A woman gave false trial testimony, and someone was found guilty of sexual assault of a child. I certainly hope she serves some time in jail over this.
Emily A. Brown lied in testimony about sexual assault.
CHILTON — A 17-year-old Appleton girl was arrested and charged with perjury last week after admitting testimony she gave in a sexual assault trial was false.
Emily A. Brown told the court her testimony as a defense witness was a lie.She claimed she didn't remember giving police officers statements, denied rehearsing her testimony and said she was nervous, but later admitted she had been lying.
A jury subsequently found her friend guilty of second-degree sexual assault of a child.
Brown, of 533 W. Brewster St., was later released on a $500 bond.
She is scheduled to have a preliminary hearing in front of Fond du Lac County Judge Peter Grimm March 9 to determine if there is probable cause to proceed.
Online court records do not list an attorney for her.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison.
Link:
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20100210/APC0101/2100461/1979/Teen-charged-after-admitting-to-lies-about-assault
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Regular readers: what is a good estimate on the percentage of sexual assault trials that involve perjury like this case? How common is this?
Yep
It's that easy to put a man in prison.
No evidence is needed just a girls word.
Now sit back and watch her get off with little or nothing.
The fact that we don't see perjury very often is because the vast majority of dubious rape claims are not brought to trial, thankfully. Perjury is still a false rape claim -- but it's the most most dangerous variety, teetering dangerously close to a false rape conviction.
The more common problem is false rape claims that result in some innocent male being jailed, often for months, without any evidence beyond the accuswer's say so. These usually go away somehow before trial, too often with a guilty plea for a lesser crime.
"Emily A. Brown told the court her testimony as a defense witness was a lie." & "A jury subsequently found her friend guilty of second-degree sexual assault of a child."
Perhaps it's just the poor quality of the journalism here, but I am failing to understand if the contention is that she lied in an unsuccessful bid to help her friend, or, if she lied in a way that help to convict her (supposed) friend?
It's also impossible to determine if this even in regard to a likely FRA case.
Perhaps the salient point to take from this is that not only do we know that women are frequent and practiced liars (as the research of noted feminist such as Susan Shapiro Barash, and others reluctantly concludes), we can also see that they will lie under almost any circumstance - including under oath, and subject to perjury charges - as they determine that their lying will benefit them. [obviously we all know that Biurny Peguero Gonzalez perjured herself for no greater reason than to cover for her previous string of lies]
And, if they would lie while under oath, it also serves to demonstrate that they would be even more likely to lie when not under oath - like when lying about having been raped to suit some other purpose.
I don't think most women would commit perjury. If they would there would be a lot more false accusations than there are, although there are plenty now.
Anonymous - "I don't think most women would commit perjury. If they would there would be a lot more false accusations than there are, although there are plenty now."
If, as I assume, you are responding to my post (immediately above yours), I did not mean to imply that most women would commit perjury; but rather that some women are not even constrained by the potential fall-out of perjury (and, we have plenty of examples of that being the case); which in turns further serves to put the lie towards the often stated notion that women are inherently highly honest, and would never lie about something so crucial as rape or sexual assault.
A great deal of the "white-knighting" that goes on with regard to the unquestioning belief of rape accusers stems from that very notion. The underlying basis is that sexual crimes are so very important and personal to women that they would feel compelled to always tell the truth about them. This could easily be extended to suggest that a woman (or girl) would feel so strongly about the subject that she would be unlikely to lie about any knowledge of a crime - even to protect those close to her.
In the case detailed (although, poorly and sparsely) in the main article, it seem that a young women did lie - on the stand, and under oath, no less - so as to prevent justice from being done WRT a sexual assault case (and, again, I don't believe it's at all clear in which direction she was seeking to influence the decision); clearly demonstrating that there are NOT limits to how far a woman might go in lying about sexual assaults (as is widely imagined that there are).
I agree, but I wouldn't gender qualify it. I've met men who lie twenty-five hours per day, too. The difference is that no one would take such a man seriously if he claimed that I'd raped him.
But you're right; false rape accusers will never stop lying no matter the consequences. They're hooked on lying the way some people are hooked on either heroine or phonics.
Post a Comment