This is frightening. Eleven and twelve years old, and they already know exactly what kind of response they will get for falsely crying rape. If this doesn't send a chill through every person reading this, I don't know what will. Why did they cry rape? To excuse being out too late. Of course, they aren't named. Shouldn't there be a responsibility on law enforcement to let others, specifically the kids (by that we mean "the boys") these girls go to school with and those kids' parents, know what kind of danger these girls pose?
Notice the elaborate descriptions of the alleged rapists. If you don't think such "white lies" by schoolgirls can come back to destroy some innocent male, you haven't been reading this site very long. We have innumerable examples of innocent men and boys being arrested on the basis of similar lies. And note the allegations about consensual sex -- who do you think is going to be penalized for that? Hint: they have a Y-chromosome.
Unnamed girls cry rape to cover being late, and consensual sex
Two Eunice girls face charges of ungovernable juvenile and criminal mischief for allegedly making false claims of being abducted and raped Dec. 21 on the campus of East Elementary School, according to Capt. Brett Faulkner of the Eunice Police Department.
The girls, ages 11 and 12, gave statements to the police that they had been walking on East Magnolia Street near North Martin Luther King Drive when they were abducted and subsequently driven to the parking lot of East Elementary, where they were raped.
The girls gave elaborately detailed descriptions of the men they said abducted them and of the alleged incident.
After reviewing the statements, investigators found several discrepancies, Faulkner said.
Both girls were interviewed and investigators determined that both had lied about the incident. They had made up the story to avoid getting into trouble with their parents for being out too late, Faulkner said.
It was also found that both girls had been involved in consensual sexual activity with other juveniles during the time they had claimed they had been abducted, according to Eunice police.
Investigators are still interviewing other juveniles who may have information on the incident.
Link: http://www.dailyworld.com/article/20091231/NEWS01/912310303/1002/Police-Rape-account-false
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Has anybody ever interviewed the parents of a girl who made a false rape accusation to find out what they thought of the whole thing, or what (if any) discipline they meted out for it?
This is all going to come back around.
People are going to realise that women and girls will cry rape for ANY reason at all if it means they can get away with anything. In the long run, even genuine rape victims will be disbelieved.
I have to admit that I feel extremely sceptical of ANY claim of rape which I hear now.
My first instinct is, "it probably didn't happen," rather than "it probably happen," which I thought once upon a time.
it probably happened *
Randian, we reported a story where a false accuser's mother actually turned her in. And then again, we have other stories where mothers are "in" on it with their daughters.
Snark, I agree with you. I think most of us were brought up to believe what the news media tells us. Examining the news coverage of false rape claims is easily the most fascinating aspect of this job. I now understand that a lone, unsubstantiated, and even far-fetched allegation is often reported as "fact," with often disastrous consequences for members of one sex only. In movies and on television, reporters are portrayed as trying to get at the truth, etc. But then we see what passes for "journalism" in the rarified world of rape allegations, and it's beyond sickening. Reporters become parrots for police, who too often are merely are stenographers taking dictation from rape accusers -- until they actually investigate the claim. It is farcical that police and news reporters are permitted to destroy the life of innocent males based on a lone allegation and before either one have done a thorough investigation. We have two stories coming up this morning where young men are fighting back.
hardly do i believe reporters at all,since i know how not being enough informed,makes you make bogus assumptions,which all reporters tend to end up there,since it's hard to find out the truth.
Anyway how did they find out it was consensual?
Did somebody say it.
Also the source link says story not found for me.Any ideas why?
Anon, the question is not the difficulty in finding out the truth. The question has more to do with not revealing sources. Reporters in "rape" cases typically state: "Police say that . . ." and report the allegation as fact. Fine. But wouldn't it be helpful to uncover why the police are passing it along as if it is true? What evidence do they have? I promise you in most of these cases the police don't automatically "believe" the rape accusation. They are, however, under a sort of politically correct pressure to not only take these claims very seriously but to ACT as though they are taking these claims very seriously.
As for the link not directing to the story: eventually most links fail because the news archives often only keep stories up for a short time. That is precisely the reason we reprint them. Otherwise, many of the older stories would be gone. For most, you can still get the story if you pay for it.
Archivist - "Reporters in "rape" cases typically state: "Police say that ..." and report the allegation as fact. Fine. But wouldn't it be helpful to uncover why the police are passing it along as if it is true? What evidence do they have? I promise you in most of these cases the police don't automatically "believe" the rape accusation."
If (and, yes, that is a big IF) the Police spokesperson has been properly trained, and is actually trying to do the job correctly, their statement will be something to the effect of: "We have an allegation that there was a sexual assault, and we are investigating..."
But, typically, a reporter will transmogrify this to: ”Police say that a woman was raped, and they’re looking for suspects…”. This may be simply a matter of the poor skills (on the part of the reporter [I hesitate to call them journalists]) in “repackaging” the information so as to make it a better read for their audience, or, it could be a matter of their own editorializing of the news.
In either case, unlike the Police, they face little consequence for their misstatements, and they are thus much freer to get “creative” with what they publish.
I also am aware that reporters will often look to “non-official” sources (leaks) trying to get more details. If they though that some one from the janitorial crew at a police station might have overheard some juicy detail, they’re happy to go with that (confidential) source.
