No reason why she called in the false report. But once again we see the police, after investigating, determined it to be false.
Unnamed woman files false sexual assault report
WATERLOO — Police have determined that a woman who said she was sexually assaulted while walking through Waterloo Park early Sunday morning was lying.
Waterloo Regional Police were called about a sexual assault that allegedly occurred around 1:20 a.m. Sunday as a 19-year-old Hamilton teen walked through the park.
The female teen said she had left a bar in downtown Waterloo and was attacked as she walked through the park. She said she was able to leave the area after being sexually assaulted. She reported the incident to some people who were walking in the area. Police were then called.
The female was taken to hospital and released.
Police searched the area with a canine unit but were unable to locate the alleged predator.
Detectives began investigating and determined the female had given false information. No sexual assault had occurred.
Link: http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/681427
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Changes in law enforcement protocol when dealing with rape accusations over the last 20-30 years, have fostered and enabled a false rape culture.
Federal VAWA dollars for all police jurisdictions if they manufacture and distribute "faulty and inflammatory" anti-male misinformation; is not only a perversion, but is un-constitutional.
"Federal VAWA dollars for all police jurisdictions if they manufacture and distribute "faulty and inflammatory" anti-male misinformation"
Enough already. The police are not manufacturing faulty information, and there aren't any programs under the VAWA that grant money to the police based on such "misinformation". Nor is there any mention of crime statistics in the Constitution. Repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
If you bothered to read the article first, before slapping up this inane and mendacious boilerplate response, you might have noticed that it was the police who determined her report was false.
"Police searched the area with a canine unit but were unable to locate the alleged predator."
Predator? What were they looking for? A cannibal?
"Predator? What were they looking for? A cannibal?"
No, rapists are predators. Imho, one of the many problems caused by feminism, by expanding the definition of rape and insisting that it is common male behavior, is that it has softened the idea of a what actual rapists are.
they think men are animals sheeeesh
Let's get this VAWA thing straight, because it is important and I see there is this ongoing debate among a couple of readers. I'm going to be writing something extensive about this in the near future because I think I owe it to our discourse to pin this down carefully. But for now: VAWA established discretionary grant programs for local governments and colleges that are, in very important respects, tied to reporting. There is no law that I am aware of, either statutory or regulatory, that gives "X" dollars for every rape claim. But there might as well be. Both VAWA and CAPTA tie their funding to detecting "cases" -- which encourages both zealousness and creativity in "finding" sex crimes unlike any other area of law enforcement. (No other area of the criminal law is politicized to this degree, if at all.) Funding for a multitude of programs that readers here would be shocked to know exist -- I, personally, am shocked to know they exist -- depend on such funding. This means a lot of people, employed in what one writer calls the sexual grievance industry, have a disincentive to even question the veracity of accusers, much less investigate their claims unless such investigation is geared to finding evidence to bolster their cases. These folks have a vested interest -- a financial bias -- in perpetuating the rape culture because their livelihoods depend on it.
This is not even to mention that many of the programs fostered by VAWA are imbued with radical feminist flavoring; for example, many adopt anti-male assumptions and models for domestic violence.
Let me paint an analogy: President Eisenhower, of all unlikely people, warned of the inordinate influence of the military industrial complex. Well, I've got news for you, friends: VAWA has helped a multi-billion dollar industry that foments rape hysteria and vilifies maleness. That is not hyperbole. Somebody needs to blow the lid off VAWA in a detailed but illustrative manner, because it is currently operating under the radar.
VAWA will be the tip of the iceberg.
Here in the UK there are literally thousands of women in full time paid employment working directly in what can be called the sexual grievance industry, and when I say "sexual" I mean sexual discrimination, not sexual abuse.
There are thousands more who work in the pseudo sexual domestic abuse industry (CAFCASS etc).
There are thousands more who work in the actual physical sexual abuse industry.
There are tens of thousands (HR) who are at least partly employed to bang the same drum.
There are tens of thousands of police officers and supporting forensics who work mainly in the sexual abuse grievance industry.
There are tens of thousands of lawyers who make a living exclusively from all of the above.
This is a HUGE business in financial terms, if you draw a pie chart of GDP this sexual grievance industry will not be lost in the almost invisible slice labelled "other", but it will have a clearly visible slice of the pie chart, big enough to visually compare it with other slices like "construction" and "road building and maintenance".
