power. (This explanation is, of course, de rigueur feminist wishfulness and is often not in accord with reality because, for example, many college boys accused of rape have no interest in demonstrating their superior male brute strength; all they are after is the sex. And sometimes a woman or girl leads them on and they decide to plow ahead, perhaps in the face of her mixed signals.)

In any event, publishing the motivation of a woman or girl charged with making a false rape claim does serve the useful purpose of lending verisimilitude to the fact that she lied. Some sexual assault counselors claim that while every claim of rape is presumptively true, recantations of rape are suspect and often are not true. See A whopper of a feminist double standard: Women don't lie about rape, except when they recant a rape claim

Get it? Women don't lie about rape, until they admit they weren't raped. Then they can't be believed. Either way the innocent man or boy loses.


Police: False rape claim leads to arrest

By JENNIFER COLTON/Index-Journal staff writer
Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:57 PM EDT

ABBEVILLE -- Police investigating a reported rape last weekend found the woman’s claims didn’t match up with the evidence -- and arrested the alleged victim rather than the supposed attacker.

Carla Ann Hudson, 19, of 135 Louise St., Lowndesville, filed a report Monday at the City of Abbeville Police Department claiming she had been raped by a man. When detectives dug into the story, however, the evidence pointed in a different direction.

“We investigated the claim and the evidence did not match the complaint,” Lt. Det. Curtis Killian said Thursday. “The victim was confronted with the evidence and confessed to lying about the assault. She confessed that the reason she filed the report was that she didn’t want her boyfriend to break up with her.”

The arrest warrant states Hudson lied so “her boyfriend would not find out."

Hudson was charged at 1 p.m. Monday with filing a false policy report of a felony, which itself is a felony, Killian said. Hudson was later released by a judge on a personal recognizance bond.


Landmark decision: U.S. Supreme Court cites false claims as a basis for striking down dealth penalty in child rape cases

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the death sentence of a Louisiana man convicted of the aggravated rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008). Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained that the practice imposing the death penalty for child rape violated "evolving standards of decency," the yardstick the court uses to decide whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.

The court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape is the risk of false claims. Here is what the court wrote:

There are, moreover, serious systemic concerns in prosecuting the crime of child rape that are relevant to the constitutionality of making it a capital offense. The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a "special risk of wrongful execution" in some child rape cases. Atkins, supra, at 321, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335. See also Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 5-17. This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement. See Ceci & Friedman, The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 33, 47 (2000) (there is "strong evidence that children, especially young children, are suggestible to a significant degree--even on abuse-related questions"); Gross, Jacoby, [*63] Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & C. 523, 539 (2005) (discussing allegations of abuse at the Little Rascals Day Care Center); see also Quas, Davis, Goodman, & Myers, Repeated Questions, Deception, and Children's True and False Reports of Body Touch, 12 Child Maltreatment 60, 61-66 (2007) (finding that 4- to 7-year-olds "were able to maintain [a] lie about body touch fairly effectively when asked repeated, direct questions during a mock forensic interview").

Similar criticisms pertain to other cases involving child witnesses; but child rape cases present heightened concerns because the central narrative and account of the crime often comes from the child herself. She and the accused are, in most instances, the only ones present when the crime was committed. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987). Cf. Goodman, Testifying in Criminal Court, at 118. And the question in a capital case is not just the fact of the crime, including, say, proof of rape as distinct from abuse short of rape, but details bearing upon brutality in its commission. These matters are subject to fabrication or exaggeration, or both. See Ceci and Friedman, supra; Quas, supra. Although capital punishment does bring retribution, and the legislature here has chosen to use it for this end, its judgment must be weighed, in deciding the constitutional question, against the special risks of unreliable testimony with respect to this crime.

(Emphasis supplied.)

It seems worth noting, if only to buttress the Supreme Court's rationale, that the victim in this particular case made a false accusation before the real rapist was arrested. Specifically, after the victim was raped by her stepfather, the victim and her stepfather both claimed that the girl was raped by two neighborhood boys. "She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy 'pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,'. . . where he placed his hand over her mouth, 'pulled down [her] shorts,' . . . ." This, of course, turned out to be a false accusation. We don't know if the two neighborhood boys were arrested and charged, but cases are legion where innocent victims of false accusations spend decades in prison for rapes they did not commit. It is not far-fetched to imagine that this could have happened here, too.

