The title of this post was spoken by a police officer in the news story below this comment. It is nice to have police -- the ones in the trenches for false rape claims -- confirm what we know is true. The false report at the center of the news report follows closely on one from just last week in the same locale. At the end of the news report, it is noted that the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault says rape is still one of the most underreported crimes in Utah. As we've previously discussed, serious commentators have noted that alleged underreporting is so terribly politicized that it is impossible to know if it is a real problem, and if so, to what extent. We know that false reports are more frequent than for any other serious crime, and this casts doubt on the claim that women are reluctant to report rape. I do not agree with the decision not to charge the girl, although I understand the logic -- she did not name anyone. This should not excuse her. I could show the officer many, many rape lies where no one was named that ended up disrupting a hapless innocent male's liberty.
Police decry false report of sexual assault
By Michael McFall
News Editor
The U Police Department has determined that a reported rape last week was nothing more than a teenage girl crying wolf.
On Tuesday, U Police were notified that a 16-year-old girl was suspected to be the victim of a rape the day before near the Residence Halls. That afternoon, Housing and Residential Education put out a campuswide emergency alert that a light blue car, parked on Fort Douglas Boulevard between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., was suspected to have been the location of the rape, based on the girl’s account.
U Police say the girl had consensual sex after skipping school and made up a rape story to avoid getting in trouble—undermining the experiences of real rape victims.
“Rape is a very ugly, violent crime which law enforcement and the community take very seriously,” said Capt. Lynn Mitchell of the U Police. “However, there are many fraudulent reports of rape each year.”
According to the U Campus Safety Report, about six sexual assaults occur on campus each year. But this wasn’t one of them.
“The juvenile victim did in fact have physical evidence showing that she had recent sex, but the story had loopholes and inconsistencies,” Mitchell said. U Police began to suspect she hadn’t been honest with them, he said. After further questioning, the juvenile admitted the sex was consensual.
U Police closed the case for being unfounded.
According to the police, the girl and three of her friends skipped school and came to the U to see a friend. They visited their friend for 15 minutes before the girl and one of the friends she came with left to go home. Before leaving, the girl and her 16-year-old friend had sex.
The next day, the principal of the girl’s high school called her to his office to talk about the absence the previous day. In an apparent attempt to deflect the tension, the girl told the principal that she had been raped, according to the U Police.
“The principal correctly called law enforcement, which started the ball rolling,” Mitchell said. The girl said this occurred on campus, so the local detective alerted the U Police, who in turn told HRE.
It’s not the first time U Police have been notified of a sexual assault, only to find out there was nothing to it. On Oct. 25, a woman claimed to have been raped while she was a patient at the U Hospital. As it turned out, she made it up, according to U Police.
When women falsely claim to have been raped, it does a great disservice to women who actually have been raped, Mitchell said.
Sometimes it’s to avoid trouble or out of revenge.
“It’s more complex and complicated than a simple false report,” said Debra Daniels, director of the U Women’s Resource Center.
Women who make false claims of sexual assault should still be consulted about what is going on in their life that would prompt them to do so—for instance, the teenage girl from last week.
According to the police, she skipped school to go drinking with her friends and have sex, issues that might need to be asked about, Daniels said.
The U Police probably won’t press charges against the girl for making a false sexual assault report, since she didn’t pin it on a specific person, Mitchell said.
According to the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault, rape is still one of the most underreported crimes in Utah. It’s a serious offense that still needs to be treated and reported as a serious matter every time, Mitchell said.
m.mcfall@chronicle.utah.edu
Link: http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/police-decry-false-report-of-sexual-assault-1.2046587
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
Add this news report to the list of stories where police officers, the ones working in the trenches of rape claims, are candid about the prevalence of false rape claims. For example:
"Advocate groups estimate only 2% are false, but police departments believe it's much higher, in some places, half or more. Detectives don't usually make a big deal out of it because they don't want real victims to be reluctant to come forward." See this one
And:
“We have anything up to four or five reports of rape every weekend but a large number of complaints turn out to be something else with some not thinking about the consequences of false allegations but we always take allegations of rape seriously and do everything we can to gather evidence.
“Most weekends we also have a report from somebody saying their drink has been spiked with rohypnol – while we have had cases where women have been drugged these are extremely rare.
“We actually have significantly less genuine rape cases than those reported so it is important to consider the percentage of bona fide reports when looking at conviction statistics, which appear low because they encompass all reports."
Another one
"U Police closed the case for being unfounded."
