Comment: Before you read the story below, which is utterly sickening, consider this: The mental health and well-being of rape accusers are given much attention. But nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is done for the mental health and well-being of the man or boy accused of rape, even if he was falsely accused. From the moment he is accused until the charges are dropped, he experiences the very worst time of his life, a time of unimaginable anxiety where he fears spending possibly decades in prison where he might have done to him the very thing he did not do. His life has been destroyed -- he will lose his job, his friends, his house, and probably his wife or girlfriend. In short, he'll lose pretty much everything that matters to him. So how do we help that presumptively innocent man or boy, who could very well have been falsely accused, at that crucial time? Why, we treat him like a criminal, of course. We presume his guilt and often lock him away with bail set so high that he won't get out. In jail, he likely will be roughed up and treated to the atrocities of jailhouse "justice" -- the kind of "justice" people with no experience in the criminal justice system laugh about, becausem, hey, it's just a man or boy being raped or beaten.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
No charges following officer's suicide
An exhaustive investigation into a reported January 10, 2009 sexual assault of a woman by a Dalton police officer has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Officer Paul Sparks committed suicide during the course of the investigation.
The District Attorney’s Office also concluded that while it is clear that the complainant made false statements to investigators, there’s insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against the un-named woman.
“This is a serious case that has permanently altered the lives of everyone involved,” Dalton Police Chief Jason Parker said upon completion of the investigation. “I want citizens to know that we take these kinds of allegations seriously, and will exhaust every resource to get to the truth; the public’s trust is not something we take for granted—we know that it is earned. But I also want our officers to know that we have and will always wait until all the facts are in before making conclusions."
These are the details of the case, as provided in a Dalton Police Dept. news release:
At approximately 1:30 AM on January 10, officers from the Dalton Police Department responded to a report of a fight between two females at the Oyster Pub Bar at 2206 Chattanooga Road. One of the females was gone when officers arrived at the scene, but she was later contacted by Officer Paul Sparks when she returned to the bar to pay her bar tab. According to the investigation, Sparks asked for the complainant’s identification which she’d left back in Room 128 at the Guest Inn. Sparks apparently followed her to her room to get the ID, continuing to ask questions about the fight.
At approximately 3:00 AM, two of the complainant’s friends met her at the Guest Inn and reportedly found her crying and upset. After speaking to her, one of these men called 911 at approximately 3:22 AM to report a sexual assault by a Dalton Police Officer. The supervising sergeant on duty was dispatched and responded to the scene at approximately 3:30 AM and began an investigation. The complainant’s friends told the sergeant that the complainant was raped by a Dalton Police Officer, but the complainant only confirmed that they’d had intercourse. Detectives were called to the scene at approximately 3:55 AM. At approximately 4:00 AM, the shift supervisor contacted Officer Sparks and told him to report to the Police Services Center at 301 Jones Street and wait there with another officer. Officer Sparks arrived at 4:14 AM. At approximately 4:25, the complainant left the scene with a female deputy from the Whitfield County Sheriff’s Office, who was the only available female on-duty law enforcement officer, and taken to Hamilton Medical Center to be examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE).
While members of the department’s command staff discussed the case and how to proceed in the Criminal Investigation Division wing of the Police Services Center, Officer Sparks excused himself into the bathroom in the Patrol Division wing sometime around 5:30 AM. At approximately 5:40 AM, Officer Sparks used his department-issued Sig 40-caliber hand gun to shoot himself once in the head in a shower stall in the Patrol Division bathroom, killing himself. He was later pronounced dead at Hamilton Medical Center. Investigators did not have an opportunity to speak to Officer Sparks about the case, and he had not been provided any details of the allegations.
At this point, assistance was requested from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, with the Dalton Police Department cooperating in support of the investigation.
Before being examined at Hamilton Medical Center by a SANE nurse, the complainant was interviewed by the nurse. She told the nurse that she had a sexual encounter with Officer Sparks, and that the encounter was completely consensual. During the same pre-exam interview, she said the officer indicated to her that he could take her to jail for her involvement in the fight. In an interview later that morning with agents of the GBI and DPD, the complainant repeated that the encounter was consensual but told investigators that the officer said he could take her to jail and that the other woman in the fight could press charges. She said that the encounter was consensual, stating that at no point did Officer Sparks threaten, command, or force her to have sex and that the officer did not instruct her not to talk about what happened. As part of this examination, the SANE nurse completed a sexual assault kit that was sent to the GBI Crime Lab for analysis.
