Again, to cover up her indiscretions, a woman cries rape. And as usual, all five of the men are named, but she is not.
The 24-year-old from Liverpool claimed she was raped after visiting one of the men at his home in Bolton, after making contact on the internet.
But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.
Judge Robert Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts.
Prosecutor Michael Leeming told a jury the case involved allegations of rape and conspiracy to rape at a house in Great Lever, Bolton, on 19 June.
'Wholly different light'
But he formally offered no evidence after reading excerpts of MSN chatlogs of her conversations before the alleged offence.
He said: "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words 'her morals go out of the window'.
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned.
"We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence."
Judge Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts for rape and conspiracy to rape against five men.
They were: Kelvin Chinakwe, 26, of Brook Hey Avenue, Bolton; Olatunji Owolabi, 28, of Bradbourne Close, Great Lever; Afolabi Sanyaolu, 29, of Laburnum Road, London; Senthil Venkatachalam, 30, of Wigan Road, Deane, Bolton; and Funsho Bello, 26, of Atherstone, Rochdale.
A sixth man - Ganiyn Conteh, 32, of Abbeywood Avenue, Abbey Hey, Manchester - was formally cleared of conspiracy to rape.
The woman said she had agreed to visit Mr Owolabi after meeting him on MSN.
She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others.
Judge Brown told the jury: "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces."
Thanks to AFOR for the tip.
Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8455161.stm
Posts
36 comments:
It is a perversion of our legal community to enable false rape accussers.
Now that there are so many false rape accussations, the media can no longer keep the public in the dark.
The current hysteria that women and girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER lie about rape, (when the unfortunate fact is that they do lie about rape)..prejudices the public against innocent men / boys.
I have to say, I wasn't aware that a judge could actually order the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
Is this just the same as 'throwing it out of court'?
Anyway, good for those guys ... I really hope they press charges against her. And good for the judge, too. There are still some good and honest folk working in the justice system who won't send innocent men down the river.
This reminds me of the Jamie Rzucek/Oliver Jovanovic case, and I wonder if this situation in England might have been settled differently based on the Rape Shield Laws in the U.S. Imho, such laws can only have the effect of convicting the innocent and need to be reformed.
While a case that began in 1996 might be old news to many of you, the accused still has a civil suit pending, and it's worth studying if you are unfamiliar with it.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/columns/cityside/1854/
http://www.cybercase.org/
http://www.anusha.com/sm-girl.htm has plenty of information, including the excluded emails, but unfortunately, its webmaster decided to add music that automatically starts playing on every page, which I find annoying as hell.
Another old story which I just learned of via poster JG, but which would be another good case for the archives. Like Biurny Peguero (Gonzalez), Cathleen Crowell sent an innocent man to prison via an FRA to cover for her own illicit sexual activity.
Here’s the post, borrowed from Dr. Helen - I thought fake rape charges were a myth.:
JG said...
In the 1970s, Gary Dotson was laying on his couch watching TV when he heard a knock on the door. The cops burst in and told him to put his hands behind his back. He asked why and was told to shut his fucking mouth.
At a lineup, sixteen-year-old Cathleen Crowell identified him as her rapist (although the guy in the phantom picture she had sketched had no mustache, and Gary had a full mustache 5 days later during his arrest).
This was before the age of DNA. Cathleen gave very plausible testimony, the four alibi witnesses of Gary were branded as liars by the prosecutor, and Gary was convicted and sentenced to 25 to 50 years for raping her in a parking lot.
Ten years later (TEN YEARS LATER - all the time in jail for Gary), Cathleen Crowell was now married and named Cathleen Webb, and she asserted that she was a Born-Again Christian and had a bit of guilt.
She said that she had had consensual sex with a boyfriend, but was afraid she had gotten pregnant, so - in those pre-DNA days - she made up the story of a rape. No one had raped her. The phantom picture that was sketched was completely made up, and it just happened to look like Gary Dotson (if he had not had a mustache).
No one believed her at first.
But then came DNA testing in the very late '80s - they had kept the primitive "rape kit" in the 1970s. Gary Dotson was STILL in prison. The first test was inconclusive.
After a while the Governor reluctantly let him out of jail.
After DNA testing got better with the PCR method of replication, the sample absolutely, clearly concluded that Gary Dotson was NOT the person who had sex with her. The sample matched her boyfriend at the time, but she never gave any hint that he had raped her.
When asked later on how a 16-year-old girl fooled the jury, she said that she simply repeated a rape scene out of a novel she had read. They ate it up.
