Comment: In Northern Ireland, David Brown is a hero in the mold of Rosa Parks.
Although it's been done on occasion elsewhere, Mr. Brown has struck a blow for every man and boy who has ever been falsely accused of rape by bringing a civil defamation action against his false accuser for statements she made to persons other than police officers. (You see, women are permitted to lie to police about rape with impunity -- the male can't sue them because their lies are "privileged," and although it's purportedly a crime, it is rarely ever punished or even publicized. To borrow a line from the malevolent radical gender feminist cabal, this is another example of "undeserved privileged" bestowed on women by their ball-less, chivalrous male enablers.) The case settled amicably before trial (as do 80 to more than 90 percent of all civil cases in the United States.)
But to show how far we still have to go, the false accuser -- despite her mendacity -- is not named in the article. Her identity is guarded by the news media with the same tenacity that Clark Kent protects Superman's for no reason other than the fact she alleged -- she lied -- that she was raped. She is identified simply as "the woman." (If I were a woman, I would not want this foul creature to besmirch my gender by having her identified in this fashion.) In contrast, Mr. Brown's name is splashed all over it, if only to remind the world that this young man was accused of a vile crime.
We still have a long, long way to go. But it's time for all of us -- all of us -- to take off the gloves and go after the lying sons-of-bitches who would destroy innocent men and boys -- and not only them but their sniveling male enablers who would sooner accuse innocent young men of being "part of the problem" of rape than to punish the liars who would destroy our brothers.
Agreement reached in rape defamation case
A landmark defamation case brought by a former chef who says a woman wrongly accused him of rape has been stayed at the High Court.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
David Brown, 25, from Coleraine, sued over allegations which were said to have later been withdrawn.
However, a judge was told that the action would not be proceeding after an agreement between the two sides was reached.
Although no details were disclosed, it is understood the terms of the order include a pledge by the woman not to make a claim of rape against Mr Brown.
With no admission of liability, the case could still be reactivated at any future point, legal sources said.
Mr. Brown's family had re-mortgaged their home in an effort to pay the legal costs and clear his name.
He was detained in August 2007 over a rape allegation made following a party in Portrush, Co Antrim.
Mr Brown is understood to have known the woman he says made the claims against him.
The libel action, which was the first of its kind brought in Northern Ireland, would not have covered any claims made to police as they are covered by privilege.
Instead, it was to focus on what has allegedly been said about Mr Brown in the area where he lives in work.
Following the resolution to the case his mother, Alana Brown, described the outcome as a vindication for him.
"There are no winners here, that was never the case," she said.
"It's the best we could have hoped for at the end of the day. This was to vindicate David."
Mrs Brown added that her son, who now works in a family-run business and still lives in the north west, had "fought his corner".
She also stressed how real rape victims are hurt by those who make false allegations.
Mrs Brown said: "It sets genuine cases back 10 years because people wonder 'Is she telling the truth or not'."
Link: http://u.tv/News/Agreement-reached-in-rape-defamation-case/60a5f2a5-bc6b-4bcb-b5ea-306b3236ad9b
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The gloves come off: Sue the sons-of-bitches who lie about rape
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
If you're a male, and want to play the hero protector fantasy perversion in the privacy of you're own home, with you're wife or girlfriend, she can make up stories of bad guys, and you can ??save her from them??, again in the privacy of you're own home.
But when the lies, games, and perversions become ingrained in the law enforcement community, that's when trouble starts.
"Break The gender feminist Law enforcement misinformation ALLIANCE"
I think you've hit on some important reasons underlying the chivalry.
Look, none of us men like to think we're like the bad guys -- and that's because very few of us are. But what most of us are only slowly realizing is that it's ever so easy to destroy a GOOD GUY because we've fomented all this hysteria about the BAD GUYS.
If I were this fellow, I'd want my name all over the news in this case.
The purpose would be to counteract the smear that besmirched my previously good name.
Good on him for filing a defamation suit. More dudes need to do this. What I would really enjoy would be dragging cops and DAs into court to testify about false accuser's lies.
Pierce Harlan - "But what most of us are only slowly realizing is that it's ever so easy to destroy a GOOD GUY because we've fomented all this hysteria about the BAD GUYS."
