The community of the wrongly accused has a new home--click the picture above to join us.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The camera doesn't lie: the importance of video evidence in protecting against false rape claims

The following is a lengthy piece that should frighten the daylights out of anyone possessing a Y-chromosome, and anyone who cares about someone possessing that dreaded chromosome. It underscores the dangers posed to innocent men and boys by false rape claims -- and reminds us that sometimes, the only thing that protects them is the happenstance that a video exists that will prove their innocence. Before getting to the scary part -- a summary of recent news stories where video evidence was used to clear men and boys falsely accused -- let's examine the problem.

The problem

In days long gone, to make a rape charge stick, corroboration beyond the lone accusation of the alleged victim was required. Innocent men and boys were not subjected to the possibility of wrongful arrest and conviction based solely on whether their accusers presented a convincing story. The rule requiring corroboration was ditched during the feminist revolution starting in the 1970s with the justification that rape should be treated like other crimes. The fact that rape isn't like other crimes was too politically incorrect to discuss. The fact is, the very act of rape is the same act that constitutes the universal union of love and procreation that has been continuously performed throughout the world since the beginning of time. Without corroboration, the act of love can be easily transmogrified into a rape claim based solely on the assertion of a female who actually consented to it.

The result of the rule change was that presumably more actual rapists were arrested and convicted, but the trade-off was that more innocent men and boys were also arrested, and some were convicted as well. There was scarcely any debate about whether this trade-off was worth it. The wrongly convicted men and boys were considered necessary collateral damage in the far more important war on rape, and to assuage skittish men that they wouldn't be unjustly arrested, the persons who dominated the public discourse about rape insisted that false rape claims are a "myth" even though they aren't.

By then the pendulum had swung too far in the other direction, and we turned the former reality on its head: the accuser no longer needed corroboration of the crime but the accused now needed corroboration of his innocence. Police, under intense political pressure to treat rape more seriously than any other crime, routinely arrested and jailed men and boys based solely on the lone accusation of even mentally unstable women. Arrests were made before evidence that would tend to exonerate the accused was even examined. Since rape is often a "he said/she said" crime, the only thing protecting innocent men and boys from having their lives destroyed by a false rape claim was the good will of women to not falsely accuse them.

The reality is unpleasant and grossly unfair, but it has been confirmed too often to deny: to protect themselves from unjust arrest for false rape charges, innocent men and boys require corroboration of their innocence. And not just any corroboration. If a woman accuses multiple males of raping her, the denials of each of the males won't be sufficient to stave off an arrest.

The solution

So what evidence of corroboration works? The testimony of disinterested third parties can be dispositive, but it's far from ironclad and often isn't enough. The best evidence for corroboration of innocence is not human -- it is DNA (but only where the accused denies the sex act), phone records, emails and text messages showing the "victim" was communicating with others while she was allegedly being "raped," or otherwise evidences that the sexual act was consensual.

But the best evidence is probably video evidence. Men and boys may be presumed to be liars when they are accused of rape, but the camera doesn't lie, and video evidence has secured the freedom of countless accused males.

Is a man justified in breaking the laws that exist in various states by secretly videotaping a sexual encounter in order to have proof of consent in case he is arrested on a false rape charge? We will let you decide that. But it cannot be denied that numerous cases in the very recent past indicate that many innocent men and boys might have had their lives destroyed by a false rape claim if it weren't for video evidence.

Recent cases

On September 10, Hofstra student Danmell Ndonye's vicious rape lie led to a rush to judgment and the no-questions-asked-incarceration of four innocent young men. Days later it was revealed that a video of the act showed it was consensual. That didn't stop one feminist writer from asserting that the young man who made the video that prevented the falsely accused young men from serving multiple years in prison for a crime they didn't commit, "is the most twisted" one of all.

Three 17-year-old boys were arrested after Victoria Salter, 26, told police they raped her. She even shaved her head and claimed the boys had used hair removal cream on her. Fortunately, one of the boys filmed the incident, which proved the sex not only was consensual but that Salter was participating enthusiastically.

After Neeneev S. Youkhana, 22, was stopped by police for speeding, she reported she had been fondled during a pat down search after a traffic stop. Police reviewed video from a dashboard camera in his squad car which showed the entire 10-minute traffic stop. At no time did the officer touch Youkhana. "When confronted with the video, Youkhana began to cry and started punching herself in the face and head, police said. Youkhana retracted her statement . . . ." A police officer explained: "Here's an example where we really see the value of a video camera in a squad car. The officer did not touch her at all. It exonerated the officer and protected the village against a false lawsuit."