Eisenhower was smart, after the event, he realised what he has done, and at least had the decency to come out and admit it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the sexual grievance industry in the U.S. is not largely funded by the VAWA, or that those employed by it do not have a ""a disincentive to even question the veracity of accusers". Nor is anyone arguing that VAWA grant money to women's shelters or universities is not an incentive to report inflated numbers (as many have been caught doing exactly that).
The "ongoing debate" is specifically about the police, only about the police, and not about anyone else. As such, at bare minimum, there are two contentions that demand immediate evidence, the existence of the alleged crime and the existence of its alleged motive:
1) If local law enforcement are manufacturing faulty statistics, then one should be able to cite which exact statistics, and demonstrate that they are both faulty and manufactured by the police.
2) If local law enforcement are manufacturing faulty statistics to receive money from the VAWA, then in the very least, one should be able to point to a specific VAWA program that grants money to the police based on such statistics.
Now if this is indeed happening, it would be serious fraud that would not only interest the CJIS and DOJ, but it would also interest groups focused on VAWA reform such as RADAR and AAVR. Yet the first thing any of these people would do, is ask the most reasonable question, "what evidence do you have?" And despite the monomaniacal reposting of the same ipse dixit assertion, the answer to that question remains "none at all".
On the contrary, there is ample evidence...
Let's take your two points.
1/ LE is manufacturing statistics.
2/ LE get funding from the use of #1
You really do not have to look very hard to find evidence of #1, and this is across the board, for ALL crimes.
There is ample and regular evidence that the Police in the UK deliberately tinker with crime figures.
Point #2 is in fact not requiring of any proof whatsoever, Police forces are State funded, and individual types of crime are periodically given individual priorities and funding.
QED
In the UK the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) a private company, but funded by the public purse, has finally lost a long running battle with the Freedom of Information Act.
The ACPO are demonstrably not merely involved, but PIVOTAL, in determining how Police forces deal with the crime of rape, or rape allegations made to the Police.
The ACPO had this to say on the recent Stern review.
--------------
Ref:019/10 March 15, 2010
ACPO comment on Stern review into rape complaints
ACPO lead for rape and serious sexual offences, Chief Constable Dave Whatton, said:
“ACPO welcomes the findings of the Stern review and acknowledges the depth to which the review explored many of the relevant issues.
“As expected the review has highlighted the much publicised Reid and Worboys cases. Lessons have been learned from these cases and as the Stern report highlights, police have worked hard to change the way we deal and respond to rape.
“Rape is a uniquely difficult crime to investigate. Every inspection and review in recent years has agreed that in the UK we have great examples of best practice and some of the best training in the world available to investigators.
“ACPO and the CPS last year completed complex guidance on the investigation of rape to ensure a more consistent approach in the investigation of and support given to rape victims.
“There is no doubt that the key to sustainable improvements in the investigation and prosecution of rape is for all relevant agencies including ACPO, the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, the voluntary sector and the Department of Health to work together.
“The public can be assured that while there is more to do, police are committed to improving and maintaining the service and ongoing support to victims of this most heinous of crimes."
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Exeter-child-sex-charge-man-cleared/article-1955681-detail/article.html
In sharp contrast to the day by day salivating over the gory and perverted alleged details of this case over the past weeks.
I agree with your comments about the police. And I do think it's helpful that you correct misinformation or overly simplistic statements made by others in the comments. When I do my extensive piece on VAWA, I'm going to focus on what's really happening rather than to take specific exception to comments because the latter approach wouldn't have wide interest to our readership. But that doesn't mean I don't approve of what you do.
In this day and age, it is not useful to focus on "police" as the be-all and end-all of law enforcement. This is not Mayberry, 1962, where a Sheriff without a gun could get at the truth, restore tranquility without arresting anyone, and wrap up the incident with a sentimental denouement before the end credits in a half hour's time. We are stranded in politicized times, where an allegation of sexual assault has wider ramifications than whether just a crime was committed, and it often involves players whose interests, biases, and goals are not allied with the police. (I agree with you, if I understand your underlying point -- the police usally act in good faith to investigate crimes and to find out if, for example, a rape actually occurred. I think the one area where police can be seen bending to gender politics is their realization that they need to be seen taking rape claims "seriously," which, in isolated cases, can have the effect of arresting too quickly -- Hofsta comes to mind -- and not closing the investigation quickly enough.) The intersts, biases, and goals of these new sexual assault players are -- from what I can tell -- tinged with misandry. Little wonder, given that their livelihoods depend on it. The new players presume and assume that the evidence reveals a sexual assault; more repugnant, some advocate and root for such result even when the evidence doesn't support it. VAWA and related legislation, regulations and practices fuel this misandry, let us be blunt.