I hate to get off on a personal tangent hear, but I have a more recent example of something of this nature. America’s Most Wanted did a piece on a local unsolved murder last year. Now, I have great respect for John Walsh, what he’s been through, and what he is seeking to accomplish; however, the staff he relies on to prepare the stories may not be as fully honorable.
In the particular story I’m referring to, it was specifically noted by the police spokesperson that the victims wife was NOT to be named (out of concern for her ongoing safety). However, when the segment aired, she was named. Her name was mispronounced – which may well indicate that either that information was obtained (by them) in print form only, or that someone who was not authorized to provide information to AMW had done so. An internal review seemed to indicate that no uniformed officer of the department revealed that information, leading to speculation that it came from someone who knew just enough to be dangerous. Police and DA’s offices scrambled out new policies on being careful about who might overhear or get a look at what should be secured information (yes, they specifically noted that even the janitorial services could be sources of leaks).
Okay, enough of my personal crap, back to the discussion at hand.
"This is frightening. Eleven and twelve years old, and they already know exactly what kind of response they will get for falsely crying rape."
And, they also already know that they face very little in the way of personal repercussions if found out. Especially as juveniles.
Truly, the R-bomb [thanks to whom ever it was that recently used that term - I'm going to adopt it] come to be viewed as a get-out-of anything card for women and girls.
Fortunately, not only the Police, but more of the public at large is coming to recognize this as well.
Snark is not alone in reversing views from tending to believe a woman to be automatically suspicious.
Just last week my wife was lamenting to me that in a case she was handling, she herself had started out from a position of high skepticism (I won't go into details, but certain aspects of the case would certainly suggest the possibility of an FRA to anyone who is at all familiar), only to have to become convinced by additional evidence/investigation that it was an actual case of rape.
I reminded her that we all too often learn lessons the hard way - by getting (nearly) burned. Of course, it gave me a great deal of smug satisfaction to proclaim that she was finally catching on.
Great stuff, slwerner.
I'd add this: reporters know that scaring people is good for ratings. What's a better tease: "A woman was raped near the playground," or "A woman claims she was raped near the playground but police have no other evidence to support that claims."
John Walsh generated a great deal of controversy during a summer press tour in 2006 when he stated to the media he jokingly told senators to implant “exploding” chips in the anuses of sex offenders:
“I said implant it in their anus and if they go outside the radius, explode it, and that would send a big message.”
Walsh stated it was a “joke,” but “nobody thought it was funny.”
John Walsh prison rape views:
“I’m all for criminals doing their time, all for rehabilitation, all for a second chance.” followed almost immediately by “I say put the pedophiles down in the yard. Put them in there. Let them do the time with the rest of the guys. Let them see what it’s like to be terrorized by a 250-pound guy.”
John Walsh also faced criticism when he advised women to never hire a male babysitter. “It’s not a witch hunt,” he says. “It’s all about minimizing risks. What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? A Doberman, not a poodle. Who’s more likely to molest a child? A male.”
Marc H. Rudov, who runs the California-based relationship and men’s rights Web site TheNoNonsenseMan.com, said such thinking is the result of hatred toward men and a distortion of statistics. “If boys can’t be baby sitters, then they shouldn’t be allowed to be fathers, either, Rudov said in a phone interview this week. “Then you shouldn’t let John Walsh near your kids either, because, by his definition, he’s dangerous.
A gun rights organization called Armed Women Of America criticized Walsh for allegedly dispensing “Anti-Gun Propaganda” and called for a boycott of advertisers.
I believe John Walsh also exploits his child’s death for profit. He collects a significant portion of all money going to the NCMEC, and the NCMEC gets a lot of funding from the Adam Walsh Act, so it doesn’t take much to connect the dots. A large portion of his time is devoted to funding this bill.
John Walsh is part of the hysteria that persons who earn a living through the electronic media think they need to thrive on. It is fine to be "tough" on crime, provided you are fair about it -- provided you don't ignore crimes that destroy the lives of innocent people. And provided you uphold the rights of the presumed innocent -- because he ain't a criminal until a judge declares it, and that should only happen after he's afforded the full panoply of due process rights.
"What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? A Doberman, not a poodle. Who’s more likely to molest a child? A male.”
Wrong on both counts.
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/9-dog-breeds-that-bite-the-most.htm
Gee! I'm getting a much different perspective on John Walsh. I haven't followed him close enough to have come across any of this before.
Thanks for the info. Looks like I might need to reconsider some things.
This stuff is big money!
Pedophile stories have been a media gold mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wacky_Molestation_Adventure
--BB
John Walsh will say and do anything that benefits John Walsh.
http://fathermag.com/006/missing-children/abduction_2.shtml
John Walsh's wife was into a 4 year affair with his business partner Jim Campbell when Adam went missing.
The three of them are cleared by polygraph.
With much fanfare, 20 years later Ottis Toole is officially announced the culprit - not that any new evidence surfaced, but the Adam Walsh Act needed to be passed, in closed session, with few in attendance.
John Walsh is a 'cured' sex addict, but proclaims other sexual deviants can never be cured.
Mark Foley, his partner in the AWA resigns in disgrace after his own sexual proclivities for chicken hawking young pages is uncovered.
I don't think anyone less deserving has pulled of more admiration since J. Edgar Hoover.
"R-bomb" Exactly!
False Rape Allegations are the social nuclear weapons of our time.
Post a Comment