Comment: This story is a perfect example of how our culture treats men and boys falsely accused of rape as nothing more than flotsam, or as "unfortunate" but necessary collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. An innocent man (pictured here) has been cleared of false rape charges, but make no mistake, he has not received justice. His life is in shambles. As such, he is sadly typical of an army of young men who are victims of our taboo epidemic, false rape claims.
In the news story below this comment, a serial false accuser whose modus operandi is to falsely accuse others of crimes for revenge, including rape, won't be charged for making a shambles of a young man's life.
We have previously reported on this case here and here. As we have explained, the accuser and the young man she accused were in a consensual sexual relationship and then, from out of nowhere, she claimed the man supposedly raped her. One year after her false allegation, the rape lie trails him like a ghost -- his future as a police officer is still in question because of the lie. He was stunned by his ordeal and warned other men: "It's a big wake-up call. If you have casual sex and you are a male and a police officer, you are a target. I believe that if a guy gets into this situation, if you are not lucky enough to have a good lawyer and a good private investigator, there's a good chance you'll be found guilty."
A police officer would not explain why the woman won't be charged. That's only appropriate because the decision not to charge her is inexplicable.
Although the judge did not say the woman had lied, as the article explains, "the woman contradicted herself on important matters, and gave evidence that conflicted with other credible and reliable evidence on vital points."
There is a handy word to describe such a person: liar. In the rape context, she is one of a countless number of false accusers.
On three other occasions, this woman has made false allegations against others. One of the prior false claims involved an alleged rape that never occurred. Yet I see no indication that she has ever been charged, much less spent a day behind bars for her crimes.
Despite her latest grievous lie which may yet destroy a young man's life (the jury is still out), and despite the false claimant's history of trying to destroy others with rape and other false charges of criminality in order to exact revenge, the law continues to protect her identity as carefully as Clark Kent guards Superman's. This false accuser is treated with the anonymity that ought to be reserved for rape victims (and, if the law were just and merciful, to the presumed innocent accused of rape and similar crimes).
In contrast, the innocent young man's name was splashed all over the news for all the world to titillate to his humiliation and to the details of his tryst with the older serial false accuser. Does anyone stop to think how embarrassing this is to him, to his parents or siblings? Any time this young man goes for a job for the rest of his life, his prospective employer will Google his name and find the sordid details of that terrible night. The prospective employer likely will read the details with prurient interest -- and then, of course, won't hire him. How many innocent people want the details of their sex lives spread before the entire world? Would you? Why do we tolerate it when it comes to the falsely accused? Actual rape victims (and, as shown from this case, some false accusers) are not subjected to the indignity of having their sexual encounters aired, and neither should the victims of false rape accusations.
This case proves that the persons who enforce our laws, sadly enough, have little if any concern for the destruction of a man's good name attendant to the publication of a rape lie or for the injustice of not punishing the person who set out to destroy his life.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
False rape claimant won't face charges
The woman whose rape claim against a police recruit was thrown out of court will not be charged with making a false complaint, police say.
Detective Senior Sergeant Mike Oxnam confirmed the woman would not be prosecuted, but he would not give reasons for the decision.
Mark Tulloch, who walked free from the High Court at Wellington two weeks ago, is still waiting to find out whether he can resume training to become a police officer.
He did not want to comment on the decision not to charge the woman. "It's all in the past for me," he said. "It's a police decision. I've moved on."
The woman said Mr Tulloch raped her in April 2008 after they met via an internet dating site.
He was arrested within days and has been on paid leave from the police for nearly a year.
After hearing the woman's evidence at a trial last month, Justice Ron Young discharged Tulloch, in a move that amounted to an acquittal.
In written reasons issued later, the judge did not say the woman had lied but he said she had a history of making false allegations after falling out with people.
He said that, in all but the most exceptional cases, a jury should decide what had happened and assess the credibility of witnesses. In the Tulloch case, the woman contradicted herself on important matters, and gave evidence that conflicted with other credible and reliable evidence on vital points.
"My conclusion is that, taking into account the complainant's evidence about what happened that night, together with the other evidence available, the complainant's credibility and reliability was severely undermined."
Even so, he would probably have left it to the jury to decide whether to believe her had she not had a "very concerning" pattern of making apparently false complaints against other people.
"On three occasions, at least, the complainant has made a false statement about criminal offending, including an allegation of rape, in circumstances where she has fallen out with or had a serious argument with another person."
This combination of seriously weakened evidence, together with the pattern of false complaints, fundamentally undermined the complainant's credibility and reliability, the judge said.
Speaking after the decision, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said many complaints against police were thoroughly investigated and the benefit of the doubt was given to the complainant, so police who were accused of crimes were dealt with more harshly than the general public. Relatively few police charged were ultimately convicted.
- The Dominion Post