During the course of several interviews with investigators from the DPD and the GBI, the complainant’s story changed several times, at one point telling investigators that only oral sex was involved, but in these interviews she never changed the fact that the encounter was consensual.
An examination of the sexual assault kit at the GBI Crime Lab indicated the presence of male DNA, but the amount was insufficient to identify whose DNA it was. The crime lab chemist indicated that this could be due to the sample being “old” from a previous sexual encounter, or that the male donor had had a vasectomy at some point, which Officer Sparks had had 22 years ago. Other tests at the GBI Crime Lab, including DNA and hair samples from both the officer and the complainant failed to produce any evidence that a sexual encounter had occurred. The District Attorney’s Office concluded that physical evidence in the case does not prove a sexual encounter happened, but that it also does not preclude a sexual encounter.
The District Attorney’s Office concluded that there is no evidence that Officer Sparks committed a rape, a violation of OCGA 16-6-1 which defines Rape as “carnal knowledge of: (1) a female forcibly and against her will”. While the DA’s Office states that while there may have been an inducement, even by Sparks’ authority as a law enforcement officer, that inducement would be insufficient to be “against her will”.
The District Attorney’s Office also concluded that there is insufficient evidence that Sparks’ actions would have been a violation of OCGA 16-6-5.1: “Sexual Assault Against Persons In Custody”. Section (c)(1) states:
“A person commits sexual assault when such person has supervisory or disciplinary authority over another person and such other person engages in sexual contact with that other person who is: (A) in custody of the law…”.
While the complainant was not under arrest at any point, the District Attorney concludes that it could be argued she was “in custody of the law”, and therefore any encounter could violate this statute. However, the District Attorney’s Office found that a lack of credibility of the complainant and the crime lab results make it impossible to prove that any encounter actually happened.
The District Attorney’s Office also found insufficient evidence to charge the complainant with violation of OCGA 16-10-20, which makes it a crime to make a false statement to police. While the DA found that it was clear false statements were made, based on the contradictory statements made to investigators, it is impossible to prove which statements are true, if any, and which are false.
The investigation into this incident by both the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Dalton Police Department is closed.
Link: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/officer-990006-investigation-exhaustive.html
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Cop kills self after being accused of rape for which police say there was no evidence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Dalton Police Chief Jason Parker is an asswipe of the first degree.
How can there POSSIBLY be insufficient evidence the FRA lied????
There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that she lied, unfortunately, the dead cop was not permitted the same level of credibility as the FRA, and the rest as they say is history.
This story actually highlights my earlier point in another thread, in which I state that the relationship between Police in general and Rape Squad is the same as between German soldiers and the Waffen SS.
As we see here, these Rape Squad cops don't care whose live they destroy, cops, teachers, citizens, we're all "fair game" in Scientology speak.
The PD in question and Dalton Police Chief Jason Parker in particular should be up on charges of corporate manslaughter, say 250 million buck lawsuit, paid out of the cop pension funds.
Those cops who stand by and shrug their shoulders waiting for their pension are as guilty as the Waffen SS Rape Squad.
Rape Squad is essentially the tail wagging the dog.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7543024/Teenage-girl-sold-7-year-old-stepsister-for-sex.html
and much more on-topic
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/04/01/mum-tells-of-ordeal-after-son-was-falsely-accused-of-rape-86908-22153986/
short excerpt
"THE mother of an innocent young man who spent a year in jail after being falsely accused of rape fears her family will never get over the ordeal.
Lindsay Duncan feared for son Jason's life as he was terrorised by thugs in Barlinnie jail.
Her only child was beaten, spat at and attacked with razor blades and boiling water. And Lindsay had to quit her job as a recruitment officer so she could visit him every day - to check he was still alive."
the FRA victim himself
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2010/03/30/i-will-never-recover-victim-of-false-rape-claim-reveals-year-of-hell-behind-bars-with-sex-beasts-86908-22148179/
I have written to the reporter in question, Janice Burns, to applaud the Daily Record and to thank her for highlighting this problem, not her 30th March article asks other falsely accused to get in touch.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/contact-us/
I sent her a link to this website.