"Unfounded"!?
Don't they mean, known to be FALSE.
Those categorized as "unfounded" give false-rape apologist (such as a certain ex-troll) the ambiguity to insist that there is a good chance that a sexual assault DID happen, but simply cannot be proven.
Categorizing known false allegations in with others that lack supporting evidence needlessly clouds the issue of just how many out-n-out false claims are being made.
I agree, slwerner. "False" is generally reserved for cases where there's been a recantation or a video that proves the claim is a lie. It is plausible to believe that such proof is rare among false rape claims, so when there IS such proof, the claim should be classified correctly.
"The U Police probably won’t press charges against the girl for making a false sexual assault report, since she didn’t pin it on a specific person, Mitchell said."
While it is certainly a good thing that she didn't name anyone, electing to fore go charging her allows her to walk away "scot-free".
Accusers need to always be charged - even if they are only given light punishments - for two reasons: 1) it will allow for authorities to recoup losses via restitution, and 2) it leaves it on their arrest record (for future reference).
Not that she might well have learned a lesson, and would never do it again; but, the reality is that, next time she's facing getting into trouble for her misbehaviors, she could give the old "false rape" trick another go. If she happenes to do so in another jurisdiction, it would be completely unknown to anyone there that she'd done the same thing before. Next time, maybe she tells a better story, sticks to her guns, and some poor innocent guy ends up arrested, tried, and even convicted.
Even if it cannot be entered into evidence at trial, the knowledge that she had previously made false allegations would be useful to law enforcement in assessing the credibility of any subsequent claims she might try to make. Such information needs to be on her record, plain and simple.
Only severe punishment -- including in cases in which the perp didn't get around to picking a victim -- will cause any dent whatsoever in the rate of false accusations.
Can you imagine if the police never charged anybody with attempted murder? "They didn't successfully murder anybody, so we won't charge them with anything."
And this doesn't "undermine the real rape victims." This undermines the true victims of our society -- the victims of false rape accusations.
Creating a record is important. Given the absence of "harm," I suspect the authorities would just as soon be done with it. Women's groups ought to be clamoring for punishment in these cases because of the harm to future rape victims. Moreover, rape lies have another effect that is never discussed outside the hallowed halls of this blog: they slander an entire gender. The rape lie is never thus: "Someone -- I'm not sure if it was a man or a woman -- tried to rape me." The rape lie is always, "A man tried to rape me." Our gender has enough bad p.r. without all these rape lies. Every rape claim foments that much more rape hysteria.
Anon at 1:27: Men and boys are the primary victims of false rape claims, hypothetical future rape victims are secondary victims.
"According to the U Campus Safety Report, about six sexual assaults occur on campus each year"
I'd wonder how many of those were false.
Is a prosecutor allowed to use a prior rape accusation against a defendant (in court) if that defendant was not convicted in the prior case?
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_13690190
This was a front page article in today's Connecticut Post
Ex-teacher acquitted of sex assault hopes to teach again
Teacher, acquitted in sexual assault case, wants to resume career
By Noelle Frampton
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 11/01/2009 10:59:15 PM EST
MILFORD -- About a decade ago, Peter Eramo Jr. left a high-paying job at a New York public relations firm to become a high school teacher because he wanted to make a difference.
But his dream became a nightmare when one of his female students at Staples High School in Westport accused him of sexual assault.
Three years after he was charged with committing second-degree sexual assault with the underage girl in his Milford apartment in May 2003, the 38-year-old Eramo was acquitted by a Milford Superior Court jury last week.
Now, he is trying to pick up the pieces after the legal ordeal and move on with his life.
Eramo knows that his chances of landing another teaching job are slim, but he hopes that somehow he'll be able to return to the profession he loves. He expressed that hope in an interview last Thursday, the day after the six-person jury deliberated less than two hours in reaching the not-guilty verdict.
Eramo, a resident of Mineola, N.Y., said jurors did the right thing. He soundlessly mouthed "thank you" and bowed to them after the verdict.
"Obviously, this has been the worst three years of my life," he said. "I've lost everything -- my name, my reputation, my career. The damage has been done, even though I'm innocent. This was ridiculous from Day One."
He said he had to move back in with his parents on Long Island and now works for $10 an hour at a pet store because he can't find a better job even though he has a
Advertisement
master's degree from Columbia University.
"I feel like George Costanza (from the TV sitcom, Seinfeld)," Eramo said. "I'm 38, I work at a pet store, and I live with my parents. That's what this kind of
accusation does. It forces people to Costanza-like
circumstances."
