Comments: Before you read the news story below, which presents a microcosm of the false rape problem in America in 2010, please consider the following thoughts:
(1) You remember the news account of the teen boy who had consensual sex with an older girl, but who failed to withdraw, by her testimony, for five to ten seconds after she told him to do so? He was convicted of a felony. In contrast, in this case an innocent man was forced to rot in jail for two months while his false rape accuser held the keys to his release but never used them. She only came clean after she was advised that the DNA proved he was innocent. You do the math: five seconds versus two months. Which was a worse ordeal for the innocent person? But what are the odds that this false accuser will see the inside of a jail for even five seconds, much less two months?
(2) Wouldn't it be a great idea to get the DNA results back before you arrest a man and jail him on a he said/she said rape charge? What universe are we living in where a man can be deprived of his liberty on the say-so of a lone liar?
(3) Please note the reputational harm to this man. His life has been badly damaged if not destroyed because of a lie. In contrast, she is still afforded anonymity, despite the fact that the DNA evidence proved she lied and she has recanted her allegation. She was afforded anonymity in the first place because of her own criminal act, and reasonable people would think that she has forfeited whatever right to anonymity she might have had by committing a crime. Not so. The news outlets continue to shield her, and, in effect, reward her fraud solely because of the nature of the initial lie. Oh, and for reasons not known, they still claim she was raped by someone. Um, right. In any event, the innocent man's reputation = destroyed; the criminal's reputation = protected. The asymmetrical anonymity policies of our news outlets that allow this are the result of gender politicization run amok.
(4) Not mentioned in the story below, but noted in another account of this incident is this: "Officials say they believe[d] the [rape] story because the two had a history of domestic violence and at the time safety of the victim was at issue." See here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0210/707793.html This is a cautionary tale for men: you are at greater risk of having a false rape charge against you stick when you've been in trouble with the law previously, especially where the allegation is similar to the rape lie. It isn't fair, of course, but in these he said/she said rape cases, the police are looking for anything that would make them feel better about arresting you.
Here is the news story:
Innocent Man Spends 2 Months In Jail
An innocent man spends two months in jail, accused of rape. Now he is free after being cleared by a DNA test.
Investigators say this all stems from a false report. It turns out, the woman admitted to lying about the rape after the test results came back.
Now, after spending two months behind bars, all charges have been dropped, but the case is far from closed.
You might remember the name Michael Eulenstein, the Tuscaloosa man arrested and charged for rape in October 2009.
But DNA tests came back earlier this month, proving that Eulenstein's DNA did not match the evidence found in the investigation.
Since then, his name has been cleared, but he says his life has yet to return to normal.
"I've lost several friends. It's been hard for me to find gainful employment. Everybody looks at my name and is like, 'Whoa, you're that guy that's accused of rape. We don't want anything to do with you,'" said Michael Eulenstein.
"We're not sure exactly what happened," said Captain Lloyd Baker of the Tuscaloosa County Metro Homicide Unit. "She had obvious and substantial injuries that were indicative of being attacked. They did not appear to be self inflicted. The doctor we talked to in the emergency room believed that she had been assaulted by someone."
Investigators believe the victim was raped, but at this point, no other suspects have been named.
The victim admitted that she lied about Eulenstein's involvement in the case, and will now face charges for giving false information to law enforcement.
Link: http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Innocent-Man-Spends-2-Months-In-Jail/huboCQeuMkShOuKL-2vJ-w.cspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
From one of the two news accounts, I found these two statements quite telling:
"He was arrested last October and stayed in jail until he bonded out in December."
Vs.
"The woman was arrested and charged with falsifying a police report. She has since bonded out of jail."
Given that the women appeared to have suffered injuries, in addition to her claim of rape, it is NOT unusual that HIS bond would have been set so high that he (and whomever was helping him) would have had a difficult time coming up with even 10%.
"She had obvious and substantial injuries that were indicative of being attacked. They did not appear to be self inflicted. The doctor we talked to in the emergency room believed that she had been assaulted by someone."
I won't win any friends by pointing this out, but, by all appearances, the Police believed they had a violent rapist on thier hands. Their response was NOT entirely unreasonable given that a violent attack was suspected. [Note - this differs markedly from simple he said/she said cases, wherein there is no suggestion of violence being used. In those such cases, an arrest is typically entirely unnecessary prior to investigation, and certainly should not occur prior to DAN test results.]
However, once it was understood that she had deliberately implicated, and caused to be arrested and jailed, an innocent man; it would have been wholly appropriate to set her bond at the same high level as had been set for her "victim".
Some public defender would no doubt have objected to such high bond for a false report, but the judge could easily have pointed out, then and there, that HER crime had caused a high cost for her victim, so she should not have a easier time gaining release from custody than did he.
This is also a good case on which to present the idea that men wrongfully incarcerated by a womans lies (and, the victim of her crime), should be eligible for victims assistance, including, but not limited to, crisis counseling and monetary assistance to help in getting their lives back together.
