Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Case study: how the police and media foment false rape hysteria

Here are two news stories out of Cambridge, Ontario, brought to our attention by reader Paul K. They recount a girl's rape accusation -- the first is from November, the second is from yesterday. We present them as a case study in how police and the news media treat, and foment, false rape claims. Let us dissect the stories, with comments interspersed throughout:


Police search for man who sexually assaulted girl in Cambridge park

[FRS COMMENT: Note the headline. A man did sexually assault a girl, period. No "alleged," no "girl claims".]

CAMBRIDGE — Police will be searching through a Cambridge park for evidence again today after a 15-year-old girl was grabbed and sexually assaulted Thursday afternoon.

[FRS COMMENT: The girl "was grabbed and sexually assaulted," not the girl "claims" she was grabbed, etc. It is reported as if it were true. It is intended to make us believe it happened. If you don't think this is intentional, read on.]

Waterloo Regional Police say the girl was at Silverheights Park on Nickolas Crescent around noon when a man grabbed her, took her into a bush area and assaulted her.

[FRS COMMENT: Same. Note the reporter seems to be getting her information entirely from what the police want her to hear.]

Afterwards, the girl was able to make it to her house where she called police.

[FRS COMMENT: Thank goodness she made it back to the house so she could lie to the police.]

The girl received minor physical injuries and was taken to hospital. She has been treated and released.

[FRS COMMENT: The intended implication is that the injuries were inflicted by the rapist, and there is no other possible explanation.]

Police spokesperson Olaf Heinzel said officers spent Wednesday in the park with a canine unit trying to track down the suspect. Officers will be back today looking for any evidence.

[FRS COMMENT: Now the reporter references "the suspect," suggesting that police are looking for a specific individual. And the story notes that the police were going back to the scene to look for "any" evidence.]

“We’re working through the circumstances of what occurred,” Heinzel said.

[FRS COMMENT: Which means what? I think it means that "all we have is what this teenage girl says, and we're trying to find something -- anything -- that might verify it." But of course, neither the police nor the newspaper will come out and say that -- why? Because to say it would cast doubt on the veracity of the girl's tale, and the police want the newspaper to write it up as if it really happened.]

The man is described as white, about six feet tall, in his 30s with a medium build and black shaggy hair. He was wearing a black sweater and jeans.

[FRS COMMENT: And that description obviously applies to hundreds of guys in the region who easily could have been picked up, arrested, and forced to submit to invasive and embarrassing testing. And this newspaper, if it is like most newspapers, would gladly, without hesitation, splash his name all over its pages for the world to titillate to his humiliation. His life would be destroyed simply because he matched the girl's made-up description -- you know, guilty by reason of penis.]

“We’re looking for witnesses,” said Heinzel. “If anyone saw individuals with this description around that time yesterday, we’d be interested in hearing from them.”

Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 519-650-8500 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS.

[FRS COMMENT: Nice, isn't it, that the police have acted as this girl's stenographers, parroting her wild, misandric tale? And the news media, in turn, seems to do nothing here except take dictation from the police, never questioning the validity of the story, never asking "what evidence do we have for this?" and apparently never doing its own independent investigation beyond copying down what the police say because, gee -- I don't know -- aren't they supposed to be reporters? This isn't a news report, it's a public service announcement intended to foment rape hysteria.]


Girl lied about November sexual assault in Cambridge

CAMBRIDGE — A girl who told police she was grabbed and sexually assaulted in a Cambridge park in November was lying, police have determined.

[FRS COMMENT: Is any reader here surprised? I follow stories like this and find that an astounding number of similar claims of stranger rape by teen girls are false.]

The 15-year-old girl told police she was assaulted by a shaggy-haired man at Silverheights Park on Nickolas Crescent around noon on Nov. 25, 2009. She said a man grabbed her, took her into a bush area and assaulted her.

Afterwards, she told investigators she was able to make it to her house where she contacted police. She was taken to hospital and treated for minor physical injuries.

[FRS COMMENT: Notice the subtle difference here in the way it is reported: last November, we were told the girl made it to her house to call police. Now we are told the girl told police she made it to the house. Why didn't the November story say that? Did the newspaper fear that the girl's story might have been viewed with suspicion last November if the reporter had added "the girl claimed"? The question scarcely survives its statement.]

Investigators searched the park for days looking for the man. They called in a canine unit to help in their search and issued an appeal to the public for information.

The girl gave police a description of her alleged attacker, saying he was white, about 30 years old with a medium build and black shaggy hair.

[FRS COMMENT: In the earlier story, we are told that police were looking for "the suspect" who matched that description. Here, after the story falls apart, the newspaper just refers to him as an alleged attacker. Newsflash: that's all he was in November, too -- an "alleged attacker," and the newspaper knew or should have known it then. So why couldn't the news media call him that in November? Because it would have cast doubt on the veracity of the girl's tale, and that's the last thing the news media wanted to do.]

On Tuesday, police said the girl made the story up. The injuries she said she received during the attack actually occurred when she tripped and fell earlier that day.

Waterloo Regional Police spokesperson Olaf Heinzel wouldn’t say exactly what caused the girl to lie but that “she was dealing with some personal issues at the time.

[FRS COMMENT: When was the last time you heard a teen rapist described in that manner: ". . . he was dealing with some personal issues at the time"?]

“It was the result of an unfortunate choice on behalf of the (girl) to report the information to the police and thereby create numerous concerns in the nearby area and in the community,” he said.

[FRS COMMENT: Is this astounding, or what? We are stranded in an era where the fantastic rape musings of girls are accepted as Gospel; where the police and the news media act as nothing more than parrots for children with "personal issues"; where innocent young men need to worry about whether they match the descriptions given by girls bent on fomenting rape hysteria; and where crimes are "unfortunate choices" when they are false rape allegations.]

Heinzel added that the girl “clearly did not understand the impact of her actions on the community and her family.”

The girl will not be charged.

[FRS COMMENT: Of course not. Why would we charge a criminal with committing a crime? And let us hope every fifteen-year-old girl reads this and gets the idea that they, too, can cry "rape" when they need a little attention, or better yet, when their brothers or fathers or male teachers or classmates do something they don't like.]