The girl told authorities in 2006 that Eramo, an English and drama teacher at Staples, in May 2003 had brought her to a jazz club in New York City and plied her with alcohol before driving her to his apartment near Walnut Beach, undressed her and had sex with her on his couch.
Eramo said the girl, 17 at the time and an aspiring Broadway actress, suffered from self-esteem issues and eating disorders. She would visit his office three or four times a week seeking attention, he said. Naively, he took her to the club to lift her spirits but didn't buy any liquor, he said.
"I don't know why she did this. I probably will never know," he said. "I hope that she finds happiness."
Eramo left Staples in 2003 and went on the next year to teach drama at Lindenhurst High School in Lindenhurst, N.Y. He lost that job when he was arrested.
Bridgeport lawyer Cindy Robinson, who is representing the girl in a related civil lawsuit against the Westport Board of Education and Eramo, said the jury didn't hear other evidence against Eramo, including additional allegations of impropriety from others, during the four-day trial.
Because civil and criminal cases are "very different animals," Robinson indicated the acquittal likely won't have an impact on the civil suit, which asserts that the school district should have better supervised and addressed Eramo's actions to protect students.
Melanie Cradle, the criminal prosecutor in Eramo's case, said she respects the jury's decision, even though she doesn't agree.
"Sexual-assault cases ... are always difficult ones," she said. "When you're dealing with something that's basically, 'He said, she said,' they're very difficult to prove. It's not for me to decide whether he's guilty. That's the function of the jury."
Atom, it depends on the jurisdiction. See our discussion of Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and its state law progeny in various posts.
It may very well be that law enforcement in more conservative states, will start to rebel against the gender feminist misinformation juggernaut of the liberal states, first.
It is a perversion to debauch law enforcement into "manufacturing statistics"...as these "manufactured statistics" are a very real attack on heterosexual men and their families.
It is unconstitutional for the law enforcement community in step with the gender feminist community, to use state and federal dollars to manufacture and disseminate faulty and inflammatory misinformation that prejudices against innocent men/boys.
It does not matter what they say they are doing it for...it is unconstitutional.
Get gender feminism and their misinformation Alliances out of our police stations.
Archivist, thanks, i'll look it up. However, for those jurisdictions that DO allow it, these same jurisdictions should allow a PROVEN prior false accusation to be heard in court. It just makes sense. I'm not talking necessarily about a recantation or an unfounded allegation. I'm talking about a completely bogus fabricated account of rape.
Is that how it works?
it depends on the jurisdiction. See our discussion of Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and its state law progeny in various posts.
Can you tell me how to find to that information please? I think that would be a good thing to add to my husbands file for the attorney.
Thanks:)
CBGirl
I found it! I have seen it before. I am hoping we can use that rule since she has done this before. :)
CBGirl
I think if the accuser has a history of making accusations of rape, then it should be allowed in court.
Rule 412. Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition
Evidence generally inadmissible. The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c):
Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.
Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.
Exceptions.
In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:
evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury or other physical evidence;
evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution; and
evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.
In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim.
Sure sounds like mumble jumble to me. No wonder lawyers make big bucks.
Atom - "Sure sounds like mumble jumble to me. No wonder lawyers make big bucks."
Pierce could do a much better job that can I, but my wife has tried to explain the exceptions relative to criminal cases. Thus, I'll take a stab at this one:
evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury or other physical evidence;
As an example, if DNA evidence revealed semen of men other than the accused, it is admissible to demonstrate alternate suspect(s)
(men who could be responsible for other physical evidence of a rape). From what I understand, this is why the DA dropped the case against Kobe Bryant - Faber subsequently had sex with other men, and any indication of vaginal trauma could have been attributed to multiple partners, as opposed to forcible rape.
The troll can't even type "mumbo jumbo."
Beste said...
I think if the accuser has a history of making accusations of rape, then it should be allowed in court.
Nov 2, 2009 9:46:00 PM
If the accuser made FALSE accusations in the past I agree completely.
Otherwise this would be the same as allowing the defendant's prior accusations in court.
Just as in the Boy Who Cried Wolf fable - a REAL wolf eventually showed up.
A woman could have made a valid accusation in the past, but dismissed for lack of evidence.
An accused person can easily be accused again -
PORT ST. LUCIE — A 46-year-old woman accused of a plot to extort thousands of dollars and a Cadillac from a sex offender with whom she had an amorous encounter faces a felony charge, according to a recently released arrest affidavit.