We have seen numerous examples on this Web site, from this year alone, of teenage girls falsely accusing males of rape. The males are typically arrested (in one case, the enraged father of the accuser stabbed the boy the girl wrongly accused). The case of Dwayne Dail is an egregious example: a twelve-year-old girl wrongly sent an innocent man to prison, where he was repeatedly raped, for life. Mr. Dail served 18 years before finally being released because DNA evidence proved he was innocent. Kindly read his story before you insist that the "perverts" who rape children should be put to death.

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has lent its imprimatur to the incontrovertible fact that in cases of alleged child rape, unreliable, induced and imagined testimony raises the risk of wrongful conviction and, if the death penalty were applicable, wrongful execution. The highest court in the land says that false claims are not a myth.

The Supreme Court reached the correct decision in the Kennedy case.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Off topic: Random thoughts on the double-standards when it comes to male and female sexuality

Society has cracked down on male sexual offenses in the past few years. Much of the crackdown is good. But much of it is overkill. We now have television shows where alleged child predators are nabbed for the enjoyment of Americans coast-to-coast. It is no exaggeration to assert that Americans plop themselves in front of their TVs with a bowl of popcorn in order to chortle at terrified men whose lives have been forever destroyed (and their families' lives have been forever destroyed, too) because they acted on some inappropriate sexual desire. I suspect that a show featuring the castration of alleged predators would draw an even bigger audience.

I have no problem punishing a child porn collector or a child predator. I do have a problem with treating such men as worse than murderers.

Much of the hysteria in recent years seems to be premised on the belief that male sexuality is in some manner inherently depraved and needs to be controlled. I do have a problem in viewing every aspect of male sexual desire as depraved unless it's something women also enjoy.

Child porn is a problem because of the effect on the children who the subjects of the porn. They are flesh and blood victims. But should viewing "virtual" -- unreal -- "children" be punished? Sure, if the goal is to punish depraved male desires. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Does that sort of thing lead to viewing porn with real children? I don't know.

Adult males having sex with children are viewed as the lowest form of life. In contrast, adult females who molest boys are seen as "mixed up" and emotionally immature. They are given notoriously light sentences because their disorders are seen as more pathetic than evil. (But a female teacher's callow male lover is lucky if the teacher doesn't sacrifice him to save her skin by accusing him of raping her -- one such teacher recently tried that to no avail.) Reverse the genders and assume a girl accuses an adult male teacher of rape -- he will be sent away for years, without question.

But it doesn't stop there. Who, for example, is considered the greater criminal, the hard-working, saintly prostitute or the evil businessman who frequents her? The question scarcely survives its statement.

Strip clubs are viewed as places frequented by dirty old disgusting men who objectify women. Civic groups want to impose "sin" taxes on them, and nobody complains except the strip club owners. But enjoying naked male dancers and explicit penis cakes at raunchy bachelorette parties is viewed as "empowerment" for the liberated young women in attendance.

An older man having a relationship with a young woman is similarly viewed as "disgusting." But reverse the genders -- when an older woman pursues a young man it's viewed as a positive sign of the times since the older women doesn't need to financially rely on a man. So we applaud her for having her very own "boy toy" that she can toss away when she tires of him or realizes that she has nothing in common with an early-20s-something guy. And while we call older men who do this "disgusting," we've given older women a far more respectful name -- "cougar" -- a sleek, crafty, fearsome animal.

The rape of a woman or a child are second only to murder on the scale of acts considered to be evil. In contrast, the rape of a man in prison is a punchline. And sometimes the men who are raped are only in prison because they were falsely accused of rape or some other sexual offense, the ultimate tragic irony. The rape of males may be more common than the rape of females, but it's ignored as just more male-on-male violence. Since women aren't the victims of that kind of rape it has no place in the feminist sexual assault metanarrative, which dominates the public discourse about rape.

Men who suffer from premature ejaculation are "selfish." They, too, are a punchline. Or worse: After her arrest for mutilating her husband with an 8-inch knife, Lorna Bobbitt told police: "He always have [sic] [an] orgasm and he doesn't wait for me to have [an] orgasm. He's selfish." That was the reason she gave for severing his penis. Mrs. Bobbitt was hailed as a feminist heroine.

