Woman admits she lied about alleged Laurel Bay rape
For more than two months, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has investigated the alleged rape of a woman inside her Laurel Bay home Feb. 2 and even arrested a Marine lance corporal in connection with the reported attack.
On Friday, the woman confessed she had made up the whole thing.
"The complainant has now given statements to investigators admitting that she had made up the story about being assaulted by an unknown individual," Jim Crandall, a NCIS supervisory special agent, said in a statement.
The confession draws to a close an investigation that resulted in the Marine's arrest, the tripling of patrols inside Laurel Bay and the collection of DNA samples from maintenance workers, police officers and anyone else who might have been near the house when the attack was said to have occurred.
It is unclear why the woman fabricated the attack, said Gunnery Sgt. Chad McMeen, air station spokesman. Her name was not released Friday by NCIS.
"An entire community was unnecessarily subject to a stressful situation and most importantly ... a Marine was apprehended and temporarily confined," McMeen said in a statement. "In the end, the truth was revealed, and justice will be allowed to take its course."
The Marine, whose name was never released, was arrested three days after the woman reported the attack and NCIS charged him with rape, breaking and entering and larceny. He was jailed for more than a month at the U.S. Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, then released after the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory found that DNA evidence taken from the crime scene did not match. The Marine continued to be described by NCIS as a person of interest in the investigation until the woman's confession Friday.
The case is being turned over to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which will consider charges against the woman for filing the false report, McMeen said.
Link: http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/04/09/1201963/woman-admits-she-lied-about-alleged.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
"An entire community was unnecessarily subject to a stressful situation and most importantly ... a Marine was apprehended and temporarily confined," McMeen said in a statement. "In the end, the truth was revealed, and justice will be allowed to take its course."
***
Outstanding! That statement is worthy of a medal. Let's listen to it again:
and most importantly ... a Marine was apprehended and temporarily confined,"
That is exactly how these cases should be handled every time a false accuser is exposed. And his name was never revealed -- excellent!
This bears repeating: the most important factor by far is the harm done to THE VICTIM, not the community, not the time or money wasted, not how this impacts hypothetical "real victims." All of those other factors matter also, but the real issue is the harm done to THE VICTIM.
Notice she is not even NAMED and MIGHT face charges.
For all you guys in the UK I found this one...
If a guy can put together a website of sex offenders on facebook and the law says its fine. Then why can't someone put together a website of false accusers?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/824472-facebook-vigilante-names-6-000-paedophiles-and-sex-offenders-online
The "guy" in question is a local thug.
He's been convicted of violence, he ran out on his girlfriend (they ran a pub) and left her bankrupt with the debts, while he departed of all places to Thailand...
He freely admits that not all those that he has listed have been convicted.
He freely admits that he has "secret" sources of information that no-one else has access to.
He conceals the fact that many of those convicted and listed were convicted for taking a piss to get rid of the beer and someone saw their penis.
A thug waiting for a hard fall.
Not named is good. Not jailed for a month would have been better.
What scares me is: "the collection of DNA samples from maintenance workers, police officers and anyone else who might have been near the house when the attack was said to have occurred. "
If you willingly give a DNA sample by signing your constitutional rights away, they won't arrest you. But if you refuse to surrender a DNA sample, they have the authority to arrest you and take a DNA sample anyway as your refusal will provide them probable cause. The question is, if you are no longer a person of interest, can you get your DNA samples back and be assured that your DNA profile is not in some CODIS or other DNA database? If so, how? What does the law say in this issue state-to-state and in the EU/UK?
Found the answer to the DNA question.
This also is scary reading:
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/I6W7Q3D7RM.pdf
Frontline: The Case for Innocence
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/databases.html
In the UK.
When arrested on (suspicion of) any serious offence the Police fingerprint you (all done by a machine like a flatbed scanner) and take DNA swabs.
This is done ON ARREST.
