The news story below is yet another in a long cavalcade of examples of why men have every reason to fear false rape allegations. A woman launched a vicious, methodical campaign to get back at her boyfriend because she believed he was seeing another woman. She told her friend that her boyfriend "wouldn’t know what had hit him" -- and she nearly got away with it.
She kicked off her campaign by falsely accusing her victim of rape. She said he had laced a Pringles sandwich with diazepamand then raped her. After she reported the supposed crime, she convinced the police to hold off charging him with rape until she got her affairs in order -- which meant disposing of his property. She went home in a jovial mood, had sex with her victim, and pretended nothing happened. Eventually, the couple had a falling out when he believed she was selling herself for sex. She kicked him out of the house they rented, changed the locks, and obtained a court order banning him from the premises. Then she packed his belongings, including an expensive stereo, expensive art prints, and the desk from his study, into a horsebox. Those items were driven away and were never seen again. Then, somehow, she had the ownership of his Porsche Carrera and BMW motorbike transferred to her name, intending to sell them. The police only figured out what happened -- despite, apparently, having interviewed the boyfriend -- after the false accuser's friend went to the police and blew the whistle on her.
Oh, and up until she was finally convicted of perverting the course of justice, fraud, and theft, her identity was legally anonymous. Of course.
Professor Eugene Kanin once wrote the following about women who lie about rape for revenge: "Because the suspect is always identified, the false allegations potentially pose the greatest danger for a miscarriage of justice."
Here is the news story:
'Cry rape' woman claimed boyfriend had laced Pringles sandwich with diazepam after she thought he was having affair
A horsewoman who claimed her boyfriend fed her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam to make her drowsy before raping her is facing jail.
Kate Woodhead’s fiction extended to salacious details about him being ‘turned on’ as he pulled off her jodhpurs, a court heard.
But after a three-week trial, a jury decided that her story was a pack of lies.
She made it up to get back at Porsche-driving Paul Joseph because she feared he was having an affair and thought he was about to walk out on her, Guildford Crown Court heard.
During the case she was granted anonymity under an order made by the judge. But this was lifted when she was convicted.
The court heard that Mr Joseph, an IT consultant, divorced his wife in 2007 to be with Woodhead, who ran a business providing horses and carriages for weddings. They moved into a rented lodge with a stable block in Wisley, Surrey.
In the early hours of April 10 last year Woodhead went with a friend to a police station to accuse Mr Joseph of rape. She told officers she would pursue her complaint only if they promised not to approach her boyfriend until after she had sorted out her affairs, including the house.
She went home in a ‘friendly and jovial mood’, the jury was told, and the couple continued to share the house and enjoy sex while he remained in ignorance of what was happening behind his back.
The friend who accompanied her to the police station told the court Woodhead said she intended to make Mr Joseph pay for the ‘other woman’ and he ‘wouldn’t know what had hit him’.
She kicked off her campaign by falsely accusing her victim of rape. She said he had laced a Pringles sandwich with diazepamand then raped her. After she reported the supposed crime, she convinced the police to hold off charging him with rape until she got her affairs in order -- which meant disposing of his property. She went home in a jovial mood, had sex with her victim, and pretended nothing happened. Eventually, the couple had a falling out when he believed she was selling herself for sex. She kicked him out of the house they rented, changed the locks, and obtained a court order banning him from the premises. Then she packed his belongings, including an expensive stereo, expensive art prints, and the desk from his study, into a horsebox. Those items were driven away and were never seen again. Then, somehow, she had the ownership of his Porsche Carrera and BMW motorbike transferred to her name, intending to sell them. The police only figured out what happened -- despite, apparently, having interviewed the boyfriend -- after the false accuser's friend went to the police and blew the whistle on her.
Oh, and up until she was finally convicted of perverting the course of justice, fraud, and theft, her identity was legally anonymous. Of course.
Professor Eugene Kanin once wrote the following about women who lie about rape for revenge: "Because the suspect is always identified, the false allegations potentially pose the greatest danger for a miscarriage of justice."
Here is the news story:
'Cry rape' woman claimed boyfriend had laced Pringles sandwich with diazepam after she thought he was having affair
A horsewoman who claimed her boyfriend fed her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam to make her drowsy before raping her is facing jail.
Kate Woodhead’s fiction extended to salacious details about him being ‘turned on’ as he pulled off her jodhpurs, a court heard.
