Austin Scott, an ex-Penn State football player cut by the team after a rape allegation is suing everyone he says is responsible for destroying his life. "[H]e wants $300,000 in total compensation from the university, Penn State Police, the county, the woman who said he raped her, Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira, former Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall, Penn State Chief of Police Stephen Shelow, Assistant Chief of Police Thomas Sowerby, three police officers and two detectives, according to court documents." See: here
In April 2008, the Centre County Pennsylvania District Attorney's office dropped rape charges against Mr. Scott because there was “no reasonable likelihood” it could meet its burden of proof. (Note, this means the District Attorney's office conceded there was no reasonable chance a jury would not have a reasonable doubt about Mr. Scott's guilt.) That "decision [to dismiss the charges] came after the state Superior Court ruled . . . that jurors could hear testimony about the alleged victim’s involvement in a separate sexual assault case in 2003. The defendant in that case was acquitted." It is important to know this about that earlier rape allegation lodged by Mr. Scott's accuser, according to the trial judge: "The woman in the earlier trial 'admitted, under oath, to lying about the sexual intercourse being forced and stated that it that was, in fact, consensual for several hours,' [Judge] Kistler wrote in one order." The Superior Court agreed. See here. (It is unfortunate that the Pennsylvania Superior Court chose not to make its decision in the Scott case a published opinion worthy of precedent.)
After dismissing the charges against Mr. Scott, for good measure, the D.A.'s office issued a a public statement to insure that everyone understood its position on Mr. Scott: “It is with deep regret that we . . . withdraw the charges against Austin Scott,” the statement said. Note that the District Attorney experienced "deep regret" even though it conceded that a jury would have a reasonable doubt about Mr. Scott's guilt. The implication, of course, is that the jury would be unduly prejudiced by the evidence of the accuser's prior false accusation -- juries, after all, are stupid, or at best, naive, and they can't be trusted figure out the truth. (One wonders what is the D.A.'s position on admitting evidence of a rape defendant's prior conviction for sexual assault? D.A.'s elsewhere seem to have no problem with that sort of evidence -- that's somehow different than admitting evidence of an accuser's prior false rape claim, right?)
Now, a year-and-one-half later, Mr. Scott is filing suit. His attorney, John Karoly, summed up the suit in an interview with the Centre Daily Times in words that have particular meaning on this Web site: “'District attorneys and police officers, as part of their job, are going to face complainants who are untrustworthy whose allegations are false, who are perhaps mentally disturbed,' Karoly said. 'There are a lot of people who routinely come to district attorneys with allegations that are unfounded, so the fact that (the woman) has some personal or mental problems is one thing, and we certainly fault her for creating this allegation, but ... it is their job to conduct a reasonable investigation to exclude these types of unfounded allegations.'” See here
Here is a news article summarizing the suit:
Austin Scott files lawsuit against Penn State
A former Parkland High School football standout removed from Penn State's team two years ago amid rape allegations has filed a federal lawsuit against the university, prosecutors and his accuser, according to reports in two Centre County newspapers.
Austin Scott's lawsuit filed by Allentown attorney John P. Karoly claims the accusations and prosecution, which was eventually dropped because of the woman's background, destroyed his chances for an NFL career.
The Centre Daily Times newspaper and Penn State's student-run newspaper, The Collegian, reported that Allentown attorney John P. Karoly filed the multimillion-dollar lawsuit in federal court in Williamsport Tuesday. The lawsuit has not yet been entered in the court's online database.
The news reports say the lawsuit focuses mostly on why prosecutors and police pursued rape allegations against Scott for almost seven months before abandoning the case "with deep regret" on the eve of the trial.
Prosecutors decided to drop the case after a judge ruled the jury could hear testimony about rape allegations the woman made against another man four years earlier at Moravian College in Bethlehem. He was acquitted of the charges in Northampton County Court.
According to the newspaper reports, the lawsuit claims the lead prosecutor, former Centre County Assistant District Lance Marshall, pursued the case "to curry favor" with the woman who accused Scott of rape. Marshall resigned from his job in December amid allegations he made inappropriate sexual advances toward a victim of domestic violence.
The suit further claims Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira knew of Marshall's "proclivities prior to the unlawful arrest and prosecution of Austin Scott."
Marshall and Madeira as well as seven state troopers are named as defendants.
It alleges they all conspired in the October 2007 arrest of the then-22 year old Scott, who was kicked off the Penn State football team and never got drafted into the NFL.
The lawsuit says Scott was slated to be a third or fourth round draft pick for the National Football League prior to the false allegations and false arrest.