Men who don't wear condoms are "pigs" in TV ads. Some feminist legal scholars want to go so far as to subject any male who has intercourse without a condom to be jailed as a kind of lesser form of rape (the burden would be on the male to prove that the woman consented to sex without a condom). In contrast, a female who lies to a male that she's on the pill, intending to get pregnant without the man's knowledge, isn't acting selfish in any manner. You see, it's her right to do as she pleases with her body. The fact that she will saddle the guy for child support for 18 years because of a lie is neither here nor there.

When two underage teenagers have sex, only one is considered a statutory rapist, and only one will be classified as a "sex offender," possibly for the rest of his life. Can you guess his gender?

Feminists tout the glories of the "hook up" culture -- except if any obligations are expected of the female. If both the guy and the girl get drunk and have sex, she's a rape victim who retains her anonymity if in some after-the-fact, ex post facto, false and belated hissy fit of regret she decides to punish him for cajoling her to have sex (even though she went along with it). As for the unlucky guy who incurred her wrath, he might go to prison for years, his name splashed all over the news, his reputation destroyed forever. And in prison, he'll probably have done to him what he did NOT do to her.

(And we didn't even get into the new proposal in Britain that would allow employers to give preferential treatment to female or ethnic minority job candidates. That is, after all, too off-topic. But to summarize, the proposal would make it OK to discriminate against one group and one group only -- you guessed it, white males. The misandry at work there is unfathomable. And you British men tolerate that -- why?)

It is a wonderful era to be male, isn't it?

Thanks to readers for positive reaction

Few people write things just for themselves. It is good to know that the message of this Web site is being well-received.

This is what big-time site The Counter-Feminist said about our site: "This guy's a lawyer, he pulls no punches, and he doesn't pussyfoot around. I think you will enjoy his blog."

And over at Antimisandry, commentator chevalier wrote: "Wow that was one of the best blogs I have ever read. He gets right to the point and doesn't leave anything out.Great find."

And commentator RedRooster wrote: "The False Rape Society is an excellent blog with credible data and stories from a credible writer. GREAT FIND!"

Thanks much gentlemen. I'll keep writing, if you keep reading.

A false rape epidemic in New Zealand

It's a false rape epidemic in New Zealand (see the story reprinted below), and police say the false claims are an insult to -- other hypothetical rape victims.

Excuse me? And what about the innocent men who are or could be arrested, and sent away for decades, because of these lies? Are these claims not "an insult" to them? The assertion is common in these cases that the "real" victims of false claims are hypothetical female rape victims who might not come forward out of fear they will be disbelieved on account of the lie -- see How Women Became the Victims of a Crime That Only Targets Men: False Rape Claims in the Feminist 'Rape Culture'

But false rape claims are never going to be taken seriously, and they are never going to be stopped, until society acknowledges that they are primarily a significant problem for men -- innocent men to be exact. The crime has a real flesh and blood victim -- and the victim has a penis. Men need to realize that they, as a gender, are being targeted, and that virtually any man or teenage boy can fall prey to a false claim. If any other class was targeted for a crime so vile, the members of that class would be up in arms protesting.

The feminists treat every rape as an assault against women as a class (even though perhaps a majority of rapes are perpetrated on males in prison -- you see, the rape of a female is a national disaster; the rape of a male is a punchline). In the same way, false claims are an assault against men as a class. Why don't men realize this? Even if an arrest is not made because of the lie, when a false claim is lodged, police investigate it and seek to arrest a male -- an innocent male at that (innocent because there's been no rape). And sometimes they do, and sometimes an innocent man or boy rots away in prison for decades. And someday that innocent male might just be you, or your son, or your father or brother.


And if New Zealand thinks false claims are such a problem (and they are), why aren't women properly punished for this crime? Look at the sentences for these crimes at the end of the story below. None of them were given any jail time. None. False claims will never be stopped if women know they won't receive a significant sentence for making them. If the lies had their intended effect and a man had been arrested, he could have served decades behind bars. Yet the liars get no jail time.


And finally, notice in the story below the motive of one of the accusers -- to seek attention from an ex-boyfriend. But, as we all know from the feminists, women don't lie about rape. Right. Except in this one story -- we see multiple lies.