But after a three-week trial, a jury decided that her story was a pack of lies.
She made it up to get back at Porsche-driving Paul Joseph because she feared he was having an affair and thought he was about to walk out on her, Guildford Crown Court heard.
During the case she was granted anonymity under an order made by the judge. But this was lifted when she was convicted.
The court heard that Mr Joseph, an IT consultant, divorced his wife in 2007 to be with Woodhead, who ran a business providing horses and carriages for weddings. They moved into a rented lodge with a stable block in Wisley, Surrey.
In the early hours of April 10 last year Woodhead went with a friend to a police station to accuse Mr Joseph of rape. She told officers she would pursue her complaint only if they promised not to approach her boyfriend until after she had sorted out her affairs, including the house.
She went home in a ‘friendly and jovial mood’, the jury was told, and the couple continued to share the house and enjoy sex while he remained in ignorance of what was happening behind his back.
The friend who accompanied her to the police station told the court Woodhead said she intended to make Mr Joseph pay for the ‘other woman’ and he ‘wouldn’t know what had hit him’.
Prosecutor Hugh Forgan said: ‘The allegation of rape is entirely fictitious. The pair had a topsy-turvy relationship and at the time of the allegation they were sleeping in separate beds.
‘However they still had a sex life, in fact she even had sex with him the day after going to the police crying rape.’
Their relationship ended after a furious row when Mr Joseph found a large number of condoms in a drawer and became convinced Woodhead was selling herself for sex.
Woodhead kicked him out, changed the locks and obtained a court order banning him from the premises.
She packed his belongings, including a top-of-the-range Bang and Olufsen stereo, expensive art prints, and the desk from his study, into a horsebox. They were driven away and were never seen again.
In another ‘malicious’ act, she lied to the DVLA, transferring ownership of his Porsche Carrera and BMW motorbike to her name, intending to sell them.
She was arrested after her friend went back to the police to tell them she thought the rape scenario was made up.
The rape allegation against Mr Joseph was dropped and no action taken against him.
Cross-examining Mr Joseph, Andrew Turton, defending Woodhead, suggested that he made her a sandwich of Pringles and diazepam, then when she became drowsy he carried her to bed, and was ‘turned on’ by removing her jodhpurs before having sex with her without her consent.
Mr Joseph said: ‘A Pringle sandwich laced with diazepam must have been the driest ever. You’d think you could taste it. I wouldn’t eat it.’
‘However they still had a sex life, in fact she even had sex with him the day after going to the police crying rape.’
Their relationship ended after a furious row when Mr Joseph found a large number of condoms in a drawer and became convinced Woodhead was selling herself for sex.
Woodhead kicked him out, changed the locks and obtained a court order banning him from the premises.
She packed his belongings, including a top-of-the-range Bang and Olufsen stereo, expensive art prints, and the desk from his study, into a horsebox. They were driven away and were never seen again.
In another ‘malicious’ act, she lied to the DVLA, transferring ownership of his Porsche Carrera and BMW motorbike to her name, intending to sell them.
She was arrested after her friend went back to the police to tell them she thought the rape scenario was made up.
The rape allegation against Mr Joseph was dropped and no action taken against him.
Cross-examining Mr Joseph, Andrew Turton, defending Woodhead, suggested that he made her a sandwich of Pringles and diazepam, then when she became drowsy he carried her to bed, and was ‘turned on’ by removing her jodhpurs before having sex with her without her consent.
Mr Joseph said: ‘A Pringle sandwich laced with diazepam must have been the driest ever. You’d think you could taste it. I wouldn’t eat it.’
The jury found Woodhead guilty of perverting the course of justice, fraud and two counts of theft. She had denied all the charges.
Remanding her on bail until sentencing next month, Judge Neil Stewart said a custodial sentence was ‘almost inevitable’.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317949/Cry-rape-woman-claimed-boyfriend-laced-Pringles-sandwich-diazepam.html
Remanding her on bail until sentencing next month, Judge Neil Stewart said a custodial sentence was ‘almost inevitable’.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317949/Cry-rape-woman-claimed-boyfriend-laced-Pringles-sandwich-diazepam.html
Posts
19 comments:
It is a social and societal perversion to foster this current false rape culture. Those that are paid to protect the innocent are not doing their job.