As an aside to this, I'd make this comment: I believe that while most (rape) crisis counselors are honorable and well intentioned people, I do believe it would do them a great deal of good to have to sit down and counsel someone who's had their life and reputation damaged by an FRA. The insight gained into the severe harms wrought by FRA's might well convince them to be more thorough in their counseling of alleged rape victims with an eye towards determining if a given claim has merit or not. [Police often note that there is a strong correlation between complainants claiming rape, who do not demonstrate the expected affect, and those claims turning out to be untrue. Noting if the alleged victim seems to demonstrate such and expected affect is one of the best ways for them to spot FRA's very early - often right as they are listening to the initial allegation.]
slwerner, as always, thanks for your contribution. I am skeptical of any emergency room physician's conclusion that a woman was attacked. What training does he have to reach that conclusion? My suspicion is that many time where there are self-inflicted wounds it might look to an untrained eye like an assault. Is that a proper basis to deprive an innocent man of his liberty for two months? I don't think so.
I think I'd buy the argument about the police fearing they had a violent rapist if in he said/she said cases bail were set at a low level. That is often not the case. Perhaps the most unjust thing about these cases is the amount of bail for he said/she said cases.
The other question I have is this: why does DNA testing take so long? When a man's liberty is at stake?
Pierce Harlan - "The other question I have is this: why does DNA testing take so long? When a man's liberty is at stake?"
As to the first question, it usually is a matter of limited accredited and certified labs capacity. In the state of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of investigations has, for many years, run the only lab from which DAN results were admissible in criminal cases (at least for law enforcement).
The judicial district in which my wife works is in the process of setting up their own lab - largely due to the increasing times as more an more DNA tests are requested. But, this is proving a lengthy process to put in place all the accreditation, protocol, and safe-guards to ensure that results will be admissible.
The testing procedures are actually getting quicker - it's the backlogs caused by so many tests being ordered.
As to the second question, the fact that test results are pending would normally indicate that there is a lack of cause to keep anyone in custody. If the case revolves around DNA (alone) as the determinant if a crime has occurred, then an arrest should be delayed until such time as those results are available and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of a crime having occurred. Even in cases of murder, possible suspects aren't named (let alone arrested) until such evidence provides probable cause.
As I tried to point out to Marcella Chester, a person word alone does not equate to probable cause (PC). If an accusation appears to be corroborated by observable injuries, then PC can be supported. In this particular case, this is what I see as having occurred - even though an innocent man was accused.
Perhaps this particular case provides a means of demonstrating when arrest and incarceration (and even high bail) is justifiable; primarily so as to make the point that if such thresholds are not met, then those extreme measures are neither necessary nor justified.
Case after case reported on this blog demonstrates that the words of President Theodore Roosevelt's state of the Union address in 1906 were sadly prophetic, and the urge to "rush to judgment" on rape charges is no longer confined to black men: "The mob which lynches a negro charged with rape will in a little while lynch a white man suspected of crime. Every Christian patriot in America needs to lift up his voice in loud and eternal protest against the mob spirit that is threatening the integrity of this Republic."
Broken American patriarchies Rarelly complain as the deviant "pork-0-crats" fill their pork troughs by ammassing huge debts to foreign countries, all while expecting this countries young to be yolked like cattle to re-pay it.
While main stream media in America was feeding the public "hysteria" for the last 30 years...the porkers were feeding heavilly while no one was watching. Now the porkers are so fat they are collapsing under their own weight.
The DNA test can be done faster for an investigation since it is not being used in court at that time. You can quickly exclude people. You can also do a simple blood test you can use to exclude people although you won't be able to exclude everyone but at least it's a fast way of exonerating some men.
And btw, rape allegations should not be taken seriously since 9 out of 10 females are lying about it and even if they have injuries they are almost always self inflicted(same in DV)
I'm new around here, seems like a cool place though. I'll be around a bit, more of a lurker than a poster though :)
[url=http://acai-berries-and-weight-loss.wetpaint.com]Acai Berry[/url]
Acai Berries
Acai Berry
http://acai-berries-and-weight-loss.wetpaint.com
Acai Berry
Regarding DNA:
In Texas, DNA samples in state-run forensics labs can take up to eight months to process, with the average being five months
See:
http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/81streports/dps/ageninfo_dps.pdf
2007 Texas Crime Lab Backlog
Type of Evidence & Average Wait Time
Blood Alcohol: 1 month
Controlled Substances: 1 month
DNA: 5 months
Firearms: 19 months
Toxicology: 12 months
Trace Evidence: 6.5 months
Since there has been plenty of bad forensics testing going on in Texas in the past several years. I hope the lab workers in Texas DPS labs and municipal labs take their time as there have been cases where they have outright fabricated results to clear their backlogs:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/suttonDNA.htm
http://www.scientific.org/DNAProblems/DNA-Problems.htm#Houston background
http://www.hpdlabinvestigation.org
Another problem with the backlogs is that the accused may have a difficult time finding work in the interim if he has not been arrested, but has been suspended or fired from his job, especially if he is in a legal, law enforcement, healthcare, financial or other licensed profession where good moral character is part of the applications process. Applicants in these areas are often asked either in interviews, license renewals, and job applications forms: "are you currently under investigation for any crime or by any licensing board or agency for conduct or other violations." This is all the more difficult if the FRA happens in the context of the accused's line of work. So, a lawyer, accountant, doctor, nurse, chiropractor, etc. can end up financially ruined by the investigation itself if they are not allowed to pursue their careers and have mortgages, legal bills, kids to feed, car payments, etc.