He was one of the greatest high school football players in the Lehigh Valley's history, leading Parkland High School to a state championship in 2002. His career at Penn State was mixed, partly because of injuries. He was removed from the team after the female student accused him of raping her in his campus apartment Oct. 5, 2007.
Scott said the sex had been consensual just as the man at Moravian College had four years earlier.
Last year, Scott was invited to attend the Cleveland Browns training camp and played preseason games but was cut from the roster before the regular season.
Link: http://www.mcall.com/news/all-scott-lawsuit-101509-cn,0,2554716.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
Grabs chair and popcorn...
This should be good.
Opportunity for a legal precedent, which means the feminists will be grouping up to dump on this from angels 30.
AfOR
"After dismissing the charges against Mr. Scott, for good measure, the D.A.'s office issued a a public statement to insure that everyone understood its position on Mr. Scott: “It is with deep regret that we . . . withdraw the charges against Austin Scott,”"
And he's only asking for $300k!?!?
And DAMN!, another a-hole DA making me eat crow for sticking up for members of their profession. It wasn't enough to do "the right thing" and just dismiss the charges, this DA had to make the extra effort to ensure that Austin Scott would still be convicted in the court of public opinion.
Just as real rape victims ought to be calling for the heads of false rape accusors, other prosecutors ought to be calling for the heads of disreputable a-holes who give the rest of them a bad name.
"
According to the newspaper reports, the lawsuit claims the lead prosecutor, former Centre County Assistant District Lance Marshall, pursued the case "to curry favor" with the woman who accused Scott of rape. Marshall resigned from his job in December amid allegations he made inappropriate sexual advances toward a victim of domestic violence."
In my hasty ire, I neglected to address this telling bit. But, really, I think it speaks for itself as to why I think other prosecutors ought rightly to be calling for the heads (jobs) of such debased members of their profession.
I'm hoping this goes the way it should with him at least winning his case, if not more.
slwerner
I KNOW!!
ONLY 300k!
Not only does this guy deserve way more than that everyone involved deserves to be in prison because of this.
Until pieces of human trash like this woman start serving serious prison time and end up on sex offender registries will this stuff die down.
This woman should be in prison off her last rape lie and not even have the opportunity to do this to some innocent guy again.
The D.A. scum should also be in prison.
"In April 2008, the Centre County Pennsylvania District Attorney's office dropped rape charges against Mr. Scott because there was “no reasonable likelihood” it could meet its burden of proof."
Scott says..
Do you see how the law enforcements use of semantics makes it seem like "something may have happened..and the guy may just getting away with it".
Instead of using the language of what it really was.." A RAPE ACUSSATION THAT WAS FALSE"!!. I believe the law enforcement / gender feminist Alliance is a perversion.
Re-defining what the meaning of is, is,..to send out faulty and inflamatory "messages"..is beyond the scope of functions that the U.S. constitution allows for "policing powers".
The gender feminist juggernaut would be crippled if the first perversion..."The Alliance"..was told to just stop it!!
slwerner,
No need to worry. Just as there are rapists (1% of men) there are bad prosecutors (I would also put it at about 1%). Most prosecutors aren't bad, and I think most of us know that. No need to stop supporting the good ones.
Very interesting. So the judge was going to allow HER past accusations to be brought out in trial. I sure hope "our" judge allows her past allegations to be shared with the county.
That one article said it was a multi-million dollar lawsuit. 300k just isn't enough... That is also very interesting....
things that make you go 'hum'..
CBGirl
She is "alleged" to have made a false accusation 4 years earlier. How do we know that her accusation was "false"? Were the charges against Scot dismissed based on a "dismissal" 4 years prior?
There's got to be more to this story.
Atom, in your honour I shall adopt a new policy, just to keep things even and honest.
EVERY woman who claims rape is lying, no exceptions, no discussion, no doubt.
I am 100% serious.
You, and your ilk, made me.
AfOR
"EVERY woman who claims rape is lying, no exceptions, no discussion, no doubt."
This really is the only reasonable position to take.
Until we get quid pro quo with accusers (ie women supporting, insisting on and getting legal changes that protect us from the bad 'uns amongst their number), there is no reason why we should be offering moral support to them in their struggle with criminals.
They're on their own. WE certainly are.
Whem women on this blog are called names like
cunts
stupid
nazi's
bitches
pigs
etc.
it is always hurtful, yet it constantly reminds me that we live in the greatest country in the world. "Free Speech" is one of our luxuries!
Oh look! It's more from the FRSTrolls supermarket tabloid!
Published by Atom, Renee, jeana and SgtMom.
It's full of lies, hatred, hypocrisy, jealousy and victimhood.
Atom, in your honour I shall adopt a new policy, just to keep things even and honest.