Louise Johnson drove Andrew Tutty to the brink of suicide after he was arrested and suspended from his job because of her false rape claim. He was only cleared later when a video proved he was with his son at a train station 160 miles away when Johnson claimed he turned up at her home with the knife.

Louis Gonzalez, senior vice president of a Las Vegas bank, was falsely accused of rape by his former girlfriend Tracy West during a child custody dispute. West told police that Gonzalez ran up to her at her home in Simi Valley, California, hit her on the head and knocked her unconscious, then dragged her in the house and sexually assaulted her, burned her with matches and committed other violent atrocities. Mr. Gonzalez was arrested and held in jail without bail until a judge dismissed the charges almost three months later. Video recordings showing him in a Las Vegas bank and airport helped save him from the possibility of five life sentences in prison.

Natalie Jefferson's claim that she was raped in a back alley caused an innocent man who had never been in trouble with the law to be arrested and held in custody as a sex suspect before video cleared him. It turned out Jefferson had a considerable psychiatric background and a problem with alcohol.

An unnamed woman claimed that a man forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in her living room. At trial, he was cleared after the court was shown footage he had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter which his barrister said showed the woman 'actively' performing a sex act on him.

Erin Conley, an Indiana State University freshman, claimed that a man selling magazines in the student union approached her and convinced her to show him around campus before raping her in her dorm. The police reviewed video of Conley speaking with her alleged assailant, and noticed discrepancies in her story, including the color of his pants. When she was questioned again a week later about those inconsistencies, Conley admitted that her report was false. Conley had consensual sex with the man and didn't want her boyfriend to know.

A video showed that four young women falsely accused a cab driver of rape after they refused to pay a $13 fare. The innocent man worried about what might have happened to his job and his marriage without that video evidence.

A young woman accused a cab driver of raping her when he threatened to go to police and report that she and her date refused to pay their fare. Police then stormed into the cab driver’s home to arrest him. The woman later recanted her story about the alleged rape when she learned that a surveillance camera mounted in the taxi had recorded the couple leaving the vehicle without paying.

Joanne Rye accused a totally innocent cab driver of rape, causing him to be arrested at his home and taken to the police station where intimate samples, DNA and fingerprints were taken. Her claim only fell apart after video evidence showed it could not have happened the way she described.

Ashley Fulton's rape accusation fell apart when the accused showed a sheriff the cell phone video of the alleged rape -- the video showed a consensual sex act during which Fulton even looked at the phone’s camera and smiled.

Motorist Ali Sid Abdilahi stopped to give a ride to a bleeding girl who flagged him down. He gave her some money and dropped her at her destination. Two days later, the 14-year-old girl went to police and claimed that Abdilahi and another man had tried to drag her into their car. Her claim fell apart after a security video from a gas station showed Abdilahi shortly before he encountered the girl. He was alone -- there was no second man.

Jessica Smith made up a horrifying story of abduction at a gas station and a series of rapes over the next four days. Police reviewed the surveillance video from the gas station at the time she claimed the alleged attack occurred, and she never appeared. Just in case she was mistaken about the day, police looked at two days' worth of video, and she never appeared.

Alyshia Shannyn Clyne's claim that she had been dragged through the streets and raped by an unknown man was disproved by video surveillance footage.

Deborah Davies' claim that she had been raped by one man and subjected to an attempted rape by a second stranger in an alleyway fell apart when video of the scene showed that no such attack occurred. When arrested for perverting the course of justice the 35-year-old brazenly said: "That's why women don't report rape."

Gina Jaurique's claim that she was forced into the men's bathroom and sexually assaulted at a Wal-Mart was disproved after store surveillance video showed that she went willingly into the bathroom. the woman then changed her story, saying she had consensual relations with a "male subject she did not know," but that he then failed to pay her for the act.

A 13-year-old school student claimed Latino students attacked her because she made a sign protesting illegal immigration, but she was seen on a surveillance video inflicting scratches on herself. Two students corroborated the false story, underscoring the importance of the video.