The solution, of course, is to give these players incentive to find false claims if the evidence warrants it. Right now, they don't have incentive to be anything other than the alleged victim's advocates.
Archivist - "Let's get this VAWA thing straight, because it is important and I see there is this ongoing debate among a couple of readers. I'm going to be writing something extensive about this in the near future because I think I owe it to our discourse to pin this down carefully."
A full treatises on the link between VAWA grant money and the promotion of FRA’a is much needed and would be much appreciated.
A few things to note:
1) Money given for the training of police in sexual assaults will also result in their being better able to sniff out FRA’s. One of the primary goals of such training is how to better collect useful evidence. Many sex assault (SA) cases “die on the vine” due to a lack of admissible evidence [of course, this is often because there was NO evidence, as the report was false]. Yet, efforts at better evidence collection will, inevitably, also lead to better collection of exculpatory evidence and/or the determination that there is NO evidence of the alleged crime.
I can understand why some might worry that more money being made available to police will result in more FRA’s being followed through on. However, I, for one, tend to believe that it IS the follow-through by the police that is critical in identifying FRA’s. Even as I look at the primary complaints by those here who’ve suffered false allegations, it seems readily apparent that it is the LACK of effort on the part of the police to look closely into the cases that causes the greatest problems for the accused. As we look at more and more cases (as presented on this forum), it is also quite apparent that when police DO make the effort to do a good investigation, the FRA’s are unraveled quite quickly.
In short, I believe the fear of VAWA funding is misguided.
2) The monies awarded go primarily not to police (or prosecutors) but to “support” groups. As a quick example, I live in Colorado’s Arapahoe County, of quick search of last years VAWA grant awards shows that my county of nearly 600,000 residents got 1 single VAWA grant $53,887 - Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant to Gateway Battered Women’s Shelter to $53,887 to hire a bilingual counselor. Neighboring Adams county also received just one: $25,665 - Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant to Alternatives to Family Violence to restore a .5 FTE bilingual women's counselor to serve new counseling groups.
In that most VAWA money DOES NOT directly fund police enforcement activities, police departments ultimately have little reason to bother with trying to manufacture any statistics in order to try to get one of those relatively small awards. If sexual assaults are not happening frequently in a give community, “fudging” the numbers is rather unlikely to get the local police anything in the way of VAWA money – so, why bother?
3) Sexual assaults are but one part of what is considered VAW. Most of the supposed violence in NOT considered a sexual offense. VAW covers such a wide array of behaviors that there is simply no need to promote FRA’s, since any alleged slap of verbal threat will count the same.
Just some things I wanted to point out.
@ slwerner
Even as I look at the primary complaints by those here who’ve suffered false allegations, it seems readily apparent that it is the LACK of effort on the part of the police to look closely into the cases that causes the greatest problems for the accused.
Obviously I can only speak with any authority on my own case... but...
There was no lack of effort by the Police in my case, in fact the amount of effort expended was extraordinary, staring with SIX officers spending a whole day basically ransacking my entire house from top to bottom looking for evidence, evidence to SUPPORT the allegations.
I know of MAJOR drug busts that spent significantly less man-hours on searching a single house.
And that was of course only the start, then all the removed stuff goes off to forensics, including everything even remotely electronic.
I can tell you, with no shadow of doubt whatsoever, that the only "lack" was a lack of any interest in my side of the story, or indeed anything that could not somehow be used to prosecute me.
"exculpatory evidence" as you call it was deliberately ignored, in the UK all interrogations (they are not interviews, interviews are what you do to get a job) are taped, so at some future date I can back this up with irrefutable facts, but every time I tried to tell them about clearly exculpatory evidence it was completely, utterly, and totally ignored.
Now, you *might* be of the mindset that actually this is just a "trial by fire" and actually this is all just due diligence, etc.
You won't if you have been through it.
The police were indeed "just doing their job", but WHAT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND is that their job is not to collect evidence, it is to collect evidence to support a prosecution.
