Chalk another one up to trying to get attention. I do think, in this case, there are some mental issues. But that will be up to the psychiatrists.
Leslie Stricklan lied about fire and rape.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Investigators said a Louisville woman set her house on fire while her son and husband were inside.
Authorities also said Leslie Stricklan claimed she was raped and assaulted days earlier.
Major Henry Ott, who heads the Metro Arson Squad, said his investigation uncovered what may have been the bizarre motive behind the alleged crimes that lead to this housewife's arrest this week.
"She claimed she had been raped by an unknown assailant," Ott said. "She provided a physical description to LMPD and they were conducting an investigation.
"A day later, Stricklan filed another report.
"She was getting out the bathroom, out of her shower and someone assaulted her, hit a vase over her head and then ran," Ott said.
Then on Friday, Dec. 18, Ott was called to Stricklan's home after a fire started inside a bathroom.Matches found at the scene led him to believe the fire was no accident.
A phone call from Stricklan's attorney confirmed his hunch, and shed light on the rape and assault claims.
"She presented herself with her attorney and admitted that she had set the fire and that the rape allegation was false, and the assault accusation was false," Ott said.
When Stricklan failed to turn herself in, a warrant was issued for her arrest. It said Stricklan admitted setting fire to her home while her son was in the basement asleep, and her husband was in another room.
"He was under the same assumption that his wife had been raped, she had been assaulted, and now someone had come set her house on fire," Ott said.
The arrest warrant also said Stricklan was "upset at the attention her husband was paying to her when she set the house on fire."
"It was to get attention from her husband is what she explained to us," Ott said.
If convicted on the arson charge, Stricklan faces a punishment of 20 to life.
Meanwhile, a detective with the sex crimes unit says two warrants have been issued for Stricklan's arrest for charges of filing two false reports.
She's in jail on a $10,000 bond for the arson charge.
Link:
http://www.wlky.com/news/22593246/detail.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Isn't that a James Taylor song? No wait... that's Fire and RAIN. Nevermind....
about the previous post, here is another example about how dangerous feminists can be for police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0g8stk9Cg&feature=player_embedded
20 to life! I am so happy.
Slightly OT
One of the biggest problems we face is statistics, or rather the fact that (and here is a statistic for you) 99.9% of those throwing them out lack even a fundamental understanding of them...
p=0.05 means there is a 5% chance of some other random user replicating your result, for example, if you live in Boise and the chance of rain in 0.05, then it is true to say that for another random user in Boise, there is an 0.05 chance of rain.
This doesn't mean that your answer is 95% (100 - 5) right, that is 95% right that there is no chance of rain, it just means that from the given factors, eg pressure, humidity, temperature, wind, dew point, some other user has the same 5% probability as you.
We have all seen the phenomenon where it rains at one end of a street or side of a house, and it is dry the other.
The second biggest problem is grabbing a few data points, and then simply assuming that they will all fit somewhere one some sort of distribution curve, whereas this is literally putting the cart before the horse, ***IF*** there is any sort of curve, you infer its nature FROM THE DATA, not vice versa.
The third biggest problem is that almost nobody is an engineer any more.
When an engineer collects a bunch of data points and starts to plot them, the first thing he establishes is something called the signal to noise ratio, if most of your data points are down in the noise, you simply can't use them, because you have no way to determine if they are signal or random noise.
This is all important, vitally important, because (apart perhaps from the government) nobody uses statistics so much as the social sciences.
Let's say that there is a 1 in 10 chance of you being raped next year.
That is the product of statistics, except, it isn't.
First you have to get the population.
Then you have to get the number of rapes, which as we all know is extremely difficult, due to false accusations, lack of publication of data, and wildly varying definitions of what rape is.
Then you have to plot this data, and long before you start assuming parametric distribution and start making predictions such as "1 in 10" you have to deal with the signal to noise problem, establish the threshold.
Then, with what is LEFT, you can see if the data fits any sort of parametric distribution curve or not.
IF it does, and there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why it should, then, and only then, can you assign a probability of being raped.
p=0.05 for 5% for example, which, to go back to the beginning, means...
5% probability for any random user.
does not mean 95% certainty that this 5% probability answer is correct... it is like a weather forecast, YOU CANNOT KNOW, BY DEFINITION, HOW TRUSTWORTHY YOUR STATISTICAL ANSWER IS.
Car insurance companies understand statistics, as does the guvvmint department of transport.
Statistically speaking, a young woman is most likely to be killed by a young man, and the method will be a motor vehicle in which they are both travelling and which he is supposed to be driving.
cont..
...cont
but this statistic, even if factually correct, does not have the signal to noise correction applied, eg correlate all young men killed in vehicle accidents, and establish that as the baseline.
Suddenly the number of young women killed is not so rampant and awful, suddenly you start to accept that new drivers are crap drivers, new drivers are distracted a lot, oh, and then we have to figure the S/N ratio for how many of those accidents were at least in part caused by the woman distracting the man.
The same actual number of young women died in motor accidents, but now instead of portraying the young male driver as a murderer waiting to happen, you start to compare like for like.
How many young woman died of drug overdoses compared to died in cars driven by young men?
There is a classic example in the news now.
A light aircraft crash landed on a beach, and killed a lone jogger.
Now, statistically speaking, since not many people job on the beach as a proportion of the whole population, you can truthfully say that (like the risk of being raped on campus) the risk of being killed while jogging on a beach by having a plane crash on to you is statistically significant.
Being struck by lighting? Anyone?
Yet, these are exactly the sort of odds and circumstances that are being quoted as "1 in 4" in rape speak.