Sarah-Jane Hilliard, 20, lured Grant Bowers, 19, to have sex with her, then cried rape and applied for £7,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. A video of the alleged "rape" clearly showed Hilliard and Mr. Bowers kissing and holding hands.

Kirsty Woods, who had a history of mental health problems, cried rape after having consensual sex. The innocent man was jailed, but released when video of the scene of the alleged attack confirmed his story.

Emma Deamer claimed that the man with whom she had consensual sex raped her because she got angry that he went downstairs to talk to his flatmate instead of staying in bed with her. She told police he was a stranger, and he was arrested. The case was dropped after video footage from a train station showed them walking arm-in-arm.

Erin Casson falsely told police her lover forced his way into her house, threatened to kill her and then raped her. The claim was shown to be false after video footage was uncovered that belied the claim and showed the pair laughing and joking.

Chloe Dolton, 22, accused two strangers of raping and attacking her, causing them to be arrested, but the claim fell apart when a video showed Dolton had met the two men before the 'alleged attack' and that the men had not grabbed and assaulted her.

A female college student reported she was allegedly forced into a van at gun point and raped by three black males, but the claim was not pursued after video surveillance did not support it.

Erica Donohue lied that she was raped by an acquaintance in order to conceal a consensual encounter with another man -- which, thankfully, was videotaped.

Shabnam Masood's rape claim fell apart when a video at police headquarters showed her behaving in a carefree manner when she didn't think anyone was watching and only pretended to be the suffering victim when police came around.

An alleged rape at a gas station was proven false by video from the business, but the lie started a viral email hoax.

Video footage helped disprove Emily J. Petersen's claim that a police officer beat and raped her after she was kicked out of a bar.

Mandy Whittle falsely accused her former partner of rape, for reasons known only to her, forcing him to revert to drugs and alcohol before video footage showed him elsewhere at the time.

An 18-year-old woman who claimed she had been dragged into an alley and raped, made up the story, police concluded, after video of the scene revealed no sign of the incident.

And, of course, there is the famous video of a false rape claim of a police officer shown on MSNBC. The video is chilling because the false accuser is terribly convincing.

A 19-year-old man was arrested after Charlotte Lane falsely cried rape because she regretted having sex with him. Video footage helped clear him.

Lori Anne Koehler claimed she was sexually assaulted while working at two different stores. During an investigation of one of the allegations, Koehler received a package that she told the store was offensive. In the package were condoms, rope and lubricants. It turned out a post office videotape showed Koehler mailing the package to herself.

Bruce Barclay, a former Pennsylvania County Commissioner, was falsely accused of rape by a 20-year-old man, Mr. Barclay's housemate. In the course of the police investigation over the rape charge, Mr. Barclay admitted that he'd secretly filmed sex acts occurring in his home. "The [rape] accusation was contradicted by a video shot by a hidden camera in the bedroom of Barclay's Monroe Township home, police said." The video showed the men engaged in apparently consensual sex. Police said Barclay's alleged admission during the rape probe that he'd secretly filmed sex acts prompted further investigation. The investigation uncovered multiple videos of Barclay engaged in sex acts with men, apparently shot without the consent of the other men. Barclay was cleared of the rape charge but he was charged with wiretapping and other offenses in connection with secretly videotaping his sexual trysts. Barclay resigned his political post. As one commentator said: "Sadly, his vindication was his undoing."

The law should encourage video evidence that disproves false rape claims

Countless innocent persons have been spared a prison sentence for rape because of video evidence. But how many innocent men and boys have had their lives destroyed due to the happenstance that they didn't have the benefit of video evidence? Police are the first to recognize the utility of videos in protecting them against false rape charges, so why can't all men legally protect themselves in a similar fashion? Why should a man's freedom depend on the happenstance that the evidence of consent occurred in a public place where the events are legally videotaped as opposed to a private place where secretly videotaping is illegal? Given the prevalence of false rape claims and the tremendous harm averted by videotaping sexual encounters, how absurd is it to suggest that videotaping all sexual encounters as a matter of course would greatly reduce not only false rape claims but rapes? And such a practice would inject certainty into an area where proof is often elusive.

A more modest question is this: should there be a law excusing the secret videotaping a sex act if this video evidence is material in clearing the videotaper of a false rape charge? I think a valid argument can be made in favor of such a law.