The "ordinary" police like the custody sergeant etc etc were ordinary human beings and treated you like a human being.
The specialist rape squad police quite frankly, and quite obviously, did not give a fuck one way or another about innocence or guilt, all they cared about was building a case strong enough to pass to the Prosecution Service, and then fuck you, let God or the Jury or whoever sort it out.
"Police" and "Rape Squad" are not the same thing, you need to be thinking more along the lines of "German soldier" and "Waffen SS" before you will understand.
The ordinary police KNOW you are being railroaded, I have had them admit this to me, face to face, off the record.
But, keep the head down and get your pension.
So my attitude is yeah, the camp guards at Dachau had the same excuse.
I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, but before this I would have told you that the police have a tough time doing a thankless job in what are often no-win situations.
Now I will tell you I wouldn't cross the street to piss on one if they were one fire.
They are a part of the problem.
YMMV
With regards to the police, in my own case I honestly could not complain. They behaved professionally, and treated me with decency and respect. I have to say that if anything I gained, not lost respect for the police. I realise that just because I was treated this way doesn't mean everyone is treated this way.
Forgive me for being daft, but what is VAWA?
According to my experience in college, this website should not exist at all. I was told point blank by members of the "Rape Awareness Center" on campus that a woman would never, ever, ever, ever lie about rape. Ever. Well, I guess that settles it.
Or....
Was I lied to?
AoFR - "...staring with SIX officers spending a whole day basically ransacking my entire house from top to bottom looking for evidence..."
I don't know how rules differ between the US and the UK, but here, in order to search a home, there must be a search warrant issued by the court. This requires that LE go before the court and articulate what it is that they are expecting to find, and why they expect to find it the that location. LE cannot simply engage in "fishing expeditions" looking for anything that *might* be evidence.
Here, the police cannot simply gather up any and all electronic devices in the hope that they can find something on them. They would have to explain how that device were tied to the alleged crime. Any evidence, even deeply incupatory evidence which is found, but which is outside of the scope of the warrant being executed is subject to being excluded by a judge (and failure to exclude such evidence would be considered "reversible error" by superior courts on appeal).
As a recent example, the residence in which man being investigated for an alleged sexual assault on a child was searched, but since he was a guest of a family in their home, the search was limited to the room he occupied.
In an effort to the helpful, the adult female resident/owner of the home indicated to police detectives that the suspect had used a computer located in a "common" area of the home.
A well-intentioned police detective confiscated that computer, and took it to be searched at the police labs.
On that computer, technicians found child pornography, with file creation time and date stamps consistent with times that the homeowners could cooberate the suspect had been alone in the home.
But, the warrant did not cover anything outside the suspects room, and even though the suspect did not own the computer (and thus have an expectation of privacy thereon), it was summarily excluded as evidence because the police had not followed proper procedures and obtained a subsequent warrant for that computer.
Poorly trained detectives tend to bungle the gathering of evidence, and will also be less apt to understand how to handle potentially exculpatory evidence presented to them.
While there is always so risk of police only investigating with an eye towards prosecution (and only believing the word of the accuser), that fact that so many of the cases we learn of here are only know to be FRA's due to police investigations should serve to indicate that it IS proper training (which includes that they remain objective) which will better serve the falsely accused.
Short of good training, police are likely to fall back on their chivalrous white-knighting instincts, and believe a women outright, and conduct a campaign against a man, rather than a proper investigation.
It occurs to me that the implementation of severe sanctions against police who allow themselves to act as advocates for accusers, and engage in improper conduct against those who are later cleared (by evidence) of the alleged crime; would help to safe-guard against any tendency of police to act hastily and in an impassioned manner.
I can tell you having worked in a very busy appellate court, and drafting judicial opinions on a multitude of criminal cases, the courts almost always find a way to justify admission of evidence that was obtained through borderline means; for evidence improperly obtained, courts almost always find a way to declare it harmless error.
here in the UK...
Section 50, Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Basically the KGB can do anything they like.
I should actually do an entire post on my experience working for several offices in a very busy state appellate court -- it was akin to a factory.
We reviewed and drafted opinions about hundreds of criminal cases each year, and here's what I learned: everyone in the criminal justice system comes away from it with the same opinion: they're almost all guilty. Very, very few are innocent. (Note, this certainly colors the way innocent men and boys are treated -- they are lumped in with the bad.)