She also thought that the police would not take it that far, but once it started in motion, she thought there was no point at which she could say she had lied.
By the way, it ruined Gary's life. He was later arrested for a series of petty crimes and could never get his life back together again.
Will this woman get charged? I certainly hope so.
CBGirl
Sorry for the long (borrowed) post, but I thought it was a story that should be made known, given that an innocent man ended up in prison, and found his life ruined to the point that even after his exoneration, he could never get it back together again.
Perhaps a valuable side-bar item to have here would be a list of (known) innocent men who've been convicted and sent to prison. I would give us something to quickly point out to those trolling individuals who come here and wish to down-play the issues with FRA's. List's of innocents who ended up dead or in prison would quickly and surely mute their vile efforts.
We've discussed the Dotson case various times here, most recently here:
Dotson case
P.S. Make sure you read the link I posted in my previous comment about the Dotson case -- and pay attention to the reaction of the sexual assault industry.
Pierce Harlan - "We've discussed the Dotson case various times here, most recently here"
Sorry. I had completely forgotten about it.
I'd have thought that I'd have remembered such a case, with such a high degree of injustice.
I must be get old...
I find it almost impossible to believe that Dr. Helen, who claims to be a forensic psychologist, could believe in 2010 that "fake rape charges were a myth." I can't wait until week when she finds out the President is black.
Anon,
Did you bother to follow the link?
If you had, you would know that the title is sarcastic. The link on Helen's site goes to the Smoking Gun site, and the story of the women who cried rape after getting paid in cigarettes that we ran HERE.
This story does not fit your usual pattern of false rape claims, as described on this site. This is merely an unproven rape claim. Since the claim depends on her credibility, which is now believed to be insufficient is not itself proof that she lied or that she was not in fact raped, in the classical sense, by the other four men. Even the first man having consensual sex could be guilty of the conspiracy to rape if her allegations were true (though unproven).
Unless and until it can be proven that she indeed lied about the claim, she should not be charged punitively.
Yeah, Dr. Helen is batting for our side. I like her!
Professor Hale - "Unless and until it can be proven that she indeed lied about the claim, she should not be charged punitively."
I don't see that she has been charged with anything. The story was about the judge (and presumably the prosecutor) deciding that a conviction was unlikely.
Last month, FRS ran a story about a woman who, from all known information, had made an FRA, was charged for doing so; where her case was likewise dismissed (and a not guilty verdict ordered from the bench). [Apparently, in the UK, rather than leave things up in the air by just dropping the charges, they try to tie up the loose ends by having a not guilty verdict declared - the closest thing to full exoneration available.]
There are two possible meanings to this story. One was that she felt remorse for having engaged in a gang-bang (we've seen plenty of other cases where this very thing has occurred), and wanted absolution for her part via the FRA.
Or, it could simply be that she was raped by the other men, but that because so many other women have previously cried rape after engaging in consensual gang-bangs that her credibility as a victim was already severely damaged by all those other similar-looking FRA's that obtaining a conviction seemed highly unlikely (not forgetting that her own digital "paper trail" didn't help).
To put it more plainly; this was either an FRA, or it was a victim harmed by other FRA's. A point that this site has repeatedly tried to make.
Re: Prof. Hale's comment: this is not a case we would put in our "reasonably certain" false rape column, but that's OK, and its lessons are still valid.
Let's first talk about which cases short of conviction should go into our rape and false rape columns. When a man confesses to rape and there is no evidence suggesting the confession was coerced we can be reasonably certain there was a rape even before an adjudication; and when a woman recants a rape claim and there is no evidence that the recantation was false, we are reasonably certain there was no rape. Few FRAs are charged, but that's NOT because they weren't false rape claims -- they aren't charged out of fear of discouraging women from coming forward to report rape.
This case is peculiar in that the prosecutor himself admitted that the evidence puts the rape charge in an incredible light. The lesson here is that there is so much doubt about whether a rape occurred in light of her fantasy (and apparently no other evidence of rape -- and, yes, I know it could be just a coincidence that she announced this fantasy, but hell, what a coincidence!) that to charge the men here is improper and runs the grave risk of having an unreasonable jury convict an innocent man. The prosecutor did the right thing.
I was addressing the comments by snark and cbgirl calling for her prosecution.
In previous cases on this site, it was clear that the woman lied and falsely accused a man of rape. this case was not so clear. Nor did I make the connection that her case was harmed by anything other than her own credibility, not related to other FRAs.