(And this lady, Carol Wands is a mediator for the State Supreme Court, District 17.)
The man, who was sentenced to 15 years of sex offender probation in April 2005 after pleading no contest to a charge of lewd or lascivious battery, drove Wands to Chili’s in St. Lucie West in his 2003 Cadillac.
During lunch, the man said, Wands revealed it had been “a long time” since she’d had sex and that she “needed a good man in her life,” an affidavit states.
The affidavit gave this account: At Wands’ residence, Wands continued the encounter, putting her hands in his groin area. Wands grew hesitant and said she didn’t want to continue, and the man stopped. They talked for awhile before the man left.
The man told investigators that about two weeks later he got a typed letter in an envelope he believed to be from Wands. The letter instructed him to make 33 payments of $1,000 in cash and provide the title to his Cadillac. He also was to give his probation officer’s name and supply proof of counseling sessions.
The letter writer wanted a lawyer to draft a contract “so that if the agreement was defaulted on, or something was to happen to the writer, the proceeds would continue to be paid to the writer’s family members, or a lien could be placed against (the man), the affidavit states.
In return, the writer indicated a report wouldn’t be filed with the man’s probation officer “and therefore would not go to jail.”
A state attorney’s office investigator, who declined this week to discuss the case in detail, helped the man make “controlled recorded” calls to Wands, who reportedly threatened to file criminal charges against the man unless she got cash and the Cadillac.
Wands agreed to prepare a contract stating the man would pay $1,000 and hand over the Cadillac on Monday. An additional $4,000 would be due by August 10.
The two met Monday and Wands produced the contract, which they signed. The man gave Wands $1,000 and the key to his Cadillac before Wands was arrested on a felony extortion charge.
Blogger slwerner said...
"U Police closed the case for being unfounded."
"Unfounded"!?
Don't they mean, known to be FALSE.
Those categorized as "unfounded" give false-rape apologist (such as a certain ex-troll) the ambiguity to insist that there is a good chance that a sexual assault DID happen, but simply cannot be proven.
Categorizing known false allegations in with others that lack supporting evidence needlessly clouds the issue of just how many out-n-out false claims are being made.
Nov 2, 2009 1:11:00 PM
If a case can be proven - beyond reasonable doubt - to be false, I agree.
True cases can be considered 'unfounded'.
The thought of an actual rape victim being punished for filing a 'false' rape report is as sickening as an innocent person being punished as a rapist.
The same standard of proof should be used for both situations.
Anonymous said...
It is unconstitutional for the law enforcement community in step with the gender feminist community, to use state and federal dollars to manufacture and disseminate faulty and inflammatory misinformation that prejudices against innocent men/boys.
It does not matter what they say they are doing it for...it is unconstitutional.
Get gender feminism and their misinformation Alliances out of our police stations.
Nov 2, 2009 5:24:00 PM
I say we should also throw down VAWA. It is a violation of the fourteenth amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law.
Anonymous @
Nov 2, 2009 3:58:00 PM
Cases such as that one may be one reason why young men are not interested in attending college. Who wants to bust their arse to earn a degree that will be made useless after being even falsely accused of something as serious as that man was?
That story is a CHILLING tale of power and greed.
Wands took full advantage of his sex offender status.
Wonder how much time she'll get for extortion.
SgtMom - "If a case can be proven - beyond reasonable doubt - to be false, I agree.
True cases can be considered 'unfounded'.
The thought of an actual rape victim being punished for filing a 'false' rape report is as sickening as an innocent person being punished as a rapist.
The same standard of proof should be used for both situations."
SgtMom,
The girl in this case recanted as the police unraveled her story. What more do you need for an allegation to be proven false?
slwerner: ""SgtMom,
The girl in this case recanted as the police unraveled her story. What more do you need for an allegation to be proven false""
It's obvious the legal language needs to be clarified in these cases.
"Unfounded" in this case meant she "recanted" when the story unraveled.
It was clearly a FALSE case.
Does the term "Unfounded" exclusively refer to ALL proven cases of false accusation - or does it also apply to cases where there is simply not enough evidence to prosecute or convict?
I'm not trying to annoy by asking such questions - I simply don't understand the semantics.
To my simple mind 'unfounded' means nothing proves or disproves so it's a wash.
When someone recants, or video shows up - it's clearly FALSE - no "if" "ands" or "unfounded"s.
A demand for better definitions - which would lead to more clear cut numbers - is apparently in order.