Courts find almost any way to affirm the judgments entered in the trial courts, including waiver (i.e., the defense counsel failed to raise an argument at some point). You can find waiver, if you want, in perhaps most of the cases. For example: the argument wasn't raised in a particular place at trial or in the appellate brief, or it wasn't framed properly, etc. I've seen some extremely creative ways of finding waiver that I thought were very unfair. Decisions are result-oriented -- the clerks almost always knew going in they were going to affirm the trial court, so it was just a matter of HOW to do it.
If we ever did get a case where a guy was convicted of rape based solely on the accuser's testimony, and even if overwhelming other evidence refuted it -- WE HAD TO AFFIRM. On appeal, the court can't review the weight of the evidence, just the sufficiency. That is, her testimony alone is sufficient to convict, and it doesn't matter if there is a multitude of other evidence that refutes her. The verdict of the jury (or a judge in a non-jury trial) is sacrosanct, and if there is sufficent evidence, must be upheld.
As I say, it was more akin to a factory than a place where justice is meted out.
And as long as her word is considered "sufficient," even overriding real evidence, there will never be justice for men in this country. The legal system will always be a cash-and-go for rape hoaxers.
"There is ample and regular evidence that the Police in the UK deliberately tinker with crime figures."
Which would be irrelevant even if it were true, unless you are making the argument that British police receive money from the U.S. VAWA.
However, since you bought it up, it seems that they might be tinkering with the numbers, but to decrease the number of rapes, not increase the number of rapes:
"Figures obtained following a Freedom of Information request showed some UK police forces were failing to record more than 40% of [rape] cases."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8266014.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/25/rape-police-payne-victims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6652613/Rape-victims-not-believed-if-they-come-from-wrong-area-warns-report.html
I do not believe that police in the UK are corrupt; and I do not believe the feminist yellow journalism in the UK that insists men are getting away with rape because police turn a blind eye to rape claims. Don't buy it. I've studied how they treat this issue for years and it's not consistent with what I know to be true. That sort of journalism wants every rape claim to be counted as a rape, which is frighteningly absurd.
I don't live in the UK and have only been there twice, but here's what I can tell from following this issue: the police in the UK are like the police in the U.S. Are there bad cops? You bet -- just as there are bad lawyers and bankers and teachers. But the vast majority of them do their jobs well, in good faith, and without corruption. Like the cops here, they do an admirable job of weeding out most of the false rape claims before they ever get in the newspaper.
In sum, I don't think the police are the issue, aside from having been rendered a tad gun-shy about this issue by the forces of political correctness. The problem largely lies elsewhere.
One example of "manufactured statistics", is when law enforcement re-define what the meaning of is, is, in order to keep the true percentages of false rape acussations from the public.
I wanted my false rape acusser charged..but law enforcement said to me "we don't know she lied".
When the law enforcement said to me " we don't know she lied", i said are u kidding me..DID U NOT CHECK THE CAB REPORTS??
AND you see folks, they said they did not check the cab reports...because if they were to check the cab reports..it would have proved she mande a false rape acussation.
So in order to pre-empt the false rape statistic, they simply do no research that would prove her lying, so in effect are "manufacturiing missinformation" by their actions and their in-actions.
Manufacturiing and distributing faulty and inflamatory misinformation that creates a prejudice is not only a perversion...but is un-constitutional...NO MATTER HOW MANY GENDER FEMINIST PERVERTS ARE RUNNING OUR COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND!!
"I do not believe that police in the UK are corrupt; and I do not believe the feminist yellow journalism in the UK that insists men are getting away with rape because police turn a blind eye to rape claims. Don't buy it."
While I know very little about law enforcement in the UK, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that men are getting away with rape because the police are turning a blind eye to rape claims.
Regardless, how well law enforcement enforces the law and how well they record and report crime are two different things. In general, there is an incentive to under report crime, in that if the numbers of reports go down, it makes it look like they are doing a more effective job in preventing crime. On the other hand, there is also an incentive to over report crime, in that if the numbers of arrests or convictions go up, it makes it look like they are catching more criminals.
However, that does not mean the police are doing that, and in the U.S. we have a fairly good system to prevent it. So for example, mayors and governors can't easily have the police cook the books to make it look like they are doing a better job.
Post a Comment