New Zealand, the way you handle these claims is disgraceful. One thing is sure to come from it: the epidemic will continue.


Another charged for rape claim

By BELINDA FEEK and AARON LEAMAN - Waikato Times Thursday, 26 June 2008

A woman who claimed she had been raped shortly after Hamilton police launched the serial rapist investigation has been charged with making a false complaint.

The 41-year-old yesterday appeared in Hamilton District Court charged with perverting the course of justice.

Kohine Dallas Pania Turanga claimed a man forced his way into her Albert St, Hamilton East, home about midnight on November 16 last year.

A tearful Turanga was remanded on bail without plea to reappear on July 11.

Turanga's complaint is now one of six reported complaints police have found to be false, with only the rapes being investigated as part of the serial rapist investigation, dubbed Operation Phil, still unsolved. Operation Phil relates to three rapes in Hamilton during April, May and July last year. The five other rape complainants have now all been dealt with by the courts.

The women had a variety of reasons for their fake complaints. Matamata's Chie Ikee, 21, claimed she was dragged into a van and raped by a group of men on Ward Ln on November 14 last year. Police later discovered she was simply trying to seek attention from an ex-boyfriend.
While the circumstances behind the alleged false Albert St complaint are yet to be revealed, Detective Senior Sergeant Chris Page said police had wasted a large amount of police and ESR scientists' resources and time in investigations.

"The media coverage of this (Albert St) incident was significant as police dealt with a number of rape allegations at that time. This case has proven to be the third false complaint from that week.

"It's even more frustrating when real complaints had been put to one side to deal with this and other similar allegations at the time."

Police were still investigating the incident up until last week.

Mr Page said the detrimental impact was far reaching. "Instances such as this are an insult to those real victims who police work closely with."

However, he said the arrest would not hamper Operation Phil.

"Those three complaints that make up Operation Phil remain valid and detectives are committed to locating the offender."

A Hamilton Rape and Sexual Abuse Healing Centre spokeswoman said it was sad women were making false complaints. "It makes women, who have suffered sexual violence, angry and almost brings the whole process into disrepute. It brings doubt ... about the truth."

FALSE: August 1: Zoe Joy Maxine Arama, 18, Hamilton.
CONVICTED: Ordered to pay $375 reparation.
August 4: 16-year-old Morrinsville girl. Referred to the police Youth Aid section.
November 14: Kohine Dallas Pania Turanga, 41, Hamilton East. Court proceedings underway.
November 14, midnight: 21-year-old Chie Ikee of Matamata.
CONVICTED: One-year suspended sentence.
Between November 12 and 19: Another rape complaint laid, but police discover it's false within 24 hours. She was not prosecuted.
February 29: Caitlyn Ann Moore, 17, of Hamilton.
CONVICTED: Ordered to pay $1800 reparation.
FACTUAL: April, May, July - Three women were raped by a man aged between 18 and 30, with fair hair. File opened and labelled Operation Phil.
UNSOLVED: Police still investigating.


Man's life destroyed by wrongful rape conviction -- in prison, he was victim of the same crime he was wrongly accused of

Dwayne Dail is back in the news. His case is being cited in the North Carolina legislature, which is considering raising the current $20,000 per year paid to wrongly convicted men. "The proposal offers $50,000 per year served in prison but no more than $750,000 total."

No matter the amount, it cannot make Mr. Dail whole for his wrongful conviction. He's still alive but he's been destroyed. The next time a legal legal scholar who writes on gender issues suggests switching the burden of proving consent to make it easier to convict a rape suspect, remember Dwayne Dail. Try to imagine spending even one day of the torture he experienced. He endured it for 18 years.

In March of 1989, a twelve-year-old girl wrongfully accused then-19-year-old Dwayne Dail of raping her. To the astonishment of Mr. Dail and his family, he was convicted and sentenced to two life terms plus 18 years.

"Dail screamed as deputies led him away." His young accuser "watched him fall apart as the judge read the jury's verdict. She remembers him screaming his innocence; she saw his mother sob and deputies carry him off. She told herself that's how all men act when they've been accused of such an awful crime. It didn't occur to her Dail might be telling the truth."