It's been a week or more since Sgt. Mom poses a question about the presumptive fate of the nearly-knifonged Duke lacrosse players had they have had public defenders instead of high-powered, high-priced representation.
My (essentially) instinctive reaction was to think of a number of public defenders that I know or know of who are extremely competent, and act quite zealously (often, down-right over-the-top) in defending their clients. I was going to fire off a response to Sgt. Mom wrt the quality of defense that public defenders (PD’s) regularly give to the accused – pointing out the statistically significant number of rape cases defended by PD’s that end up in acquittals 9and, I do stand by the capabilities of PD’s and court appointed alternative defense counsel).
But, while preparing my remarks, a chilling though swept over me. Thinking about the “perfect storm” building up in the Duke false rape case(s), it dawned on me that without the exculpatory DNA evidence that Nifong tried to hide, those innocent men might very well have been convicted (although the time-stamped ATM security camera evidence might have saved the one).
From their, in keeping with your remarks here about destroying good guys, I had begun to muse about the notion that it would be typically be far easier to convict a falsely accused man than it would be to catch, prosecute, and convict an actual rapist.
I was going to try to put together something regarding my thoughts on that matter, but, unfortunately that effort got side-tracked by a sudden increased demand on my time, and the need to travel out of state.
But, now remarks have caused me to want to try to revisit those musings. I’m still a bit short for time today, but a few brief thoughts:
A real rapist plans his attacks, takes steps to conceal his identity, understands how to avoid leaving evidence, and knows how to destroy evidence that is left behind. This is why it is often so very difficult to identify real rapists.
If identified, a real rapist knows the details of his crime, and can easily plan ahead to create alibis and/or cover stories; whereas a falsely accused man is typically blind-sided by the accusations, cannot always come up with an alibi (and may not even know the time and date of the alleged crime he’s being question about), and is likely to say things to investigators that can be twisted against him, such as agreeing to leading statements about which in his state of mental and emotional upheaval, he isn’t likely to carefully think through.
And, in situations where consensual sex has morphed into after-the-fact regret, a man is quite likely to readily admit to having had sexual relations, believing in haste that the fact that the sex was, to his understanding, fully consensual will exonerate him. Such statements, made in haste, can easily lead to his undoing – he acknowledges the sex, but she claims it was forced; and police are going to chose to error on the side of what they deem to be caution, and tend to believe her first and foremost.
(to be continued...)
(continuing on...)
Fortunately, from what I’ve been told (first-hand, by those associated with the investigatory/prosecutorial process), a significant proportion of false allegations are snooped out quite quickly (some without a arrest ever being made). And, as I’ve stated many times, I have great respect for the sincere efforts of law enforcement in such matters.
Still, as we are all too well aware, the are those cases where police and prosecutors become convinced that an innocent man has committed the crime (there are some damned fine liars out there in the ranks of the false accusers). And when they come to truly believe that the crime has happened, they do tend to be very doggedly determined. And, while PD’s can be very adept in their efforts to defend the accused, they are typically less experienced than the prosecutors (often a pass-through job on their way to private defense work as opposed to a career as a prosecutor), so it’s likely that there are more than a few cock-sure newbie PD’s who can totally F—k Up their clients case, and serve an innocent man up for conviction (this can arise due to the way prosecutors must approach a rape case – it is entirely up to the defense to bring up and explore alternate theories – there’s a lot more to this aspect than I can easily relate here). [yes, I’m also aware that there are instances of police and prosecutorial malfeasance as well].
At some point, I hope to have more detailed discussions with a few of my wife’s male colleagues, who I’ve already managed to put a bug in their ear about the issue of false rape allegations, and get their thoughts. With three of them, in particular, when I’ve had a chance to bring up the issue, citing some of the facts I’ve learned from this site, they suddenly went from jovial to quite concerned and perplexed. I could tell that they weren’t just “blowing it off”, but were pondering the issue a bit. Now that they’ve had a chance to think about it for some time, I’d like to query them as to their thoughts wrt how it might be easier to convict an innocent man than a real rapist.
Sorry I don’t have the time to put together a more complete, concise, and cogent collection of thoughts. But I have to wrap this up for now.