"She told the nurse that she had a sexual encounter with Officer Sparks, and that the encounter was completely consensual."
If Officer Paul Sparks did have sex with the women, it would serve to explain why he would kill himself over the her claim of rape.
If he had had sex with her, he might have concluded that his DNA would be found, and since having sex with members of the public they contact in the course of duty is strictly prohibited, the forensic indication that he did,in fact, have sex with her, would serve to bolster her contention of rape.
He might have conclude that it was a foregone conclusion that he would be found guilty; or, perhaps, he realized that he was facing the end of his career for having had sex on duty.
Either way it's a sad story.
Of course, we should not discount the possibility that no sex occurred (although, it does raise the question of his motive for suicide). Then, it makes a strong case for officers not only relying on the dash-cams, but also wearing and utilizing personal recoding devices at all times when contacting the public.
I can only imagine that the falsely accused cop knew very well how he would be treated behind bars. If I was in his position, I would choose suicide, too. But! If I am going to die by my own acts, then I want my life to count for something. So, before I ended my life, I would make a video note to highlight the injustice, say goodbye to my friends and family, claim my rightful innocence, and put in a big advertisement in for False Rape Society. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
If he had sex with her, the WORST that could happen is dismissal, not a reason to eat a bullet.
The ONLY reason to eat a bullet is because you've been accused of a sex crime that you did not commit, and can nevertheless still see yourself being railroaded for it.
Slwerner, think about what you are saying, THIS IS A COP who believed he could be railroaded for a crime he did not commit.
A COP THINKS THAT, and thinks it seriously enough to eat a bullet.
Who knows more about how police investigations work than a COP?
Unfortunately men just don't know the facts about rape or even the deceitful way women use the term itself: http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=488
AfOR - "If he had sex with her, the WORST that could happen is dismissal, not a reason to eat a bullet."
Yet, it's hardly uncommon for a cop to (as they say) "eat his piece" [referring to the approach of sticking their gun barrel into their mouths so as to shoot through the brain stem] when caught-out in some other corruption (bribes, drug kick-backs, etc.)
Even if it were not believed to be rape (her word that it was consensual), he was a person in what is considers a "position of trust", and thus, having sex with her would have been seen as a serious infraction. He would likely have lost not only his job, but his pension as well. The loss of which has cause many cops to opt for suicide.
And yes, I do see that he was a cop who might have seen himself being railroaded (the part about it being a "foregone conclusion"). But, I see that being more coupled to his having had sex with her than to any belief that his fellow officers would fabricate any evidence against him.
@ slwerner.
Take it from someone who knows...
You do not have to fabricate ANY evidence to railroad someone, simply ignore all exculpatory evidence, and treat the accusers statement as fact, and then proceed on the basis that since the accusation has been made, there is no smoke without fire.
differences between this and burning witches in the middle ages?
none.
AfOR - "You do not have to fabricate ANY evidence to railroad someone, simply ignore all exculpatory evidence, and treat the accusers statement as fact, and then proceed on the basis that since the accusation has been made, there is no smoke without fire."
However, we have seen numerous instance on this site of women, disgruntled by police doing their jobs (i.e. arresting those women) who retaliate with an FRA. Cops don't fear their fellow officers are going to take the word of an woman, angry because of police interaction, over his own.
In this case, it seems quite likely that the cops own misdoings (although, not rape) were what were concerning him.
I read this whole thing, and I don't know; to be honest, it seems very suspicious that the cop had sex with her while investigating a complaint. Rape or not, that's a serious breach of ethics. Besides, the woman in question never claimed to have been raped; her friends made that allegation.
His suicide doesn't cause me to automatically sympathize with him. Plenty of men who post on this blog have been through far worse allegations -- allegations with no foundation. Apparently this cop did use his badge as a pathway to sex, if nothing else.
AfOR,
I'd hate to leave this thread dying as little more than a squabble between you and I.
So, let me just go ahead and lat out my speculation on what happened in this case, and then explain how it can serve to teach men about avoiding FRA's.