Legally, according to EU Law, they must delete this after a certain period after you have been eliminated from enquiries, practically you have to sue to get them to do it.
More troubling, initially, but it, like the US no fly lists has blown out of all proportion and is now also useless, we have something called the CRB check, and also the Enhanced CRB check.
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Being arrested subsequent to a false rape accusation means you will fail an Enhanced CRB check, because you were arrested on suspicion of having convicted a sexual offence.
If you were a teacher, your job has gone, forever.
If you were a refuse collector, better pray your route did not include a school.
If you were a gravedigger who never went anywhere near anyone under the age of majority, you still lose out if you have kids, because you will not be allowed to participate in your local cub / scout group in any sort of participatory or supervisory or contributory capacity.
You can drive little johnny to the cubs, and collect him afterwards.
This Enhanced CRB is also illegal once the allegation goes away, but again you have to actually go out and sue and invoke EU Law.
None of this shit it automatic FOR YOU.
All of this shit is automatic AGAINST YOU.
The problem is this.
The UK has around 150k lawyers, that means all sorts, probate, criminal, conveyancing. Total population around 61 million.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_world_has_most_lawyers_per_capita
I doubt that there are 150k people in the UK, INCLUDING THE LAWYERS, who know that a falsely accused citizen can bring a private criminal prosecution against their false accuser, by simply going down to their local County Court and completing one form.
Or suing their false accuser for defamation and slander, and damages.
Or getting injunctive relief with penal notice attached.
Or getting your DNA and arrest expunged.
etc etc etc.
More related to the Chloe Rubenstein Facebook incident:
http://www.barcc.org/blog/details/the-potential-of-the-internet/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Facebook-Chloe-Rubenstein.pdf
http://jezebel.com/5532649/de+friendly-fire-american-university-student-makes-facebook-rape-accusation
http://www.feministing.com/archives/021099.html
This is her Twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/Crubens01
Scroll down to 22 April. Scroll a bit past that to read about her illegal drug use.
http://www.formspring.me/Crubens01
A related incident:
http://jezebel.com/344706/morgan-shaw+fox-is-a-piece-of-shit-rapist
"...the woman confessed she had made up the whole thing."
Okay, so we now know that she admits that she wasn't raped. Yet, once again (as is all too often he case, we are told that no motive can be ascertained.
"It is unclear why the woman fabricated the attack"
Yet, reading just a little further, it becomes clear that there was some sexual activity, evidenced by the fact that DAN evidence (read: semen) was found.
"...DNA evidence taken from the crime scene did not match."
Now, just on critical piece is missing from being able to logically conclude WHY this women would make up a FRA after having sex with some unknown man - that piece of missing information would be...Is she married or in a long-term relationship?
It's a simple bit of info, likely known to the reporter, who (at least) subconsciously realizes that if her (presumable) marital status was made known, then the motivation for her FRA would be painfully obvious.
Of course, I regularly rant about my contention that, for many, there is a strong preference to have the motivations for FRA remain a mystery, allowing for the notion that they are made by a few random "crazy" women with deep psychological issues, and thus the public should be sympathetic to their supposed "plights" that lead to the FRA. The revelation that women routinely make FRA's in a cold and calculated manner, and purely for their own self-interest would detract from the narrative of the poor tortured souls who make FRA's from a stressed and delusional state, and would expose the reality that the "rape card" is a well known tactic for women to (attempt to) play whenever they feel that they have reason to.
A better understanding of the motives behind FRA's, and the type of women who make them, is, in my opinion, critical to helping the public at-large come to grips with the reality and prevalence of FRA's.[/rant]
Various women's groups and organizations over the years have claimed that a woman will never ever lie about rape.
This in itself is a lie and is a major contributor to false rape accusations.
Support lawmakers who support change regarding false rape.
Demand justice!
Laurel Bay is married personnel housing.
The woman would be be married to a Marine, or retired, to live there.
Post a Comment