"Did you bother to follow the link?"
Yes.
"If you had, you would know that the title is sarcastic."
Maybe it is, but I don't see how she posted the same link would let anyone know that.
Off topic: The Rule of Fives
http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=41
"...why is Wikipedia such a success, while my wiki languishes? What do you need to achieve critical mass? The answer, Jimmy (founder Wikipedia) said, is five people. Five individuals dedicated to an altruistic sharing of collective intelligence should be enough to produce a flowering similar to Wikipedia. Jimbo has learned, through experience, that the “minor” language versions of Wikipedia (languages with less than 10 million native speakers), need at least five steady contributors to become self-sustaining. In the many wikis Jimbo oversees through his commercial arm, Wikia, he’s noted the same phenomenon time and again. Five people mark the tipping point between a hobby and a nascent hyperintelligence.
Five people is not a very big ask. Anything that people are passionate about should be able to gather together that many dedicated altruists. Since we are now constrained neither by location nor synchronous activity, the barrier to entry has become nearly non-existent. Just five people can easily enter into a pact to change the world. As their work catches on and catches fire, as they capture their collective intelligence, and as the social network forms, hyperintelligence will emerge. Everyone involved in the social network benefits from it, and every member of the network increases their own selection fitness by pursuing an altruistic end. They will be more effective in pursuit of their ends (insofar as those ends are those of the network), because of their participation within the network...."
Besides us "Anonymous" types, there are at least five, named, regular posters on this forum who comment on every post....
Because of the "media lace curtain", and the sexual assault prok barrel buerocracies..the public is kept in the dark about the true amounts of false rape accussations.
This missinformation to the public prejudices against the innocent when they are falselly accussed of a rape that simply never happened!!
Snark- The judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict when the prosecutor declined to submit any evidence. If that happens I its required.
Jared, thanks.
Professor Hale, point taken.
Can someone explain how the non-corroboration requirements work?
If a conviction can be obtained based on the testimony of a rape complaintant alone, then why isn't every accused convicted, especially when there is no other evidence or exculpatory evidence exists, i.e.: accused takes a polygraph and passes it; DNA tests are negative/exculpatory; failure to promptly complain; medical conditions in the complaintant point to mental illness, etc.
"If a conviction can be obtained based on the testimony of a rape complaintant alone, then why isn't every accused convicted, especially when there is no other evidence or exculpatory evidence exists . . . ."
If there is nothing but "he said/she said," prosecutors don't want those cases because it's almost impossible to get a conviction. The standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is stiff -- and it basically means that you there's no reasonable possibility he's innocent.
If it's just her word against his and there is additional evidence to exonerate him, no sane or honest D.A. will touch that case.
"If there is nothing but "he said/she said," prosecutors don't want those cases because it's almost impossible to get a conviction."
But don't we see that, quite regularly?
I know Snark!
It seems like that is the ONLY type of cases we see.
The principal problem isn't convictions -- it's the arrest and jailing innocent males for months until trial or recantation. Some innocent men are actually convicted, but it's usually because some other unlucky thing happened that makes them look guilty. And, of course, lots of times, they confess to crimes they shouldn't confess to.
"If it's just her word against his and there is additional evidence to exonerate him, no sane or honest D.A. will touch that case."
Then there must be quite a few insane or dishonest prosecutors.
"The principal problem isn't convictions"
Perhaps, but let's not minimize that problem.
Regardless, I agree that the arrest and jailing innocent men is a problem. I tried bringing up this in another thread, and I think some people might be a bit squeamish or feel their comments might be taken out of context, which is understandable.
However, what evidence of a crime should be required is a valid issue. Rape is one of the few crimes where a prosecution can continue with no other evidence than the alleged victim's word. No one is ever prosecuted for murder without a dead person, or for larceny without property missing.
Please note that this is a separate issue from whether or not the police should investigate a rape accusation. Imho, they should investigate because they might find other evidence, but mere accusation should not lead to arrest, or the accused being named in press, etc. without other evidence.
Also, I'm not Feb 3, 2010 8:08:00 AM, in case you were wondering.
"Rape is one of the few crimes where a prosecution can continue with no other evidence than the alleged victim's word."
Very tough thing -- because the bodily invastion of one human by another typically occurs where there are no other witnesses.
"No one is ever prosecuted for murder without a dead person, or for larceny without property missing."