EVERY woman who claims rape is lying, no exceptions, no discussion, no doubt.
I am 100% serious.
You, and your ilk, made me.
AfOR
""EVERY (wo)man who claims (false) rape is lying, no exceptions, no discussion, no doubt.""
Take away a "wo", insert "false" and who's calling who a 'feminist'?
slwerner:"Just as real rape victims ought to be calling for the heads of ""false rape accusors, other prosecutors ought to be calling for the heads of disreputable a-holes who give the rest of them a bad name."
Yes. That would be nice, indeed.
But this is REAL life.
I would SO love to share your optimism...I just can't...
More likely prosecutors will be looking at how to get away with the same thing without getting called on it.
From Robin Sax - former prosecutor, proposed "reforms":
We need to realize that sexual assault does exist---in frighteningly huge numbers. And later, victims get re-victimized on the stand, and here, reform is also badly needed. But as we think about reform, let's first put our attention on the following areas first (For my reasoning and rationale, you will need to read my newest book It Happens Everyday: Inside the Life of A Sex Crimes DA):
1. There should be mandatory sentencing schemes in all jurisdictions.
2. We need utilize professional juries in sexual assault cases.
3. There needs to be better supervision of registered sex offenders.
4. Money and time should be available to train professionals in this field. This
includes all the agencies involved, including law enforcement, prosecutors,
advocates, therapists, judges, probation, and parole officers. Besides being current
on the latest advances in this area, including the laws, studies show that training
and resources prevent burnout and inspire and motivate people in this line of
work.
5. Specific courts should be designated and designed for child sexual assault (and child
abuse) cases so they are 100% devoted to the needs and realities of kids who
testify.
This system can be modeled after the drug courts. These are in place in many
jurisdictions where specific courts are devoted to drug addicts and focus on
treatment as opposed to punishment. The courts work with defendants to address
their issues and are sensitive to the needs of addicts.
6. There should be limits to an attorney's ability to cross-examine and badger
kids. One of the guarantees of our Constitution is that criminal defendants have the
right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. However, it often
seems that our criminal justice system offers greater protection to the accused than
to the child victim involved in a sexual abuse prosecution.
7. Closed-circuit TV should be allowed more readily than presently used.
8. Currently, admissibility of expert testimony requires the prosecutor to jump through a
number of legal hoops. And even when admitted, the admissibility tends to be for
extremely limited purposes. Expert testimony should be welcomed and encouraged
(from both sides) in order to assist jurors in understanding the unique issues of child
sexual assault.
9. Defense attorneys should be as sensitive "true believers" about victims as they
are about their own clients. There must be legislation to stop re-victimizing the victim
during the court process and to cease casting blame on the victim for being a crime
victim.
10. Continuing a child sexual assault case for a prolonged period should be
discouraged. Currently, the speediest cases are tried in roughly a
year from the date they were filed (but not necessarily reported). Unlike fine
wine, an aging case never gets better for the prosecution as time goes by.
In fact, cases involving children should go to trial as soon as possible and definitely no
later than six months from the filing. This is not only better for the pleading of the
case, but is critical to the victim's healing process.
11. As an alternative to jail and/or prison there should be live-in/lock-down facilities
intended specifically for working with, treating and studying sex offenders. Like drug
rehabilitation, there should be facilities where we can take a low-level sex offender off
the street to ensure the safety of the public and treat him or her (if possible) or at least
learn from the offender.
Cont...
12. There should be amendments to the rule against double jeopardy (which means you
can't be tried twice for the same offense) to enable the re-opening of proceedings
against acquitted defendants where there is compelling new evidence. This will apply
to a range of grave offenses, including those involving serious sexual offenses.
13. Defendants currently have a right to represent themselves (called pro per).
There should be a total ban, or at least limitations, on what a child sexual assault
defendant should be allowed to do in the criminal process. For example, he should
not be able to personally conduct a direct or cross- examination of the complaining
child witnesses against him. He should not be able to access all the discovery
information that a defense attorney (an officer of the court) would normally receive,
such as the victims' school records, rape exam photos, and other confidential records.
14. If a case is appealed after a conviction, it may take two or three years before a court
determines if the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If the defendant is granted a new
trial, the prosecution would need to bring the victim in to testify again. The new or old
testimony could then be used as inconsistencies, thus casting doubt on the victim's
credibility. If the cause for appeal has nothing to do with the victim's testimony, the
victim should not be made to come to court again and the entire prior testimony
should be stipulated as accurate and complete.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-sax/did-the-economist-do-sex_b_258282.html
When law enforcement starts turning the wheels of prosecution before it bothers to establish if a crime has even been committed, clearly it already has too many resources.