For Mr. Dail's alleged crime "the judge handed down the stiffest punishment the charges allowed: back-to-back life sentences. Plus another 18 years. Dail clutched benches and tables as deputies dragged him from the courtroom. He screamed at his sister, his mother, his father, his brothers, begging them, 'Don't let them take me.'"

In prison, Mr. Dail was subjected to the same crime he was wrongly accused of committing, and other atrocities. "His mind wanders to dark corners of tough prisons. To the man he watched being stabbed to death in the yard of one prison camp. To months he spent in the 'hole' -- punishment for cursing at a senior guard. At 20, Dail knew what became of men like him in prison. At a slight 115 pounds, Dail had bright eyes and full lips that drew droves of ladies on the dance floors of Goldsboro clubs. In prison, his looks promised both doom and salvation. His conviction guaranteed trouble. 'I was little, white, pretty, and I stuck out like a sore thumb,' Dail said. 'I was prey.' Months later, two men cornered him in an isolated cell block and raped him. He swallowed a cry for help, knowing it would bring more problems than safety. Dail quickly learned how sex is swapped in prison. Beatings were negotiated and rendered based on connections. Dail formed some liaisons to keep him safe. Others he sought to keep himself sane. Dail found intimacy with men for so long, he is certain he will pursue men now that he is free. Dail didn't prefer men before he went to prison, but like so many of the identities he claimed there, he is not sure which are real and which are pretend."

Finally, DNA evidence freed Mr. Dail in 2007, but not before the damage had been done. Dail's life has been on a downward spiral "He's terrified to sleep at night, fearing he'll wake in prison. He cries when he spills a soda. Dail took a job briefly with Starbucks, but suffered anxiety attacks when he couldn't keep pace during training. 'The honeymoon's over and the reality of all I've been through has finally set in,' Dail said . . . . 'I thought as time went on I'd be able to adjust and move on. It gets harder every day.'"

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Woman falsely accused boyfriend of rape for revenge. Her sentence: 'A stern talking to' and no jail time

Read this news story, which I've reprinted below. A woman cried rape out of revenge against her boyfriend and had him arrested. She was angry because he left the apartment to get cigarettes but didn't return soon enough for her liking. The woman called the police and in a "jovial" fashion claimed she was raped. Even though her story didn't ring true from the outset, the boyfriend was arrested (the story doesn't say how long he was jailed but it appears that, as with so many of these stories, the innocent male served more jail time than the lying female would eventually serve when her deception was outed). And finally police determined there was no rape.

When it was time for her to be sentenced for her crime, the judge underscored the seriousness of her lie -- a lie that destroys men's lives -- by giving her "a stern talking to" and releasing her without any jail time whatsoever. None.

That will teach her to try to destroy an innocent man! The next time she or another woman who reads this story is tempted to do such a vile thing, they'll think twice because they'll know they could end up getting "a stern talking to." It that won't deter them, I don't know what will.

This story illustrates several important points about false rape claims.

First, women with a motive do lie about rape. Usually it's not for revenge but to "explain" an illicit sexual affair to a parent, husband or boyfriend.

Second, a male can be arrested without any basis whatsoever aside from the far-fetched claims of a woman whose story doesn't even add up. That is the most frightening thing about cases of this nature -- the unbridled power that a liar has over any man or teenage boy. All a woman needs to do is say the word and a male above a certain age likely will be arrested. Few if any other such claims furnish the liar such power over other people.

Third, while the judge correctly noted the stigma to the accused from the false claim, he also made sure to add that the a false claim could deter legitimate claimants from coming forward. This, of course, is the judiciary's favorite thing to say about false rape claims since it returns the status of victimhood to women, where it belongs (or so many people think). In this case, the victim is hypothetical, phantom, even unborn woman who might possibly, theoretically be deterred from making a rape claim because of the lie. Never mind the innocent men -- they are just collateral damage in the effort to get women to come forward and report rapes. (In any event, it's not even true that such a false claim will discourage women from coming forward. A false rape claim won't deter even other false rape claims, much less legitimate rape claims, since judges like Judge Jackson don't think women who lie about rape deserve to serve jail time.)

Fourth, there is a gross absence of proportionality in sentencing. Whereas if the woman's lie had its intended effect, the boyfriend would be imprisoned for many years; yet, the woman gets only a slap on the wrist. The boyfriend was actually arrested and obviously experienced considerable anxiety. What he experienced probably was worse than what she would have experienced if the rape she jovially described to police had actually occurred.