The solution to the backlog problem:
We need a national forensics mega-lab that is separate from law enforcement; capable of conducting any test with a turnaround time of 1 month or less; strictly accredited and carefuly monitored; generously funded and equipped; and staffed by well-paid workers who are the brightest in their fields.
It also brings up an interesting point in regard to the waiting time for forensics results: what if someone is suspended from their line of work in the US and the FRA actually happens in the course of the accused's line of work? Let's say for example, [and I'm totally making this up] that a male paralegal is taking a deposition in a conference room (without using video or other recording devices, and in private) from a female litigant and days later she accuses the paralegal of raping her in the conference room. He is suspended without pay during the investigation and his employer does not have insurance to cover his pay or benefits or provide any type of assistance in relation to an employee committing alleged criminal acts. He agrees to cooperate with the police and has DNA samples taken, passes a polygraph exam, and 8 months later the DNA test results come back excluding him. He is no-billed by a grand jury. We hear of certain professions like doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and police officers being falsely accused, so I'm sure the scenario I've posed must happen on occasion.
What would be the paralegal's chances of success in getting his employer to pay his legal expenses and perhaps back pay? What other recourse might he have to get his work life and finances back in order?
Pierce? Anyone?
In the scenario above also assume that the paralegal in question is not arrested.
"I believe that while most (rape) crisis counselors are honorable and well intentioned people"
I don't. Most of them are blatantly sexist extreme feminist ideologues.
"I am skeptical of any emergency room physician's conclusion that a woman was attacked. What training does he have to reach that conclusion?"
SANE nurses are supposed to have special training. Unfortunately, the program seems to attract those with a political agenda, such as the nurse who majored in women's studies in the Duke case.
SANE nurses are supposed to have special training. Unfortunately, the program seems to attract those with a political agenda, such as the nurse who majored in women's studies in the Duke case.
That would be Tara Levicy. BTW, she's a prominent defendant in the Duke LAX team lawsuit...
We obviously need to raise the bar when it comes to how much evidence is required before an arrest can be made. Until the law once again requires corroboration of rape accusations we will continue to see countless innocent men being ruined by a perverted, emotion-driven legal system.
Yeah
They can't even tell if she was gang raped or not.
After the duke case I'm VERY skeptical of these SANE nurses.
The nursing profession is a political swamp in clinic and hospital settings, and it allows people with certain agendas to thrive. There are also systemic and structural problems within the profession that make it nearly impossible to promote advocacy, self-monitoring, and reform. These days nurses themselves are treated much like the falsely accused.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/07nurses.html
To get some perspective on the nursing profession, read:
http://www.nabeepchen.com
and
http://www.truthaboutnursing.org/
Whatever personal agendas they may have: SANE nurses end up being tools of a larger political system.
"We obviously need to raise the bar when it comes to how much evidence is required before an arrest can be made. Until the law once again requires corroboration of rape accusations we will continue to see countless innocent men being ruined by a perverted, emotion-driven legal system."
I agree. The police should investigate, but not make an arrest or release the name to the press without more evidence.
Anon @ Feb 21, 2010 8:35:00 AM
Apparently, everything in Texas is a felony, except making a false rape accusation.
When my son was arrested in Montana, he was first put on a 72 hr. hold, then charged and was moved to the section of the county jail that held sex offenders.(they had all resdy decided he was guilty) There he sat for three months until the DNA came back, not even a trace on either one of them. The accuser was seen by a SANE nurse, I would have thought that she would have recognized that there was no physical trama.
i am the person who is depicted in this story..my name is michael terry eulenstein and the woman who accused me was my wife whom i had left for screwing my best friend..her reasoning was to withhold our son from me and get me locked away so she could take him to england where she is from..no reason if you ask me because i have full sole custody of him and she has no parental rights...we had no sexual contact since the separation which was several months before her "rape" therefore there was no way my DNA was present...so here are the real details of what happened....i did stay in jail 2 months but did not bond out..the judge let me go pending the DNA results,my "wife" does in fact have a warrant but they will not go get her since she is back in england and her charge is only a misdemeanor..the rape did not happen and everything that was posted as not self inflicted was just that...self inflicted...DNA came back rather quickly and the charges were subsequently removed from my record ..i was never questioned .i was pulled over and had guns shoved in my face but once i was at homicide i was treated as if nothing was wrong..i asked the detective if he thought i did it he said he couldnt say all a while shaking his head no...there wasa no investigation only the fact that she said i did i was presumed guilty ..im so thankfull for cell phones as they got my phone records showing that she lied in her statement she said she called me at 1030 at night on my cell phone but my phone records show no activity after 8 that morning..well that is all i have for you if you hgave questions imopen to all mikeeulenstein@yahoo.com..and thanks for having this site and making it aware and in the open that there are cases like this and detctives need to do their jobs which is detect instead of arrestiung people aimlessly..peace be with you ..."innocent man"
Post a Comment