What I see as having happened is that you had a woman who had been in a fight, had left without paying her tab (contacted by the officer when she returned). She faced the possibility of being arrested, and had to be accompanied back to her room so as to get the officer her identification (necessary if he were to file a written report or make an arrest).
As so often happens, a woman sensing she was "in trouble" turned to a tactic as old as the human species - bargaining sex for some other consideration (like the officer letting her off with a warning).
It's my guess that it was she who suggested the quid pro quo, and that the officer made a poor decision in a moment of weakness, and agreed to take her up on her offer (yada, yada).
Now, as we already know, women have been shown to have much greater regret about casual sex (one night stands, for instance) than do men. The office probably thought that the whole "affair" was done, and that they'd both left happy.
But, a woman who has bargained away sex is even that much more likely to have regrets over such a consensual encounter - feeling like a whore (for her own choice).
And, as we also know all too well, regret can easily give rise to an FRA. My guess is that this is exactly what happened: she was left regretting what she had chosen to do to avoid possible legal entanglement, her friends came by, and found her upset, and in her own Danmell Ndonye moment, she asserted her regrettable consensual act was, in fact, rape.
Unfortunately, since she didn't leave the encounter "happy", as is so often the case, her rape allegation set-off a series of even worse events - in this case, leading to the exposure of the officers own inappropriate behavior, his likely firing, and subsequently, his suicide, and his life cut needlessly short. Like so many other FRA's, launched by a careless, ill-thought comment, the consequences for the man involved far, far, far outweighed any imagined suffering on the part of the women involved [her non-rape being not so "acute" a problem, in reality].
What I see here as the best possible lesson we might take from this sad tale is, that if a woman might well has something to gain via sex (even her own offer of consensual sex), she is likely to feel cheapened, "used", and a considerable amount of regret - and that is likely to lead to an FRA.
To cut to the chase, if a woman suggests sex as a part of a quid pro quo, consider it a big, red, FRA-possibility flag.
[Okay, I'm done with the soapbox. Who wants to climb on and speak next?]
@ slwerner
didn't realise we were squabbling... lol
one thing though.
You talk about avoiding FRA victim status.
1/ You can't, there is no defence against a liar.
2/ why the fuck should I live in a monastery to enable liars to live free in society?
time to start a campaign, how about "Take back the day!" ... grrr
One more male suicide. How many other men falsely accused of rape commit suicide each year?
It is a perversion of our law enforcement community that has enabled the "false rape culture" that we now live in.
Gender feminism and law enforcement now have an "ALLIANCE"!!, and this Alliance is a perversion.
Rape hysteria is not about "protecting women" it is about power and control!!
Off-topic:
News article that states that VAWA creates false rape allegations:
http://www.examiner.com/x-33820-Long-Island-Libertarian-Examiner~y2010m3d14-VAWA-creates-false-rape-allegations?#comments
Anonymous - ”News article that states that VAWA creates false rape allegations:”
Turns out to be an over-sell. Not only is it not actually news (of, say, a study of the issue, for instance), in his opinion piece, Michael Schmitt, while accurate in most of what he states, never really presents that ultimate, irrefutable argument to demonstrate the causal link between the VAWA and FRA’s. Please understand, I do believe that the VAWA definitely influences the issue, and most likely leads to an increased number of FRA’s
However, Schmitt is “Preaching to the Choir”. Those of us who follow the issue already know how the provisions of the VAWA can lead to the situation in which FRA’s are easier to make, and potentially more damaging.
From Michael Schmitt’s link article:
”Under the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) the constitutional rights of men are destroyed. The presumption of innocence, a fundamental piece of American law, is disregarded. In the name of political correctness, thousands of innocent men are incarcerated indefinitely.”
This is absolutely, fundamentally true. Still it fails to explain the way in which an increased number of FRA’s will be produced. Bear in mind that the VAWA applies only in the United States, yet FRA’s come from all over the globe. What ultimately allows for FRA’s to be taken seriously* is the very serious nature of true violent rapes, and the very serious manner in which they affect people psyches. If people, men in particular, didn’t abhor rape, those who perpetrate rapes, and the serious consequences for those who are raped (and those close to them), FRA’s would do far less harm.