Sentences like this give license to women to lie with impunity; such sentences denigrate innocent men whose victimhood simply is not taken seriously.

Shame on you, Judge Jackson.


Crying Rape No Joke

"This isn't funny; this is not a game or a way to get back at your boyfriend," said Provincial Court Chief Judge R. Leslie Jackson in court Tuesday where a Charleston woman was sentenced on a charge stemming from a desire for revenge on her boyfriend.

Chrystal DeMerchant, 22, pleaded guilty to a Jan. 12 charge of making a false statement of sexual assault.

Crown Prosecutor Robert Murray said DeMerchant called police that date, claiming to have been sexually assaulted in the bedroom of their apartment by her boyfriend of 11 months.

But police arrived to find the boyfriend gone, he said.

DeMerchant was calm and jovial in demeanor when relating events to them, the Crown continued.

"Police found this odd," Murray said.

He said police officers also found she seemed mentally challenged with childlike responses to their questions he said.

DeMerchant was taken to the Upper River Valley Hospital where she was met by her grandparents.

"The grandparents told police not to believe DeMerchant because she had a propensity to lie," said Murray.

The police questioned her again and found maybe the grandparents were right, he said.

Murray also related the boyfriend's side of the story.

He said the sex earlier in the evening was consensual, after which they played a game of cards. He went out to get cigarettes, but didn't come back right away.

Friends say DeMerchant was mad at the boyfriend for not returning so called the police and claimed sexual assault.

Police arrested the boyfriend but later released him after determining the allegation was false.
From his client, defence lawyer Sylvain Pelletier issued an apology, adding she is in a stable relationship and living with her mother.

When asked by Judge Jackson if she had anything to say to the court, the accused shrank into her seat, chewed on the cuff of her powder blue sweatshirt and shook her blonde head no.

Judge Jackson gave the young lady a stern talking to from his bench about the seriousness of making a false allegation of rape.

"It carries a stigma [on the accused]...and makes legitimate complainants doubtful about coming forward," he said.

Given the mitigating circumstances of DeMerchant's mental capacity, Judge Jackson sentenced her to a suspended sentence of one year, probation for one year, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report for a mental health assessment, abide by the recommendations of the assessment, and to abstain from drugs and alcohol.

The link:

Police to crack down on false rape claims, but not to protect innocent men

The news story linked below is a stunning example of the point we previously made at this post: HOW WOMEN BECAME THE 'VICTIMS' OF A CRIME THAT ONLY TARGETS MEN: FALSE RAPE CLAIMS IN THE FEMINIST 'RAPE CULTURE.

Although false reporting of rape is a crime whose victims are almost exclusively male, it has become so embroiled in the feminist sexual assault milieu that discussing it as a potentially significant problem for men as a class is strictly verboten because such view does not conform to the feminist rape metanarrative. Men as a class cannot be oppressed, according to this worldview, even if individual men routinely are. And if innocent men routinely are oppressed, it's best not to underscore that point lest people begin to suspect that men as a class routinely are oppressed.

Case in point: the crime of false reporting. This crime may be unique among all crimes because virtually the entire public discourse about it is dominated by persons who insist it is not a serious public threat. At least not to men. If it is a threat at all, it’s to women, they insist.

As we previously stated: ". . . when the crime of false reporting is discussed . . . , it is typically viewed through a gynocentric lens that blinks at the harm it causes innocent men. News reports about false rape claims take on an almost surreal cookie-cutter redundancy. Police typically adopt an indifference to the male victims, instead choosing to chide the false accuser for wasting police time. More disturbing is that news accounts often report a police officer, sexual assault counselor or judge chiding the false accuser for the "real" harm she's caused -- not to the man wrongly accused or to other potential men she might accuse -- but to hypothetical, unknown, even unborn women whose reports of real rapes might be looked upon with suspicion because of the lie.

All of those elements are found in the following story. Police are fed up with false rape claims and make it clear that they are going to crack down on them. But not once in the story below -- not once -- do the police suggest that they are cracking down to protect the real victims of this crime, innocent men falsely accused of rape. Instead, the police bellyache about the fact that false claims waste their time and insult the "real victims" or rape.