If there was a money problem, then they wouldn't be squandering expensive prosecution lawyers and facilities bank-rolled by tax-payers - they'd be spending the money on much cheaper police officers in an attempt to minimize utilization of the court process, forensics, psychologists and the penal institutions (not to mention the massive opportunity cost of wrong-headed policy).
The problem is that they have too much money, and they have no incentive to manage it well.
When men are being locked up in lieu of a few hours basic investigative work, squeals for more 'professionals' is exactly the wrong thing we should be calling for. We should be insisting on fewer judges, fewer prisons and overall lower budgets for law enforcement.
Only then will they prioritize on real crime, and do it with a satisfactory return on investment.
The current farce is naked commercial interests triumphing over what anyone would reasonably expect of law, and in the process becoming indistinguishable from the undesirables they are supposed to be keeping off the streets.
SgtMom,
That is beyond disgusting. That just throws the presumption of innocence, and allowing a person to defend themselves.
She should be disbarred for that kind of crap.
It's disgusting and scary as hell. Many of these 'reforms' are already in place, officially or not.
My son's attorney's ALWAYS referred to his accuser as 'the victim'. Every attorney we interviewed referred to the accuser as 'the victim' automatically.
When Nifong was riding high on the hog with the MSM and the other usual suspects, I recalled reading that he received several hundred support letters/emails from his fellow prosecutors. If this story is true, the ones who sent the letters are likely to be of the "convict at all cost" ilk that a free man justly despises.
Note only is there not a 'rape culture' in colleges, among athletes or fraternities; but there is in fact a fascist 'vengeance culture' which is out to persecute athletes, frat guys, and anyone else who is perceived to exhibit what feminist hate squads have labeled 'macho' behaviour.
The purpose of these terrorist hate cells is two-fold: break up groups of men so they can't bond or even communicate with each other, and further the spread of misandry, which has as its ultimate goal the separation of men from women.
SgtMom said...
"Defense attorneys should be as sensitive "true believers" about victims as they
are about their own clients."
Prosecutors should be sensitive to the accused, rather than badgering,persecuting,assasinating their carachter and,disregarding any benefit of doubt regarding wether they are innocent or guilty and persuing a conviction against them instead od discovering the real truth.
Robin Sax should be be immediately disbarred and every case she has tried thoroughly examined by the FBI and the state's bureau of investigation. Her words bring the term " predatory prosecutor " to mind.
Anonymous said...
When law enforcement starts turning the wheels of prosecution before it bothers to establish if a crime has even been committed, clearly it already has too many resources.
If there was a money problem, then they wouldn't be squandering expensive prosecution lawyers and facilities bank-rolled by tax-payers - they'd be spending the money on much cheaper police officers in an attempt to minimize utilization of the court process, forensics, psychologists and the penal institutions (not to mention the massive opportunity cost of wrong-headed policy).
The problem is that they have too much money, and they have no incentive to manage it well.
When men are being locked up in lieu of a few hours basic investigative work, squeals for more 'professionals' is exactly the wrong thing we should be calling for. We should be insisting on fewer judges, fewer prisons and overall lower budgets for law enforcement.
Only then will they prioritize on real crime, and do it with a satisfactory return on investment.
The current farce is naked commercial interests triumphing over what anyone would reasonably expect of law, and in the process becoming indistinguishable from the undesirables they are supposed to be keeping off the streets.
Oct 16, 2009 12:40:00 AM
I agree
SgtMom said...
It's disgusting and scary as hell. Many of these 'reforms' are already in place, officially or not.
My son's attorney's ALWAYS referred to his accuser as 'the victim'. Every attorney we interviewed referred to the accuser as 'the victim' automatically.
Be cautious and vigilant Sgt Mom. The attorneys may be milking you and/or your son for everything they can get while plotting to coerce him to accepting a plea bargain, even to a lesser charge.
Anonymous said...
" Opportunity for a legal precedent, "
which has been needed for a long time
I won't respond at length to the excerpt from the sex crimes D.A. except to note that her writing is more akin to a populist rant than the work of a serious student of the Constitution. At least she is up front with her biases: she makes clear that in her world, an accuser is a victim. See, e.g., this: "However, it often
seems that our criminal justice system offers greater protection to the accused than to the child victim involved in a sexual abuse prosecution."
Where to begin? More to the point, why bother? I can't possibly change your mind with rationality or truth. You see, madam, an accused who is not yet convicted is presumed innocent, and the accuser is not a "victim." Such a description does a grave disservice to (1) the presumed innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, they must be guilty if their accusers are, in fact, "victims," and (2) actual rape victims, because we trivialize rape when we include among its victims women and children who might be false accusers.