There are strong public policy justifications for excusing the criminality of videotaping the sex act in that instance, given that we, as a society, should want to nab false rape accusers and the video would be a sure way to do that. We should not do the slightest thing that could discourage an innocent man from revealing the video's existence if it is illegal in the jurisdiction at issue. Moreover, the only "victim" of the secret videotaping is the false rape accuser -- but she should not be heard to claim that she's a victim of the very thing that disproves her vile lie.

Some will say that such a law would only serve to encourage men to secretly videotape sex acts. I am aware of that. And that is what we have come to. We are stranded in a culture where men are frequently falsely accused of rape and the sole issue in dispute is consent. More and more men feel that a video record is a necessary evil to protect them them from having their lives destroyed by a false claim. That assertion would sound like a gross, hyserical overreaction if we didn't know about case after case after case where video evidence helped an innocent person clear his name. If a video saves one male's life from being destroyed, isn't such a law worth it? The ultimate question is this: which is worse -- having a consensual sex act secretly videotaped, or allowing a man's life to be destroyed by a false rape claim? The question scarcely survives its statement.

23 comments:

slwerner said...

Since the possibility of effectively making video recordings of intimate activity can be un-reliable owing to the need to accurately pre-position and test video recorders (something one can seldom do outside ones own home); I'm wondering about both the effectiveness and legal admissibility of audio recordings instead/as well.

I would imagine that the biggest hurtle to be overcome would be the authentication of audio recordings. With video, facial recognition allows it to be conclusively known that it was made of the named participants. Time-stamps might be helpful, but deliberate mis-dating on equipment can defeat accurate and reliable time-stamping. However, higher recording quality might allow for accurate voice identifications to be made.

If that hurtle can be successfully overcome, I would suggest that audio recordings have a huge potential utility for the falsely accused.

No pre-positioning is required for recording. They can easily be brought to and deployed in any situation. They work fine in dark settings. And, it takes just one key response to unequivocally disprove and FRA. One need simply ask of a woman post-coitally, “So, how was that for you?” (or some variation thereof) Any positive response should do the trick.

Anonymous said...

Creating a Men's Anti Feminist Group In London - update

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/14562

Anonymous said...

I personally do not see anyway anyone can alter a recording on a digital voice recorder.

Anonymous said...

What really makes me sick is even when there is video evidence that a woman totally lied she still does not go to prison.

What am I talking about!

Look at the Hofstra case she was not even CHARGED with a crime!

I guess I am not alone here )at least I hope not) that women who falsely accuse men of rape are some of the lowest scum to walk (or slither!) this earth.

Anonymous said...

The average public is un-aware the degree of the current "gender feminist / Law enforcement missinformation Alliance".
This un-holy, and un constitutional "Alliance" is the root cause of the current Rape hysteria..and the lynchings of innocent men/boys.
This unholy Missinformation "Alliance" is a perversion that breeds all kinds of social and legal perversion.

sabril said...

Good article, but I agree with slwerner that audio recording might be the best solution. In many, perhaps most jurisdictions, full consent is not necessary for audio recording.

And it seems it would not be too hard to steer the conversation in such a way as to exculpate yourself.

i.e. you get the woman to say enough at the beginning so that her voice can be identified; you discuss some current event so that the date and time can be nailed down; and you say a few things during and after the act which establish her consent.

Actually it's better than that, since the false accuser, not knowing that a tape exists, will almost certainly lie to the authorities and claim that you threatened her; cursed at her; whatever. Stuff which will be clearly contradicted by the recording.

Anonymous said...

One BIG weakness of video / audio (and indeed all other) data stored in your home, or your office, or anywhere else associated with you, is the simple fact that an additional false accusation of extreme pornography will get all your evidence that proves you innocent of rape seized by the police...

... who are amateurs when it comes to IT, who may manage to lose / damage or destroy data that proves your innocence, and who aren't interested in your rape charge, getting you off it that is.

Have *somewhere* eg friend with reciprocal agreement, or safe deposit box, or somewhere, THAT YOUR POTENTIAL FALSE ACCUSER DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT, where you store your off-site backups.

AfOR

Anonymous said...

In your home you should install a security camera system in any room that you like and I believe that all you have to do is put a sign up where everybody entering your home can see it stating that the premises are under video surveillance. Check with your local ordinance to see what the laws are. But that is how business get away with it. I believe that as long as you inform anyone that entered you premises that they are being video taped by a security system apron entry they give their consent, but check the law.