Excuse me: are you not discussing false rape claims? Then the "real victims" of this crime are men falsely accused of rape. How dare you denigrate the victims of false rape claims by ignoring them, by minimizing their injuries, or by wishing them away.

Here is the story:

Police warning over false rape complaints

Hamilton [New Zealand] police warn that anyone who makes a false rape complaint, which wastes valuable time and resources, runs the risk of prosecution.

The warning comes as a woman appears in Hamilton District Court this morning charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, arising from rape complaint made last November.

Detective Senior Sergeant Chris Page said the Hamilton woman claimed she was raped after an offender forced his way into her flat but this was proved to be untrue.

"A large amount of police and ESR resources and time was put into the investigation," he said.

"The media coverage of this incident was significant as police dealt with a number of rape allegations at that time. This case has proven to be the third false complaint from that week."

Mr Page said he was disappointed the time of specialist doctors who were called out, ESR forensic experts and detectives had been wasted.

"It's even more frustrating when real complaints had been put to one side to deal with this and other similar allegations at the time.

"The detrimental impact is far reaching and precious investigation time cannot afford to be wasted.

"Instances such as this are an insult to those real victims who police work closely with," he said.

Mr Page said Operation Phil, the Hamilton serial rape case, was not affected by this and continued to be investigated.

"Those three complaints that make up Operation Phil remain valid and detectives are committed to locating the offender," he said.


Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Man arrested over woman's allegation that he raped her -- in 1995: How is this possibly fair to the man?

Gentlemen, you would do well to start keeping a detailed diary of your every encounter, and saving such diary forever, because otherwise how on earth could you remember what happened if you are accused of raping a woman years and years ago?

John Leslie, a 43-year-old television personality, has been accused of raping a woman in November 1995. You read that right -- November 1995. The woman at the center of the allegation claims that the man forced himself on her after inviting her and group of friends back to his house. The woman, who says that she was in her early 20s when the alleged assault took place, reported the claim to police several weeks ago.

Did you get that? She reported the claim several weeks ago. Dating from 1995. And the police actually arrested him over it.

And this is fair the man how? How could he possibly remember anything about the evening in question? If he is innocent (and I suspect he is), probably the most he could honestly say is, "I have no clear recollection of that night, but I would never rape a woman."

This underscores the power a woman has over a male, any male, that she can make an allegation about an encounter that occurred more than a decade ago and cause him to be arrested. It is not fair; it is not just; and it is symptomatic of culture in the death grip of radical feminist hysteria. Any liar, to put it crudely, has got every man and teenage boy by the balls. That a liar can destroy any one of us with nothing more than a fabrication of rape proves there is something very, very wrong with the system.

Threat of wrongful convictions causes judges to keep inflammatory testimony out of the rape trials

Counsel who defend the falsely accused need to be aware of the positive trend in the courts of keeping words such as "rape" and "victim" and "crime scene" out of rape trials. The reason, some feel, is that judges are becoming sensitive to wrongful convictions. The accuser can relate the facts without resorting to loaded, inflammatory, prejudicial, accusatory and conclusory terms that feed juries the conclusion that the defendant is guilty.

Look at the excerpted article below. Note the bellyaching prosecutors who claim that this trend is turning the clock back 50 years. Oh, you mean back when men thought they owned women? Right. Heaven forbid that a rape accuser should not be permitted to do or say whatever she wants in front of the jury, no matter how inflammatory or prejudicial to the presumably innocent man, in order to send him to prison, possibly for decades.

I find the sarcastic tone of some of these comments downright frightening. Such as this one by James P.Fox: ". . . the poor defendant is presumed innocent and we're not going to give much of a concern to the victims of these crimes."

You're damn right, Mr. Fox. You ought to read the stories in this Web site if you want to understand why it's of paramount importance to protect the "poor" defendant, as you derisively call him. I could chronicle case after case where men no more guilty than you are, sir, had to fight for their lives to be kept out of prison because of a woman's malicious lie.

How dare you denigrate the victimization of innocent men by refusing to do everything in your power to give them a fair trial.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Courts Putting Hot-Button Words on Ice
Judges are banning terms such as 'rape' and 'victim' as prejudicial to defendants

Tresa Baldas
The National Law Journal
June 16, 2008

Call it the age of the Loaded Word.