No need to have a body for a murder charge. And other crimes are also prosecuted on the basis of a witness' say-so. Bribery; attempted solicitation of a prostitute; threats of every kind. My point is that of all the rape claims, the ones for which there is NO other evidence are rarely prosecuted. Now, with that said, understand that if the guy gives the police a false name, or tries to destroy evidence, or otherwise gives indication he's hiding something -- they seem happy to prosecute those. They also seem more willing to prosecute cases involving older male, much younger woman, because consent is more difficult for them to fathom in that instance. But when you've got two 19 year olds with conflicting date rape stories and NO other evidence, they might give the guy a hard time but they don't like bringing those to trial. You know why? They almost always lose. And prosecutors want to win.
If there is nothing but "he said/she said," prosecutors don't want those cases because it's almost impossible to get a conviction."
Not really. All the prosecutor has to do is land the defendent in jail and then sit on it. A year later he's still in jail and has been softened up, and then the prosecutor can coerce a plea out of him. Remember that in America very few cases even go to trial: it's all about robbing the defendent blind until he literally can't afford to go to trial and then making him an offer he can't refuse. That's why these bogus he said/she said cases are prosecuted all the time. And they love these cases, because the bar is so much lower; the defendent is expected to prove his innocence, and of course he rarely can, unless someone taped the orgy.
"Not really."
I've given you my, frankly, well-informed opinion, but you seem to have all the answers so I'll just leave it at that.
"I've given you my, frankly, well-informed opinion, but you seem to have all the answers so I'll just leave it at that."
I'm not Feb 4, 2010 7:31:00 PM. However, weren't the cases of Duke Lacrosse, Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, Tawana Brawley, Hofstra, David Copperfield, etc., based on nothing other than the accuser's word?
"Very tough thing -- because the bodily invastion of one human by another typically occurs where there are no other witnesses."
Then maybe we need to accept that rape can occur without being prosecutable, because the cost of not accepting that is ruining the lives of the innocent.
"No need to have a body for a murder charge."
Notice I didn't say "body", but you can't have a murder charge without death. Yet, there are plenty of rape cases, such as Duke, where there wasn't any sex, much less rape.
"Notice I didn't say 'body', but you can't have a murder charge without death."
Sure you can.
And Duke, Hofstra, Bryant, Brawley, and Copperfield didn't reach trial. They all went away, one way or the other, as most of these do. It would have been interesting to see how long a judge would have allowed Duke to go -- I can't imagine they would have been convicted (but you can't count on that). Tyson went to trial -- and he was an awful witness. But note there was other evidence: his limo driver confirmed that the accuser didn't look like someone who had just had consensual sex. The vast majority of he said/she said rape trials don't reach trial -- as I said, because prosecutors don't take cases they think there's a real good chance of losing. And with no other evidence, they'd rather spend time on something else.
Convictions are rarer than some of our zealots would like to think. But wrongful arrests and incaceration until it plays out are not rare.
"Sure you can."
I don't see how, but I'm not a lawyer.
"his limo driver confirmed that the accuser didn't look like someone who had just had consensual sex."
I'm not even sure what that means. Regardless, Desiree Washington had made a previous FRA in Rhode Island, and her own story didn't make much sense -- that Tyson performed oral sex on her, she went into the bathroom to put in her diaphragm, then he raped her.
Although I agree that Tyson's personality and media image worked against him, none of those things are evidence of rape.
"I'm not even sure what that means."
Yes, that is a shame.
"Then maybe we need to accept that rape can occur without being prosecutable, because the cost of not accepting that is ruining the lives of the innocent."
It's amazing that I even bother to respond to some of these things. Some of you have allowed your anger over this issue to zap your brain cells. Let's just cut to the chase: that's barbaric, and so are you, if you believe that.
Are you married? You advocate a law that would allow a gang of sadistic young men to come into your house while you're away on business and just rape the shit out of your wife and your six-year-old daughter. Your son, too. Just, you know, turn all of them into their personal playground for a couple of hours -- maybe take turns with them, make them bleed, and laugh at them when they cry.
What a nice man you are. What a kind man. What a good, moral man -- an example of masculinity.
And, hey, maybe you can explain to your wife and children at the hospital -- between their sobbing -- that the men who did this are just acting within their rights -- rights that YOU support.
How about your mother? Some guy can just legally rape the shit out of her, too. Steal her dignity, and maybe -- if he's lucky -- give her a heart attack just for laughs.
Or how about YOU, buddy?
Now if a gang of young men did that to my family, I'd want the police to spare no expense in finding evidence to convict them. But that's just me.
I'm finished commenting here.
Post a Comment