Nota Bene, statistics DO NOT allow you to state motive, you can NOT say the pilot was intent on murder, you can NOT say God directed the lighting, you can NOT say the young make driver was culpable, you can NOT say the rape was rape, you can NOT say these things from the statistics, because they do not deal with motivation.
Motivation IS that signal to noise.
Some random dude stabbed to death in a subway, that's a statistic, was he stabbed by a mugger? or was he a mugger who was stabbed in self defence? that is a motivation, and it doesn't affect the statistic.
but, it is still used to frighten you away from walking through the subway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
She will get probation at BEST.
There is a reason why 93%+ of all people in prison are male...they let women off with everything including murder.
I remember the story of the girl from the music group TLC.
She intentionally set fire to her boyfriends house and burned a million dollar house to the ground and some expensive cars.
So she committed arson and did over 1 million in damage.
And you guessed it she did not even serve one day in jail.
No big surprise to anyone living in the U.S. though.
"She presented herself with her attorney and admitted that she had set the fire and that the rape allegation was false, and the assault accusation was false"
"Stricklan admitted setting fire to her home while her son was in the basement asleep, and her husband was in another room."
"It was to get attention from her husband is what she explained to us," Ott said.
At first blush, I was inclined to remark that this was one women who seemed just plain crazy - a seriously over-blown case of attention-whore syndrome.
But, then it occurred to me that she isn't really all that much different from Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, who was seeking reprieve and sympathy from her friends. Of course, an innocent man was sent to prison in that case.
Here, not only could another innocent man have ultimately been sent to prison, but she could easily have killed either her son, her husband, or both. Just how much sympathy and attention does one women need? And, aren't there something like 10,253 other ways to get attention with out risking lives?
On the other hand, to play the Devils advocate (but certainly not to excuse her behavior), if she claims to have been raped, then assaulted, and her husband is truly still not paying any attention to her, then IMHO, that marriage has been over and dead for some time.
Nothing tempers "hysteria" better than the truth. When our law enforcement get involved in "manufacturing truth", that is not only a perversion..but is un-constitutional.
It would be wise of the gender feminist community to address this issue of girls making false rape accusations themselves, for, if it needs to be addressed by those outside the loop of gender feminist beurocracies..then those gender feminist dominated beurocracies will face.
"Just how much sympathy and attention does one women need?"
It's what happens when you have no self-esteem.
she lied about fire and rape.
luckily, one of those lies is punishable.
@AfOR regarding slightly OT
Brilliant! So few people understand statistics (or want to understand it)
Of course, that IS exactly our problem isn't it?
We encounter phenomenon like Information Cascades that "occur when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made, independently of their own private information signals. Because it is usually sensible to do what other people are doing, the phenomenon is assumed to be the result of rational choice. Nevertheless, information cascades can sometimes lead to arbitrary or even erroneous decisions. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informational_cascade
People make assumptions when numbers are thrown around because they don't understand the science behind them. Information cascades have legal implications, as Wikipedia states:
"Legal aspects
The negative effects of informational cascades sometimes become a legal concern and laws have been enacted to neutralize them. Ward Farnsworth, a law professor, analyzed the legal aspects of informational cascades and gave several examples in his book The Legal Analyst: in many military courts, the officers voting to decide a case vote in reverse rank order (the officer of the lowest rank votes first), and he suggested it may be done so the lower-ranked officers would not be tempted by the cascade to vote with the more senior officers, who are believed to have more accurate judgement; another example is that countries such as Israel and France have laws that prohibit polling days or weeks before elections to prevent the effect of informational cascade that may influence the election results."
The other problem is the tendency to conform to group (or institutional) needs and the resulting subversion of rational decision making based on scientific principles. Social epistemologists look at this phenomenon in some detail and cite the legal and forensic institutions in their discussions. You may find this site particularly interesting: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
Anonymous - "When our law enforcement get involved in "manufacturing truth", that is not only a perversion..but is un-constitutional."
This is entirely inappropriate to post in the discussion of this story.
I can find nothing that suggests the Police "manufactured" anything here - just did the appropriate investigation, found the tell-tale clues, go the truth out of her, and arrested and charged her.
What, exactly, do you find amiss here?
"At first blush, I was inclined to remark that this was one women who seemed just plain crazy - a seriously over-blown case of attention-whore syndrome.
But, then it occurred to me that she isn't really all that much different from Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, who was seeking reprieve and sympathy from her friends."
While there isn't enough information here regarding those two individuals, you might want to google Histrionic Personality Disorder.
"At first blush, I was inclined to remark that this was one women who seemed just plain crazy - a seriously over-blown case of attention-whore syndrome.
But, then it occurred to me that she isn't really all that much different from Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, who was seeking reprieve and sympathy from her friends."
While there isn't enough information here regarding those two individuals, you might want to google Histrionic Personality Disorder.
"This is entirely inappropriate to post in the discussion of this story."
I agree, but it seems obvious that he will keep posting the same things over and over again without any regard for truth or relevance.
Anonymous - "While there isn't enough information here regarding those two individuals, you might want to google Histrionic Personality Disorder."
My point was that, at first, I was inclined to see this woman more sympathetically - perhaps suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder; but, then I thought more about the possible consequence which might have arisen from her chosen expression of what ever disorder she suffers from. That is where I see her being more like Gonzalez than different - the potential harm that can result (not necessarily the reasons behind them).
Thus, I went from being sympathetic to being much more unsympathetic.
False rape accusations are always about getting attention, and these sociopaths don't care if they have to burn men and boys alive to get it. They are inhuman monsters who must be locked up like animals.
Post a Comment