Charging false rape accusers would have a "chilling" effect on false rape accusations, which in turn would have a "chilling" effect of Gender / Raunch "empowerment".
If state and federally funded organisations distribute the faulty missinformation that Women and girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, lie about rape, when they are in fact now lying about it more than they are telling the truth, does this misinformation that builds a prejudice against the innocent amount to state and federally funded "Hate speech"??
I beleive it does, but now there are so many pervert politicians in effect "Buying" the womens / Gender / Raunch vote; (by rolling pork barrels to their non profit victim groups), that no democrat will touch the truth anymore.
Platos character was stoned to death when he went outside the cave by perverts who were too used to the darkness to want anything to do with what was outside their dark and deviant little cave.
Oct 7, 2010 9:04:00 AM
Oct 7, 2010 9:15:00 AM
Enough already.
While morally and ethically, I agree with the feminist position that a man forcing their wife/girlfriend to have sex is rape. However, not everything that is wrong should be a matter of law. There is just too much opportunity for abuse. The authorities should be especially suspicious if someone claims that their partner raped them, but they are still involved with that person.
Anon at 10:25: It's not punishment for rape that this blog has a problem with. It's the refusal to punish for rape lies. It's the refusal to fully investigate before arresting, charging, trying, and convicting. It's the refusual to acknowledge the unique needs of the presumptively innocent who, too often, were falsely accused and will be tainted by the stain of a lie for the rest of their lives.
S - "Those that are paid to protect the innocent are not doing their job."
Oh, come on S, read the stories - please!
Mr Joseph was never arrested or charged. His accuser was, and is headed for prison. What, exactly, do you believe that the police should have (within reason) done differently so as to protect the innocent?
"She made it up to get back at Porsche-driving Paul Joseph"
Off-topic, but what difference does it make what car he drives? How is this at all relevant? - criticism of the Daily Mail, not FRS.
I guess I'm so desensitized to FRAs that it is the small details that shock me now (PRINGLES sandwiches??)
"A woman launched a vicious, methodical campaign to get back at her boyfriend because she believed he was seeing another woman. She told her friend that her boyfriend "wouldn’t know what had hit him" -- and she nearly got away with it."
This is the critical part that FRS needs to focus in on so as to get the word out about how woman not only lie about the very serious crime of rape, but often plan their attacks on innocent men.
I've tried to make the point many times that FRA's are not typically made by unstable women with mental health issues, but by women in cold and calculated way, for perfectly rational (even if twisted and evil) reasons. [And, I say that with zero apologies to that guy who stated "the women aren't the problem"]
"Professor Eugene Kanin once wrote the following about women who lie about rape for revenge: "Because the suspect is always identified, the false allegations potentially pose the greatest danger for a miscarriage of justice."
This too, must not be overlooked. Mr Joseph was very fortunate in this case. We've seen too many other cases where men, similarly targeted, have not been so fortunate - and the terrible consequences that befell them.
Perhaps it was the preposterous nature of her allegation (that she wouldn't not have tasted the drug, yet be able to identify it after-the-fact), or perhaps it was her friends revelation of the fraud, but for what ever reason, the police did not target Mr Joseph the way she had wished them to. [reminds me of the way police set up video cameras to catch Gail Sherwood, after finding her story also "fishy").
I'd like to think that LE is beginning to catch-on as to the prevalence and sheer vindictiveness of FRA's, and, as numerous recent stories seem to indicate, are doing their proper investigations first.
But, my personal hopeful outlook is simply not something that men who may be targeted can rely on. Thus, we must continue to stress the pertinent aspects we see so commonly in FRA's - the motives, the plots, and the vindictive intents, not only in the hope th ethose in LE will come to see the light, but so that society, at-large, and also be so educated. Men who come under such attack can certainly use a bit of the benefit of the doubt from friends, family, neighbors and employers. Demonstrating the true nature of FRA's will hopefully change hearts and minds, and afford some understanding to those falsely accused, making it easier to resume their lives afterwards.
"Anon at 10:25: It's not punishment for rape that this blog has a problem with. It's the refusal to punish for rape lies. It's the refusal to fully investigate before arresting, charging, trying, and convicting. It's the refusual to acknowledge the unique needs of the presumptively innocent who, too often, were falsely accused and will be tainted by the stain of a lie for the rest of their lives."