Simple, right? No rational person could disagree with that.
And, of course, when she suggests doing away with double jeapardy protections, limiting the right of cross examination, and curtailing the right to defend onself, it's no better than running the Constitution through a paper shredder.
The best defense against moronic writings like hers is to show the public a cavalcade of true life false rape horror stories, as we do here every day. These stories we tell weren't plucked from Nazi Germany or a Soviet gulag. They are happening right now, across America, probably some this morning. Innocent men and boys are being destroyed by people like this sex offender D.A. who care more about eradicating rape in theory and protecting hypothetical rape victims than about the rights of real flesh and blood human beings, who have the misfortune of wearing a penis.
""Be cautious and vigilant Sgt Mom. The attorneys may be milking you and/or your son for everything they can get while plotting to coerce him to accepting a plea bargain, even to a lesser charge."
Anyone here know of the David Dutt case? This story has many of the same elements of my son's case. This is outcome when a plea wasn't accepted.
Read it and weep, Anon.
From : Stories Of Abused Men In Idaho http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-80.htm#accuser
Excerpt;
Some innocent people caught in the coils of this system find themselves in a uniquely painful predicament: To obtain parole and a chance to rebuild their lives, they must allocute to the offense for which they were convicted.
In some cases, this confession is coupled with a polygraph examination, which puts genuinely innocent people in an inescapable double-bind: If they assert their innocence, they will be denied parole; if they falsely confess to the charges, they'll most likely fail the polygraph examination, with the same result.
Real consequences —David Dutt from Boise
____________________________________
Boise resident David Shawn Dutt has lived every element of that nightmare since being accused in 2001.
Cont...
"You are a brave girl," gushed Judge Neville to S. as he prepared to sentence David Dutt. "You're a courageous girl." Turning to Dutt, Neville upbraided him for having the temerity to deny S.'s accusations; the very act of doing so, Judge Neville insisted, demonstrated that Dutt's capacity for rehabilitation was unacceptably low.
"You are in denial even after these verdicts," growled Judge Neville at Dutt.
"I believe that society does require protection from you. I believe that you are a clear and present and likely to be a future danger to society, and all of those factors militate toward a substantial prison sentence."
In addition to being required to register as a sex offender, Dutt was given a 20-year prison term: ten years fixed, and ten years contingent on his "rehabilitation," which — as noted above — requires that he confess to what remains, the verdict notwithstanding, unproven allegations, and pass a lie detector test certifying that he believes himself to be guilty.
This relatively brief capsule summary of David Dutt's trial doesn't even begin to address the irregularities, implausibilities, and improprieties that are deployed in dense-pack in this case. It is presently on appeal to the state supreme court, and the persistence of both David and his father Dale in seeking to overturn the conviction has produced some interesting shockwaves within Idaho's criminal "justice" system — something about which I'll have more to say in future installments.
An attorney and several other qualified observers of the Ada County justice system have informed me that Jean Fisher boasts a conviction rate north of ninety percent. If the prosecution of David Dutt is typical of her approach, and the latitude she is given by trial judges, that claim is entirely believable, and a compelling illustration of the fact that there is no justice to be found in our "justice" system.
I read about that case before, Sgt. Mom. The sad and horrible thing is that that sort of thing plays out everyday in this world. Justice has become something that is bought and sold
EVERY woman who claims rape is lying, no exceptions, no discussion, no doubt.
No. Reasonable scepticism toward ALL parties on the part of investigators is what is required.
Truth or falsehood CANNOT be determined based on gender. THAT is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Every woman who claims rape but does not report it promptly or have corroborating evidence is probably lying. Real rapes leave real evidence, even if the victim doesn't actively resist. You simply cannot violate an unwilling vagina without tearing it.
Anonymous said...
Every woman who claims rape but does not report it promptly or have corroborating evidence is probably lying. Real rapes leave real evidence, even if the victim doesn't actively resist. You simply cannot violate an unwilling vagina without tearing it.
Oct 17, 2009 11:13:00 PM
That's simply not true at all.
There are reasons for not reporting promptly or not reporting at all.
Fear of prosecution for lying or other legal repercussions is not one of them, however.
Females are strongly encouraged, urged, even begged with open arms to report rape.
A woman who does not report promptly claiming she feared prosecution is very likely lying.
In this day and age that particular claim has no merit whatsoever.
There is no reason not to promptly report a rape.
I wish this football player luck, but I'm afraid the odds are stacked against him. The system isn't set up to compensate the victims of false accusations, but rather to promote a feminist agenda.
