A police officer/animal control officer was accused in May of 2008 of an alleged sexual assault that supposedly occurred four years earlier. (I don't know about you, but I can't remember where I was last month at this time, much less four years ago. One thing is for certain, any alibi evidence the man might have had to defend himself from a charge that happened four years earlier is almost certainly long gone.) The man was put through a year and a half of hell until the matter proceeded to a jury trial. (Imagine, if you possibly can, the absolute terror of awaiting the jury's verdict in a case like this.) The jury returned after just ten minutes of deliberations and cleared the man of the charges. The man was named in the story, but the woman -- even though she might have filed a false claim -- was not.
And this is fair to the man . . . exactly how?
Officer cleared of sexual assault
HINSDALE— A Hinsdale police officer has been cleared of charges that he sexually assaulted a woman while investigating a complaint about animals in her neighborhood.
Officer W. Rodney Maloney, a part-time officer and animal control officer for the town, was acquitted of indecent assault and battery last week by a six-member jury in Central Berkshire District Court after 10 minutes of deliberations.
Maloney tells The Berkshire Eagle that although he feels vindicated, he’s still upset that someone brought false allegations against him in May 2008 that caused him "a year and a half of hell."
The 51-year-old woman who made the accusation claimed Maloney assaulted her in June 2004 during an unrelated call, but didn’t come forward because she thought no one would believe her.
Link: p://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20091001officer_cleared_of_sexual_assault/srvc=home&position=recent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
A travesty.
If this is all you can come up with on the subject of False Rape Accusations, then you're having to dig reeeely deep, aren't you.
Where's the Beef? ... certainly no beef in either the article you wrote, nor the link provided!
Oh, Atom. You poor, pathetic soul. This is what a false rape claim looks like when the accuser won't recant.
Atom- do you know that anyone can go to the police station and accuse anyone of anything just because the want to? IF they will sign a statement, the accused will go to jail.
I certainly hope you are never in this situation, maybe then you will 'get it'. Unless you are one of those who accuse for kicks, you may never get it.
I feel sorry for you!!!
CBGirl
Do you know that anyone can go to the police station and accuse anyone of anything just because the want to?
Should be just because they want to.
Typo sorry
CBGirl
She didn't recant nor was she accused of making a false rape accusation.
So how did the case land on this blog with no related facts?
"She didn't recant nor was she accused of making a false rape accusation."
The presumed innocent man said she made a false rape claim. That is every bit as valid as a woman who cries "rape" and manages to get an innocent male arrested.
Atom - "Where's the Beef? ... certainly no beef in either the article you wrote, nor the link provided!"
Looks like your poor reading skills have tripped you up once again.
You apparently either did not read this, or else chose to ignore it:
"The man was named in the story, but the woman -- even though she might have filed a false claim -- was not.
And this is fair to the man . . . exactly how?"
What was pointed out is that, by having had his name published, this man's "year and a half of hell" is far from over.
You, and your feminist ilk will, of course, always assume such a man guilty (but, he just got away with it/some rape culture non-sense).
And, you're not alone. Plenty of people will always be inclined to believe that, since he was charged, he will always be guilty.
That is one of the injustices our hosts here have railed against from day-one. That a man, by merely being named as a rapist, will never be able to escape that shadow.
That, you see, is how this particular case fits in with the broader topic of false rape allegations.
But, let's also take a closer look at the report provided to us by the Associated Press. It give glaringly little detail, causing some (such as myself) to be suspicious that it is a matter of "defensive journalism" being practiced by a feminist or chivalristic mangina reporter.
thus, a little bit more research is in order - enter a simple google search, which quickly yeilds this: Cleared Mass. Officer Looks to Rebuild Life; in which we find:
"Indeed, Maloney's troubles began after he responded to a May 2008 report about a noisy neighbor. When Maloney arrived to investigate, the female complainant accused him of favoring the neighbor and exchanged some choice words with the officer."
You see (well, I take that back. As a feminist, reason and logic are beyond you), there was a damned good reason that a jury took just ten minutes (the time it would take to elect a foreman, read the jury instructions, and take one vote) to acquit - it was painfully obvious that the woman had a beef with the officer, and was using a sexual assault allegation for revenge.
Just as with women filing charges to cover for their participation in raunch culture-fueled sex and infidelity, revenge is also a common motivation for false charges.
Actually, it turns out that this case truly is a case of false allegations.
Unfortunately, officer W. Rodney Maloney will forever remain guilty in the eyes of some idiots.
10 minutes -- done!
You couldn't get a better jury than that even if it was twelve False Rape Society posters!
Anonymous - "You couldn't get a better jury than that even if it was twelve False Rape Society posters!"
While I fully agree with your sentiment on this, I do think it is worthwhile pointing out that, since they were not twelve False Rape Society posters (although I'm sure that in the minds of certain trolls, they'll be able to conclude that we effectively pulled off a conspiracy to get 12 of our number on that jury), it is quite likely that it was a jury of 12 more likely than not to be inclined towards believing women over men [the unfortunate reality of our world today].
Thus, it is extremely telling that it took just 10 minutes to acquit.
Quite obviously, that jury saw that the woman, angry over a 2008 disturbance, "invented" sexual misconduct by the officer out of a desire for revenge against him.
But, this begs another question - why would such a case have been prosecuted in the first place. Unless the prosecutor was some feminist zealot, blinded by her hatred of men, surely someone who was capable of graduating from law school and passing the bar would have been able to see that the case was a "looser".
I can tell you from accounts related by my wife (herself a prosecutor) that there are numerous instances when prosecutors face none-too-subtle pressures to proceed on cases that they expect to loose (and, in fact, they may even want to loose) simply because it will be easier (in socio-political terms) to try a bas case, and loose it; than it would have been to try to drop it, or plead it out against a complainants wishes.