Anonymous said...

Rather than changing the law to allow audio/video recording, it would be far better to change the law back to require corroboration, for at least five reasons:

Firstly, many of the examples cited in the article were not recordings of the accuser and accused having consensual sex, but rather recordings showing that the accused was somewhere else entirely. There are plenty of false rape accusations made up out of thin air, when there was no sex to record.

Secondly, most men are not aware how common false accusations are, and even those that are aware are still unlikely to be be both willing and able to always make recordings.

Thirdly, the existence of such recordings could cause problems if they fell into the wrong hands. Most women would be justifiably upset if they found sex tapes of them made without their consent.

Fourthly, while a recording might help prevent wrongful conviction, it would not prevent the arrest or naming of the accused.

Finally, stressing the importance of making such recordings sends the wrong message, that the burden to prove innocence is on the accused. When what needs to be repeatedly, consistently, and clearly stated is the exact opposite message, that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

Anonymous said...

one answer...


liveblogging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liveblogging

Anonymous said...

Yep

Guys have been put in prison with ZERO physical evidence that ANYTHING happened.

On nothing more than her word.

And if she gets caught lying about it....well it's perfectly legal 99% of the time.

Anonymous said...

Also just think how incredibly sick our society has become that guys have to think about taping their entire lives because one lie from a woman can ruin their life.

Anonymous said...

Genial post and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you seeking your information.

Anonymous said...

When women and girls falselly acuse a man or boy of Rape, they know that it will ruin the guys lives.
It is only over the last 30 years has the real "perversion" in this area developed.

Anonymous said...

False Rape Accusations are just one of the many ramifications of 40 years of academic feminist propaganda.

Norm said...

In addition to blogs as a web tool to fight feminism, there's also something invented recently by Univ of Calif., Berkeley computer science department, called 'Dispute Finder':

http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/

It allows your browser to highight parts of web pages on which there are disputed 'facts' or other information. Anyone who has the Dispute Finder extension installed on their computer, will see disputed information highlighted.

Anyone with the extension can dispute information on web pages, then anyone viewing those disputed pages later, who has the dispute finder extension installed on their computer, will see the information on that page highlighted (I think in light red color). Berkeley (or someone they contract with) somehow filters out frivolous disputes, or disputes on frivolous topics (for example, the Pulp Fiction briefcase contents topic, which is how I found out about it).

If someone can figure out how it works let me know. When I tried to install the extension on my own computer, I got some weird message and could not install it. Probably cause I have a lot of weird cookies and registry entries, and a lot of stuff for software apps. on my box. I'm sure it won't harm your computer, considering it comes from Berkeley.

This would obviously be a great tool for disputing DV industry info, etc. I'm not sure if it's available for Mac.

Norm said...

followup to the above

I successfully installed the dispute finder on my box just now and hopefully we can begin using it soon.

Anonymous said...

Great find Norm!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed that most any way a man can use to prove his innocence is being made illegal? You record a sexual encounter to protect yourself from a future FRA yet, the law(s) make it illegal? It seems to me as if those who write/enforce the law(s) want you to be charged, indicted and, convicted of crime(s). To those who benefit, all is fair and legal in the ongoing war against men and boys.

action needs to be taken on this issue... said...

YES.. something needs to be done about this.. Men should organize together to make it a safer and more enjoyable world for everyone.

This FRA is crap.. People need to write their legal officials and tell them that we want legislative action to protect men from this.

All of the cases above that were mentioned about false rape accusations are horrible and a bit upsetting. There's alot of crazy people out there that happen to be women. I could see this happening to anyone. There has to be some way to prove one's innocence because the accusations alone are so damaging..... NO... something needs to be done here people... This is 2010 lets see some change!

techrentals said...

SecurityTest Equipment
True. Cameras are worth important than someone's testimony. Although they only capture videos, it weighs stronger than words. It is important to maintain their reliability by placing them under test using security test equipment.

Anonymous said...

As males...why it it again, that we need law order or government...can't see anything positive it does to protect me, or inhance my male existence...and the nerve of it demanding I protect it ! You must be out of your f**king mind...death becomes her...lady liberty and whored out sister," lady justice.

Anonymous said...

Hi
Very nice and intrestingss story.