Why in God’s name does this wacko think he’s entitled to anything? Because charges were DROPPED against him? I don’t get it. And he’s suing the woman, police officers, detectives, the chief of police, etc. What a moron. First of all, there is no proof that the woman lied or that the authorities thought she was lying. They chose not to pursue the case because they didn’t think they could win it. NOT because they wanted to “get” him.
So can women sue detectives and police and judges for not following through on their cases? If so, this woman should be suing. It isn’t fair that police can decide not to pursue justice for you because of something that happened in the past. (Isn’t it true that you people think that men who raped in the past should not have their prior rapes held against them in current trials?) So I suppose that any male who wants to rape her in the future can, since once she said a sexual encounter was not consensual but then said it was. How convenient!
So why is he suing? He’s a crappy football player and wants to get paid and has a greedy lawyer who also wants to get paid. I love how the lawyer insinuates that the woman is mentally ill. Slimeball. The guy doesn’t want to admit that maybe he was a good player at a Podunk little town, but that doesn’t mean that he would ever make it professionally.
“Last year, Scott was invited to attend the Cleveland Browns training camp and played preseason games but was cut from the roster before the regular season.”
Because he was no good.
“Females are strongly encouraged, urged, even begged with open arms to report rape.”
Oh come on.
I would agree that fear of prosecution is not a reason for not reporting rape. But shame, not wanting anyone to know what happened, knowing that there is only a tiny chance that your rapist will be caught and even if caught, will ever see a jail cell, knowing that you’ll have to go through tons of embarrassing and humiliating questions, knowing that your past is open to public scrutiny, knowing that your rapists’ lawyer will have access to the most intimate details of your life including your sexual history and medical history (including everything you’ve ever said to a therapist) and he/she will share all this with the rapist, etc. And of course, would anyone believe you?
There are LOTS of reasons not to report a rape, whether promptly or not. Which is why so many females do not.
I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it again: is it really necessary to allow Jeana to continue to ruin this blog with her flatulent, irrational posts?
Do we really need to discuss "what does this wacko think he's entitled to anything just because he was falsely charged with rape!?"?
Anonymous said...
There is no reason not to promptly report a rape.
Oct 18, 2009 1:46:00 AM
Are YOU a rape victim?
If so I'll give weight to this statement - only in regard to yourself.
Otherwise - don't speak for something you have no knowledge of.
And herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre's the real SgtMom, who makes herself the life of the party by claiming to be the victim of both a rape and a false rape accusation!
But guess what? I ain't buyin' it. You're nothing but a phony.
jeana:knowing that your past is open to public scrutiny, knowing that your rapists’ lawyer will have access to the most intimate details of your life including your sexual history and medical history (including everything you’ve ever said to a therapist) and he/she will share all this with the rapist,
OK, jeana, are we now pretending it's 1968 or have Rape Shield protections magically disappeared?
There are valid reasons people don't report promptly or not all all, but THAT one is a flat out lie on your part.
Anonymous said...
But guess what? I ain't buyin' it. You're nothing but a phony.
That's mutual - I think you're a phony too.
And now all of a sudden you're picking on Jeana, since I criticized you for sucking up to the trolls.
Yup, you're nothing but a phony who can be either a feminist or MRA, depending on where you think you can get the most attention. And don't think that I don't remember the phony "legal documentation" you posted that was supposed to prove your bizarre claims about your imaginary family.
jeana said...
" Why in God’s name does this wacko think he’s entitled to anything? "
Because he is. Think Jeana,think. What is said when a woman is raped? "He took something from her that he nor anyone else can give back to her".
She and those who assisted her in her criminal activity took things from him that they cannot give back. They took more than ihs livelyhood. They took away his honor, his credibility, his senses of personal security and, his sense of well being . It doesn't matter wether he was a good football player or not, there was no acceptable reason or excuse for her to falsely accuse him of raping her. She and her cohorts ( those who were pursuing a conviction against him) cost him a career, the fame, the fortune and, everything that goes with it. They can never restore his life to what it was before they damaged it beyond repair.
"Because charges were DROPPED against him? I don’t get it. And he’s suing the woman, police officers, detectives, the chief of police, etc. What a moron. First of all, there is no proof that the woman lied or that the authorities thought she was lying."
There must have been something to indicate that he did not rape her. I cannot imagine the authorties violating the "holy grail" of VAWA by dropping the charges without just cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the rape never occured.
"They chose not to pursue the case because they didn’t think they could win it."
Whatever could make them think such a thing,seeing as ordinary and innocent men have been convicted of rapes where the only proof was the " victim's " testimony.
"NOT because they wanted to “get” him."