And, further more FRA’s are created by those who chose to make them. Yes, I know I’m getting into the semantics here, but there is a definite distinction between laws encouraging FRA’s and actually creating them (one would have to imagine a law that required women to make them up in order to for that to happen).
• Some here like to claim that there is an “Alliance” formed between radical gender-feminists and law enforcement for the nefarious purpose of inciting women to make FRA’s, manipulating statistics to show that only 2% are false, and ignoring exculpatory evidence while fabricating supporting evidence, so as to rail-road innocent men.
But, let’s be realistic here. No one can reasonably stop a woman from making a false claim – no more than they could stop me from going to the police and claiming that a piece of the sky fell and hit me on the head. The issue is how claims are treated. The VAWA certainly has a role in undermining good decision making by creating an artificial “slant” towards the accusers side, but with experience, and good training (which can also come from the VAWA, BTW), even this slant can be overcome and a proper investigation carried out.
The VAWA is but one obstacle to overcome in the fight to make FRA’s as rare as the feminists claim them to be. The VAWA however, is not some organization conspiring via the use of a secret mind-control device, to cause women to make FRA’s. Women generally need little more than their own selfishness to do that. Always remember, the ultimate blame for FRA’s falls squarely on those who chose to make them, laws don’t force them to do so. Nor can laws force LE to believe each and every report made, and prevent them from investigating. Lack of training, laziness, and corruption at the level of individual investigators are what will determine if a FRA is handled properly or not. Local cops don’t call into some VAWA call center for instruction on how to handle a case. Just as the choice to make and FRA happens at the level of individuals, so does the choice of haw to proceed when one is made.
Slwerner, good stuff.
You're on a roll tonight.
slwerner, the voice of reason.
One amendment: sl said: "No one can reasonably stop a woman from making a false claim – no more than they could stop me from going to the police and claiming that a piece of the sky fell and hit me on the head."
Remember, we think we can reduce the likelihood of false claims by enhancing deterrence -- with stiffer penalties for false claims.
I thought that giving too much power to the women gender as they already have,but not enough punishment for abusing that power was the main reason why they do it,because they can get away with it,i mean who wouldn't abuse that power.
Secondary it's also about how we raise girls,they are innocent(which they aren't,better disciplining then letting dsyfunctional behaiviour of girls go are part of the problem) and aren't so acceptable about sex or are unprepared for such sudden things.Maybe it got something to do with the past and religion that sex was not so acceptable to throw around without marriage.A problem to accept sexuality itself,maybe we should learn them that it's normal to sometimes feel ashamed and have hurt feelings for a mistake they think they made and accept it as expirience.This is more on the issue of a FRA
@slwerner
Had VAWA been the Violence Against Persons Act and preserved Constitutional guarantees and protections, I'd have no issue with it. But when you afford one group special protected status with rights and privileges over another group, abuses ensue.
I don't need to cite any studies on the issue. They have already been done:
The Standford Prison Experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Or how about Abu Ghraib?
For those that haven't read the entire text of VAWA here it is:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf
And as for being only in the US, get ready for I-VAWA:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/03/19/i-vawa-liberal-lies-tempt-women-to-embrace-a-radical-agenda/
thought that giving too much power to the women gender as they already have,but not enough punishment for abusing that power was the main reason why they do it,because they can get away with it,i mean who wouldn't abuse that power.
* * *
Yeah, if men could make up stories about being raped by women you'd better believe there would be a lot of innocent women in prison. But for some reason people just assume that a woman would never lie about being raped just because she wants attention or is on a power trip. It's human nature. When people are allowed to do bad things and get away with it, guess what they do? Having a vagina in no way guarantees that you will grow up to have good morals.
"Yeah, if men could make up stories about being raped by women you'd better believe there would be a lot of innocent women in prison"
--there's no evidence of this. Don't automatically assume this. For example, in divorce matters, men may be more likely to not divorce even if they would benefit from it.
I wonder if the accuser got charged for the fight that started this whole catastrophe in the first place?
Or did she manage to get involved in a fight in a public place resulting in a police call-out, bribe a cop with sex, and make a false rape accusation that led to a man's suicide all without penalty?
Post a Comment