A clear cut case of false reporting has no business being considered 'unfounded' if 'unfounded' can include actual cases.
Let's clarify. "Unfounded" is widely regarded as having no universal meaning. My advice: don't use it, and don't respond by telling me what it "really" means. See Dr. Gross' report if you don't believe me.
Let's cut to the real issue. I am doing a major post on this, but I recently shared it with Robert Franklin, and he agreed with me and actually did a post of his own on it.
The only honest and fair way to talk about the prevalence of false rape claims is to talk about THOSE RAPE CLAIMS OF WHICH WE KNOW THE OUTCOME. Feminists lump all claims for which we don't know the outcome in the "rape" column. They insist all claims that are not demonstrably "false" early on are actual rapes, which is is dishonest in the extreme.
We only know the outcome for claims that are demonstrably false, and those that result in conviction. So if 15% result in conviction (and we'll assume for the sake of argument that all of those are actual rapes, even though it's undisputed some innocent men go to jail), and 41% are false (the studies vary, so I am using the best study ever conducted -- which is on the low end of some other trustworthy studies: yes feminists, other studies that did not involve polygraphs had a higher false percentage -- I'll glady use them if you insist), so that means that we know 41 out of 56 are FALSE. It's the only fair way to talk about the prevalence of false claims.
Anonymous Atom said...
That story is a CHILLING tale of power and greed.
Wands took full advantage of his sex offender status.
Wonder how much time she'll get for extortion.
Nov 3, 2009 9:25:00 AM
She was an officer of the court, and took full advantage of his sex offender status.
She wasn't even arrested originally - and would have easily dodged the complaint if the DA's investigator hadn't the decency to expose her.
""He's a pedophile and he tried to rape me in this house," said Wands. "Someone tried to rape me and he got caught so he tried to get out of it."
"Obviously he denies that," said David Lamos, Deshler's attorney. "It seems clear that no complaints of that nature were made to law enforcement. Even when she was arrested she had a romantic interest in him."
http://www.wpbf.com/news/20217294/detail.html
SgtMom - "Does the term "Unfounded" exclusively refer to ALL proven cases of false accusation - or does it also apply to cases where there is simply not enough evidence to prosecute or convict?"
Unfortunately, the term "unfounded" is used too widely. In the case in question herein, a demonstrably false allegation is termed "unfounded". In other instances, if a woman alleges rape, but no supporting evidence (either way, for or against her claim) can be found, and she sticks to her story; it will likely be termed as unfounded.
Similarly, if a woman makes an allegation, and evidence seems to indicate that her account is not accurate, but, she does not recant, that too will likely be termed as "unfounded".
In still other cases in which a sexual assault may have taken place, but there is no physical evidence, and the victim becomes uncooperative, it too will be termed to be "unfounded".
The larger point is that "unfounded" is NOT well defined, and may be used differently and inconsistently, leading to confusion as to the legitimacy of claims.
For those of us who understand the prevalence of false rape claims, we are likely inclined to consider those termed as "unfounded" to be false. Conversely, feminists and false-rape apologists are just as likely to see those "unfounded" claims as real sexual offenses that are going unsolved/unpunished.
This is why I argued that when a claim is known to be false, it should not be categorized as merely "unfounded".
By having a good, reliable accounting of those known to be false, a stronger case can be made demonstrating the prevalence of false rape claims.
Archivist said...
Let's clarify. "Unfounded" is widely regarded as having no universal meaning. My advice: don't use it, and don't respond by telling me what it "really" means. See Dr. Gross' report if you don't believe me.
Does the DOJ or who ever keeps tabs of such things use the term 'unfounded'?
Does any legitimate, recognized, unbiased source keep numbers on this topic?
I can immediately cite numerous studies of the extremely recidivism rates of sex offenders - even though the same law enforcement agencies that publish those numbers still insist recidivism rates are extremely high(!)
Does the DOJ or any other law keeping resource have hard figures to reference?
Can anyone here post those sites if they exist?
For instance:
The low recidivism rate of sex offenders is the best kept secret in today’s society. The politicians are lying. The Courts are lying. In McKune v. Lile, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 2024 (2002), the United States Supreme Court cites to the DOJ’s 1997 report on Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, for the finding that sex offenders have a "high risk of recidivism." Yet this report, cited above, finds the recidivism rate of released sex offenders for new crimes as 7.7%, and that rate is the second lowest rate of recidivism of all released offenders in the study. The context in which the study is cited gives the opposite inference in a manner that is misleading to the reader of the decision. It is a false rationalization of a bad decision.