I think we all know there are plenty of past cases that prove the voracity of the authorities when it comes to " getting the bad guy(s)".
jeana said...
" But shame, not wanting anyone to know what happened, knowing that there is only a tiny chance that your rapist will be caught and even if caught, will ever see a jail cell,"
I can't speak for other places but, here in the "woman's state" of Tennessee, it is a very safe bet to say that the police here will destroy homes, if they have to, to capture and apprehend any man/men or boy(s) accused of committing any type of violent crime(s) against a woman or girl. The state and it's prosecutors will do everything in their enormous and biased power to see to it the man/men and/or boy(s) will see not only the inside of a jail cell but also the inside of a prison as well.
"knowing that you’ll have to go through tons of embarrassing and humiliating questions, knowing that your past is open to public scrutiny, knowing that your rapists’ lawyer will have access to the most intimate details of your life including your sexual history and medical history (including everything you’ve ever said to a therapist) and he/she will share all this with the rapist, etc. And of course, would anyone believe you?
Men and boys falsely accused of rape and/or sexual assaults are put through the same things. When they state that they are innocent, who believes them?
"There are LOTS of reasons not to report a rape, whether promptly or not."
I would say there are probaly just as many reasons for falsely accusing someone of rape.
"Which is why so many females do not".
Really? Here in Tennessee any female who even claims to be a victim of rape, amongt other crimes, does not have to worry about being embarassed or afraid to publicly admit to being a victim. There are too many people who automatically show support, compassion, sympathy, kindness and , understanding toward her. If anyone even shows the slighest suspicion that the woman or girl is lying, they are severely and mercilessly chastised and condemned for their words,actions, thoughts and, opinions These things do not exist for male victims here.
Oct 18, 2009 1:15:00 PM
Atom said...
" Whem women on this blog are called names like
cunts
stupid
nazi's
bitches
pigs
etc.
it is always hurtful, yet it constantly reminds me that we live in the greatest country in the world. "Free Speech" is one of our luxuries"!
Are you forgetting the names men are called not only on blogs but everywhere else? Words may hit like a fist but men are not the only ones capable of making fists.
We get called
dicks
morons
dogs
apes
stupid, dumb and, idiot(s)
There are probably just as many hurtful insults that are used against men, as there are used against women
( One rare area of equality ).
How many experts were working this case?
Anonymous said...
Atom said...
" Whem women on this blog are called names like
cunts
stupid
nazi's
bitches
pigs
etc.
it is always hurtful, yet it constantly reminds me that we live in the greatest country in the world. "Free Speech" is one of our luxuries"!
Are you forgetting the names men are called not only on blogs but everywhere else? Words may hit like a fist but men are not the only ones capable of making fists.
We get called
dicks
morons
dogs
apes
stupid, dumb and, idiot(s)
There are probably just as many hurtful insults that are used against men, as there are used against women
( One rare area of equality ).
Oct 19, 2009 3:50:00 AM
________________________
Has any woman at any time on this blog called any man here any one of these names at any time?
.... ....
No?
Has any man at any time referred to any woman on this blog by one of these crude, crass, ugly demeaning names?
"Women" might indeed call "men" by those names -- but not so far on this blog.
Anonymous said...
"" Every woman who claims rape but does not report it promptly or have corroborating evidence is probably lying. Real rapes leave real evidence, even if the victim doesn't actively resist. You simply cannot violate an unwilling vagina without tearing it.
Oct 17, 2009 11:13:00 PM""
Got any valid sources to back up these proclaimed 'facts' or are you playing "King Of The World" by decreeing who is lying and who is 'phony'?
Are you a physician or nurse? You've examined so many rape victims you can speak unequivocably this is true for each and every one?
You are a detective or investigator? You've interviewed so many accusers you KNOW there is utterly NO acceptable reason to delay or even not report an accusation?
After we pause a moment for your customary barrage of name calling perhaps we could discuss how you came to these sweeping pronouncements?
There is no need to lie or fabricate 'facts'.
I've never heard of a 'torn' vagina being the definitive criteria for rape, and I can think of SEVERAL understandable reasons why some people don't report immediately or not at all.
Prisoner rape comes to mind. Fear and intimidation are very REAL inhibitors for reporting. Being in an illegal situation that could expose the accuser to ramifications isn't unheard of.
Just because a woman reports promptly doesn't make it 'more real'. Corroborating evidence can be contrived. Consentual sex can leave 'rape evidence' just as easily.
That's why unbiased and careful investigation is needed on a case by case basis.
"Rape is worse than murder" is gathering steam. The stakes are too high, a wrong outcome too horrible to contemplate.
Careless, sloppy and biased convictions can no longer be tolerated.