Some people are simply very good at making trouble for others, unless they get their way. A woman who invents sex assault charges in retaliation for an officer "not taking her side" in a noise dispute with a neighbor is just such a person.
My (somewhat) educated guess would be that the DA wished to drop the charges, but out of fear that this woman would strip up trouble in the press (cases involving officers and alleged cover-ups make for good salacious news items), so it may have just seemed the lesser of two evils to take the case to trial in the expectation of loosing.
I can guess that many of you doubt the plausibility of what I'm preferring here, but I can tell you that I know of an instance in which my wife was told in no uncertain terms NOT to drop a case in which a well-known social agitator was alleging stalking and assault by another woman. Incredible as it may sound, the logic was that it was politically expedient to satiate one woman's blood-lust to see another woman be tried, than to have to deal with the fall-out if her claims were not given their "day in court".
[it just occurred to me that every single such instance I've heard of involved a woman complainant - things that make you go "Humm?"]
Pure BS, and a waste of tax-payer money, to be sure, but it does happen.
I'm a lawyer, and I work in a court system in a large state as a law clerk to a judge. Most cases don't get on anybody's radar. If a case gets in the news (pretty rare, and they miss a lot of big cases), people start reacting a little more cautiously.
I agree with Slwerner:
"My (somewhat) educated guess would be that the DA wished to drop the charges, but out of fear that this woman would strip up trouble in the press (cases involving officers and alleged cover-ups make for good salacious news items), so it may have just seemed the lesser of two evils to take the case to trial in the expectation of loosing."
Choosing the lesser of the 2 evils makes sense to me. Now don't go fallin' off your chair.
But that is interesting!
Law is a tricky business. For sure, I'm certain that politics matter more so than the truth in most cases, from the grassroots up. If you ever need an attorney, make sure you know where he camps.
Anon at 5:34: Serious question: as a law clerk for a judge, have you ever written up an opinion, or anything of that nature, only to be overruled by your judge -- for considerations other than the law?
slwerner- Your post was very enlightening. I wonder what my husband's accuser has on law enforcement here and if the case was dropped, what she would stir up? There are rumors. I have thought this from the beginning...
Talk about things that make you go 'hum'?
CBGirl
archivist - once in three years. A political grudge match.
Hey wait, I thought women/ girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER lie about being raped???
What gives???
Tell the truth Atom, you really don't believe in the existence of false rape do you? You actually hate MRAs don't you? You come here to this website to mock the true victims of a crime. A political crime against men. You like it don't you? It makes you feel good doesn't it? Posting here makes you feel powerful over the men in your life that have hurt you.
"Tell the truth Atom, you really don't believe in the existence of false rape do you?"
I believe false rape accusations occur.
"You actually hate MRAs don't you?"
No.
"You come here to this website to mock the true victims of a crime. A political crime against men. You like it don't you?"
I don't mock crime victims.
"It makes you feel good doesn't it? Posting here makes you feel powerful over the men in your life that have hurt you."
I don't feel powerful over anyone, period.
Oct 6, 2009 11:01:00 PM
A-troll is a liar. She called for the hofstra victims to be "euthanized"!
Anonymous - "A-troll is a liar. She called for the hofstra victims to be "euthanized"!"
She also made an inference that some of the men here (presumably those who've been falsely accused) are actually rapists (only pretending to have been falsely accused). If memory serves, her language was something along the lines of, "If some of the rapist here...", which I can see no o way to interpret as anything other than an assertion that (some) men posting here are rapists.
It may have been merely an ill-thought out remark on her part. If so, she ought to apologize for it.
otherwise, it stands to reason that the remark was truly reflective of what she believes about men who post here.
In either case, I'm highly suspicious of her recent attempt to "play nice".
Slwerner, I remember using the word, "euthanized", but I can't remember in what context. Do you have the actual post?
As far as implying that "some" men on this blog are rapists, that's up for grabs. I believe my post went something like this: "Nobody on this blog has EVER admitted to raping a woman". Again, do you have my actual post?
Then you add that you are highly suspicious of my recent attempt to play nice.
Oh please! It is rare that I agree with MRA's, and you can bet your booties that when I "do" agree with you, it is NOT because I'm playing "nice". Now go to your room!
Atom - "As far as implying that "some" men on this blog are rapists, that's up for grabs. I believe my post went something like this: "Nobody on this blog has EVER admitted to raping a woman". Again, do you have my actual post?"
I do.
The offending comment:
"Now, if we could just get the MEN here who are guilty of rape to admit their wrong-doing, wouldn't that be wonderful."
The posting app seems to have added extra text to the link anchor I was posting. The link to that comment is falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/10/chilling-man-has-lost-everything-due-to.html?showComment=1254436008511#c8743409372559693734
A-liar is a disgusting woman and a liar. She serves no purpose here.
okay, Slwerner, you got me on that one. I should have said, "Isn't it wonderful that every man on this blog is lily white."
:)
The other comment (another poster was referring to, actually) regarding euthanizing the hostra victims - apparently your solution to the "problem" of men who don't turn down offers of sex by women:
"Uh... so you believe that consensual gang rape is acceptable, and that these poor maligned boys did nothing disgusting?
The blame definitely falls on the woman. Afterall, it was "she" who wanted sex and allowed them access to her body.
But wait ... What male species are you discussing here? Are we referring to the logical human male species, capable of exercising moral judgement; or, are we referring to a pack of wild animals that are in no way responsible for their own actions, and must be hauled off and euthanized in order to protect society?"
Thanks for finding that post, slwerner. You stretched it just a tad.
I didn't actually advocate euthanizing those brainless hofstra guys.
Post a Comment