Most dangerous of all is what these lies do to trials when a man who was once previously convicted of a sex offense faces actual false charges later in his life brought by someone who knows about his past convictions
Judges, in performing the balancing test of "probative v. prejudicial" under Evidence Rule 403, wrongfully assume testimony of a previous sex offense conviction has a "high" probative value, and allow the evidence to be presented by the prosecution. The new Federal Rules of Evidence 412-415 were enacted based on a false presumption that past sex offenses have high "probative" value. And juries, God help us all, misinformed about the true facts and statistics through the media, prosecutorial "sound bite" press releases, and TV shows like "America’s Most Wanted," "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit," and even the now-canceled "First Monday" (which stated the recidivism rate of sex offenders was 80% in its next to the last show), hear evidence a man committed a sex crime 10,15, 20, or 30 years ago, and quit even listening to the evidence presented at the trial.
I'm not asking these questions to be obtuse -
Even lowly, most-politically-incorrect-of-all child molesters have credible facts and figures to disprove the false claims of "high recidivism rates".
Doesn't do much good, but after many years of countering lies with hard cold facts, I believe the public is beginning to 'hear' the truth.
I know the McDougal study was buried - as have other studies.
How is it reviled sex offenders have bypassed the lies and their truth - although ignored - is out there?
I'm asking this as an activist.
I'm tired of shadow boxing with 'perceptions' - where's the hard cold truth?
One last question - are the 'conviction rates' adjusted when DNA or recantations prove a false conviction, or is a conviction a conviction no matter what?
I've heard of a recent case where a man convicted of molestation was released when his accuser provably recanted - yet he still has to register as a sex offender since he was (wrongly) CONVICTED.
slwerner, I did not see your response to my model for talking about false rape claim prevalence. Robert Franklin at Glenn Sacks' site recently agreed with me and even posted about it. We don't need to conflate "false" with "unfounded." We can just talk about the rape claims for which we KNOW the outcome.
I'm trying to imagine anybody referring to a fraudulent tax return or insurance filing as "unfounded." Lies should be called lies.
Anonymous said...
"And this doesn't "undermine the real rape victims." This undermines the true victims of our society -- the victims of false rape accusations".
Nov 2, 2009 1:27:00 PM
This includes men/boys rimes.falsely accused of other c
crimes
If so many rape claims turn out to be false, imagine how many accusations for other " violence against women and children" crimes are being/have been made against men/boys.
Archivist said...
My advice: don't use it, and don't respond by telling me what it "really" means. See Dr. Gross' report if you don't believe
_______________
Is there a source for Dr. Gross' report? I'm not familiar with it.
I agree the term should not be used by ANYONE on the FRA side of the fence to describe verified cases of false rape - it's a nonsense word that lends credence to fabricated 'facts'.
If anyone is uncomfortable with the use of "FRA" in conversation please speak up.
A better suggestion is always welcome.
I think it's time to start using specific terms - and abbreviations - to convey the message that FRA are REAL, are PREVALENT and here to STAY.
No more tip toeing around in unorganized, unrecognized language as to not upset 'victims' who insist recognition of FRA upsets them.
FRA victims deserve recognition as much as any other victim. They cannot be expected to suffer in shameful silence any longer - their victimization is NOT inconsequential - they are not second class citizens not to be seen or heard.
I'm doing what I can to raise awareness of FRAs. I don't suggest to people that every rape accusation is false but, I do raise awareness that the rape accusation being false is a possibility.
It's frustrating to be a second class crime victim.
That is, to have to apologize to rape victims for suggesting FRA, the crime against you, even exists.
It's why I wish rape victims would dialogue with FRA victims.
We should be working together, not at odds.
"If the accuser made FALSE accusations in the past I agree completely."
It is possible someone with a history of making FALSE accusations could be telling the truth the next time he/she does it. That was kind of the point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
I think ANY history of prior accusations is relevent to the defense.
We don't need to "work with rape victims." We need to work with real MRAs and false accusation victims.
Feminists always Always ALWAYS find a way to make it about THEM and THEIR agenda! It's tiresome.
Anonymous said...
We don't need to "work with rape victims." We need to work with real MRAs and false accusation victims.
Nov 5, 2009 11:26:00 PM
Let's turn that statement around to :
We don't need to "work with False Rape Accusation victims". We need to work with real Feminists and rape victims.
Post a Comment