A steadily increasing number of courts across the United States are prohibiting witnesses and victims from uttering certain words in front of a jury, banning everything from the words "rape" to "victim" to "crime scene."

Prosecutors and victims' rights advocates nationwide claim the courts are going too far in trying to cleanse witness testimony, all to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. Concerns and fears over language restrictions have been percolating ever since judges in Nebraska and Missouri last year banned the word "rape" during rape trials.
. . . .

[Joshua] Marquis, who is the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., said courts telling witnesses and victims how to tell their story insults them, as well as the intelligence of jurors.

"You have a woman who's been raped and she has to say that she had sexual intercourse with the man, rather than calling him her attacker?" Marquis said. "I think this is going 50 years back in our legal evolution."

Not quite, counter criminal defense lawyers, who argue that certain words like "victim" and "rape" and "murder" conflict with the presumption of innocence, and therefore, should be kept out of trial.

"I've had wise judges frequently order that prosecutors and witnesses not refer to certain individuals as 'victims' or locations as 'crime scenes.' Such orders are required by the presumption of innocence," said criminal defense lawyer Daniel E. Monnat of Monnat & Spurrier in Wichita, Kan.

Monnat convinced a judge to exclude the terms "victim" and "crime scene" in a pending homicide case. Kansas v. Floyd, No. 06CR17 (Stanton Co., Kan., Dist. Ct.).

Monnat said that words like "victim" and "crime scene" contradict the presumption of innocence by assuming a conclusion that a jury is supposed to arrive at on its own.

"It only makes sense. You don't want the witnesses and officers of law enforcement talking as if it was a foregone conclusion, almost drumming it into the jurors' minds that a crime was committed by virtue of the fact that there is a victim," Monnat said.

"I think that courts are more and more open to restricting terminology like this because of the number of wrongful convictions that have been demonstrated to have occurred in the U.S."

Attorneys with the Cook County Public Defender's office in Chicago have had similar luck with requests to bar witnesses from using certain words, including "victim," "rape" and "crime scene."

. . . .
Attorney Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, defended the defense bar's efforts to ban certain words during trial. For example, he said, there are several instances where defense lawyers are justified in trying to bar the use of the word "rape." They include: if they are claiming the act was consensual; they are claiming there was no rape at all; or they are claiming the alleged victim was under the influence of a drug, or mentally ill, and therefore confused about what really happened.

"Sometimes it's not ludicrous," King said, responding to criticisms of attempts to keep certain words, such as rape, out. "There are some things you can't say in the courtroom," he said. "You might have the right to say things on the courtroom steps but not in a courtroom while on trial. And I dispute any constitutional scholar that says the First Amendment trumps due process in the courtroom. It never has. It never will."

But not allowing a rape victim to say she or he was raped is "a travesty to our criminal justice system," countered James P. Fox, president of the National District Attorneys Association and district attorney in San Mateo County, Calif.

"Their testimony is censored in order to protect the presumption of innocence, and that is outrageous," Fox said. "It's an example of the pendulum swinging, I think, to the side of the defendant -- the poor defendant is presumed innocent and we're not going to give much of a concern to the victims of these crimes."

Fox added: "I'm sorry, but the presumption of innocence argument only lasts as long as there's no other evidence to the contrary."


Wendy J. Murphy of the New England School of Law, who is representing a Nebraska rape victim opposing the judge's barring of the word "rape," said the major battle facing prosecutors and victims now is fighting judges' censorship orders.

To date, she said, there has been no federal court ruling on the matter.

"Prosecutors are begging for federal court comment on this," Murphy said.Murphy tried when she appealed the Nebraska judge's decision to bar a rape victim from using the word rape. She lost the case, and is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bowen v. Honorable Jeffre Cheuvront, No. 4:07CV3221 (D. Neb.).

For Murphy, it is all about preserving the victim's right to tell her story freely and candidly in court. Telling someone not to speak is one thing, she said. But telling witnesses and victims what to say "is the ultimate anti-American thing to do."

First Amendment lawyer Rex Heinke, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, wonders where all this is going. "It strikes me as a little odd that you can't use that term [rape]," he said. "Does that mean you can't use murder, robbery, breaking and entering?"He added: "It's pretty hard to prosecute a murder case without being able to say the word murder."