I realize that you don't have a penis, but have you ever tried to have sex (consentual, of course!) with a woman who wasn't fully lubricated?
It's very, very difficult. Not impossible, but there's no way you can force yourself on an unwilling woman without damaging that very delicate tissue. Unless she is aroused there will be evidence. And those tests can identify even very small tears.
Are you forgetting the names men are called not only on blogs but everywhere else? Words may hit like a fist but men are not the only ones capable of making fists.
**********
More importantly, innocent men get called names like "rapist," "sexist," "abuser," "woman-hater," "harrasser," etc.
Which is why it makes me angry when vile women come on here and tarnish the Duke Lacrosse boys, say that the Hofstra victims should be euthanized, etc. Sometimes those four-letter words are entirely appropriate.
Back to the other topic, consensual sex can also cause tearing, or even bleeding. Just imagine how much evidence the infinitely more violent act of rape produces.
Prosecutors may often want people to live in a fantasy world where rapes don't cause physical evidence, but they do. There is never any reason to just take her word for it if the evidence that should be there is absent.
"" Anonymous said...
Are you forgetting the names men are called not only on blogs but everywhere else? Words may hit like a fist but men are not the only ones capable of making fists.""
Why are specific women on THIS blog being called gutter names?
Other women calling other men other names on other blogs was not my question.
Countering falsehoods and lies with TRUTH is powerful and righteous.
There's nothing more powerful than the truth.
Anonymous said...
I realize that you don't have a penis, but have you ever tried to have sex (consentual, of course!) with a woman who wasn't fully lubricated?
No.
But a woman can still say 'no'-and mean it - even if she is aroused.
Some women still abide by the "wait til we know each other" rule.
I'm not trying to be argumentative - it's just each and every situation has it's own truth.
That's what 'Justice' is supposed to be about.
I see I am not the only person who has tried to find the mental illness of the false accuser.
From my own case, I concluded Munchaussen's by Proxy hit the nail on the head.
Munchassen's by Proxy is mostly known in medical environments where a mother will intentional cause her child's illnesses in order to gain attention, 'savior' status, sympathy, excitement,and a close relationship with medical staff.
Hospitals now even install hidden cameras to watch for it, it's that prevalent.
When hospital staff find a mother engaging in this behavior, she is righteously SLAMMED.
NO hand holding. No "Poor thing is 'disturbed'.
No "not pressing charges in case it 'chills' mothers of other chronic or mysteriously ill children from coming forward".
A MEDICAL Munchaussen's By Proxy mom will be looking at losing her kids and serious jail time.
There's no mercy.
A Sexual Abuse Munchaussen's By Proxy mom, however, will get protected victim status, rape shielded, 'children don't lie'd and 'guilty until proven innocent, and good luck proving innocence, sucka." They entitled to thousands of dollars in 'services' and unquestioned support.
Innocent men and boys face unspeakable fates at the hands of these mental cases. Ignoring or downplaying their mental illness is counter productive - the same mother who puts her child through a painful and dangerous medical ordeal should suffer the same fate as the mother who intentionally puts an innocent child through a false rape accusation ordeal.
A growing number of women have gotten off the hook for true child sexual abuse by claiming 'bi polar disorder'.
Men are never spared prison time for THEIR bi polar disorders, or any other mental illness.
If it's acceptable sending a 'disturbed' man to prison, and we know it happens all the time, there is no reason whatsoever not to send 'disturbed' women there as well.
That's what you suffer from.
SgtMom said...
" Has any woman at any time on this blog called any man here any one of these names at any time" ?
I have no doubts they have not.
Sgt Mom,
You say I’m lying. Ask Pierce. Can a lawyer get access to a rape accuser’s medical and counseling records? Records which detail any STDs she has, any abortions she’s had, anything related to sexual encounters that she’s reported, etc. Yes they can!! I think it is much harder to get access to info about past sexual encounters or activities but they still can depending upon how they do it and what evidence is used. That is not a lie. Not from things I’ve read.
I have also read that different judges are more or less lenient in their interpretation of rape shield laws, so that's part of it.
I thought those suggestions about child rape reforms were great. I don't understand how anyone could object to any of them. Especially the one about not letting an accused rapist have pictures of a raped child's genitals. That's gross.
It's interesting to see just how pervasive virtual memory has become in our every day lives. It's like everytime I turn my head, I see something with a card slot or USB port, haha. I guess it makes sense though, considering how much cheaper memory has become lately...
Gahhhhh... who am I to complain. I can't make it through a single day without my R4 / R4i!
(Submitted from ComP for R4i Nintendo DS.)
Post a Comment