BTW, if anyone has some specific thoughts or questions on the matter, being able to entertain them might help me to sharpen my own thoughts. So please, ask away.
slwerner,
Any idea how large the typical caseload is at any given time for a PD? Unlike the Duke case, would a PD have to large a caseload to be as diligent finding out info like the Duke accused's attorneys were able to? Do PD's have the option to not take cases? Another concern would be that an inexperinced PD may not have any idea how to work around a rape shield law to bring up relevant past false accusations, etc., and that may work against the accused.
You brought up a good point about the accused making statements to the police thinking it may help their case. Probably the first thing that should be recommended to anyone accused, is to request an attorney, and to not deviate from that. Don't answer anything else, but just keep asking for an attorney.
I could be wrong, but aren't most interrogations by police video taped now? And once a suspect requests an attorney, are police allowed to continue questioning without said attorney present?
I've talked with a few police myself, and one tactic they will admit they use, is to wait and arrest someone late on a friday afternoon. Usually, this will result in a person having to sit in jail over the weekend before a PD can get to them. The cops will question that person, on and off, over the weekend, using the mental state of being in jail for something the person doesn't think they did, as a lever, to get them to talk (nervous people tend to talk a lot).
As you stated, the true rapist knows what they did, and will likely be less nervous and less talkative in a situation like this.
One thing that I think should be happening, is that both sides in a situation of he said/she said, is that polygraphing should be allowed to all parties involved. The case in Tennessee is a good example of where this has been helpful.
That case is also a good example of why there should be a public national false accuser database. She has made 2 false accusations previously, and the police and prosecutors HAD to know that, yet still proceeded forward.
Hope this hasn't been to long winded and helps with some ideas or direction to look.
My understanding is that PDs,here in Tennessee, have an ever growing case load. It is also my understanding they,compared to prosecutors, have limited resources. It is as if the state is making it difficult to prove an citizen's innocence. The first PD who handled my case had a huge number of complaints against him and also had a desire to become a prosecutor ( conflict of interest?). I have been seeking to find the rules that PDs and court appointed attorneys must abide by when handling criminal cases. I have heard that PDs and court appointed attorneys get paid by the case. If they can get their client to accept a plea bargain, they get paid faster and, there has been mention of them getting paid a bonus when/if they can get their client to accept the plea bargain the prosecutor is offering. At no time was I ever told what was going on between those appointed to defend me and those who were determined to make sure I ended up with a criminal record, all based on he said/she said hearsay.
For an innocent person who is poor, being in jail for a crime you know you didn't commit is absolute hell on you. You have no control over the circumstances of your case and, have only a PD to depend upon for any defense of your rights. You are also at their mercy when it comes to trying to improve your innocence, which is impossible when you cannot acquire the evidence you need to prove you innocence. I had to deal with being locked up with not only other innocent men but, men who were career criminals. I remember my PDs and my court appointed attorneys all telling me the same sarcastic thing, " everyone in jail is innocent".
My son's PD had a cute little saying "you'll never get an aquittal in Seattle".
It was never a matter of guilt or innocence, it was a matter of damage control - how much punishment was to be meted out. "We have to keep this close to our vest" "We have to play our cards right". It was all a big game for them.
If you've ever watched the face of someone as they pin a struggling butterfly to a board, or pulled wings off flies...the PD always had that same fixated grin on her face - watching us helplessly struggle through our cries of innocence like a fish caught on a line thrashes about in the bottom of a boat, fighting for freedom, wearing itself out with realization that no amount of struggle will alter the outcome.
I think it's fairly easy for a predatory rapist to get away with it - it takes a small amount of research and inside knowledge. As I said before, the boy who raped my daughter just made a few inquiries, knew the basics of evidence, and got away with it quite handily.
An innocent person is a sitting duck, especially if it's a case of under aged accusers. You are entirely at the mercy of circumstance.
The legal system favors the guilty over the innocent at every stage. The guilty defendent can always take a plea, sob to the parole board, weep in front of a jury, and otherwise pull the wool over people's eyes. The guilty have many more options than the innocent. As a result, innocent defendents face harsh consequences that the guilty don't have to worry about.
Post a Comment