Yes, but you do realize that up until recently a spouse couldn't be charged with rape. It's not that I have a problem with punishment for rape either, but I question a law that provides far more opportunity for abuse than justice.
Anonymous - "but you do realize that up until recently a spouse couldn't be charged with rape."
First, you're going to need to be more specific about what you mean by recently. Since 1993 every state in the US has had a spousal rape statute. And, some have had them since 1975. In the UK, it’s been since 1991. To my mind, 17-35 years doesn't count as recently.
Secondly, I must ask, why are you even bringing up spousal rape in this particular discussion. Reading the story, although they were in a domestic relationship (as would be covered by spousal rape law), there is every indication that the alleged rape never took place, and that she continued to have a sexual relationship with Mr. Joseph through out the time she waited the unfolding of her plot.
It seems that this one is pretty cut-n-dried – NO RAPE, of any sort. Just a lie to try to get him into trouble so as to make it easier for her to steal from him. Discussing the issue of spousal rape tends to make it sound as if he had actually had some sex with her against her will.
Even when society allowed "spousal rape," that did not preclude an assault and battery charge. Men couldn't force their wives to have sex even back then -- that's called "battery." But, of course, back then rape required resistance and needed to be forcible.
The entire discussion of spousal rape is a feminist red herring. Hey, it sure sounds sinister, doesn't it? It conjures up this image of dastardly men legally forcing their wives to do all sorts of nasty things. Problem is, physically forcing her was never legal.
"While morally and ethically, I agree with the feminist position that a man forcing their wife/girlfriend to have sex is rape."
"While morally and ethically, I agree with the feminist position that a person forcing their spouse to have sex is rape. "
fixed for ya.
"First, you're going to need to be more specific about what you mean by recently. Since 1993 every state in the US has had a spousal rape statute. And, some have had them since 1975. In the UK, it’s been since 1991. To my mind, 17-35 years doesn't count as recently."
Actually, wasn't it 1973? I remember an article from Art Buchwald being posted here. Regardless, I consider it recent compared to how long rape has been considered a crime. From the very first laws ever written, in Sumer about 5,000 years ago, a man could not rape his wife.
"Discussing the issue of spousal rape tends to make it sound as if he had actually had some sex with her against her will."
I can't imagine how. Although such an accusation was made, and such accusations can and do ruin innocent lives.
The reason I'm bringing it up, is how often have we seen cases where a woman accused her husband/domestic partner of rape that turned out to be true compared to the number that turned out to be false? Especially when they are still involved?
"While morally and ethically, I agree with the feminist position that a person forcing their spouse to have sex is rape. fixed for ya."
No, that isn't the feminist position in practice, and I can't imagine a husband accusing his wife of rape going anywhere. While I agree the law should be gender neutral, and might even be written that way, the reality isn't.
Anonymous - "The reason I'm bringing it up, is how often have we seen cases where a woman accused her husband/domestic partner of rape that turned out to be true compared to the number that turned out to be false? Especially when they are still involved?"
Seeing as how many accusations of "partner rape" seem to go hand-in-hand with a break-up or planned break-up of a relationship (note the story above), I would imagine that a significant portion of such accusations are simply false (in order to gain an advantage).
I think it would be an interesting study to try to find out how many wives who claimed spousal rape had already visited a divorce attorney shortly before the alleged rape occurred. Just a hunch, but I bet it's a fairly high percentage of them.
I thought the quote from Eugene Kanin particularly interesting, where he states that identity suppression of the accuser makes FRAs the most prone to miscarriages of justice.
In this particular case, the accuser's plan was foiled by a friend who knew her and alerted the police. In this detail, the accused was lucky (if one can use such a word for him in this context). But how many other potentially useful witnesses to a man's innocence go unknowingly about their daily lives, ignorant that their knowledge could free an innocent man because they don't know the identity of his accuser?
For example, I may know that my neighbour spent the entire morning weeding her garden at the time she alleges her rape took place, but if I never learn that she is accusing someone and making this claim, I will never know to go to the police or the man's lawyer and offer counter evidence.
Similarly, if I don't know the man's identity, as was recently proposed in the U.K., then any testimony I might be able to give to exonerate him will never come to light. I will never know to give it.
Of course, how material an objection this is depends on how often witnesses volunteer evidence after learning about it through media, and I can't put a number on that. However, I wonder if TV programs like Crime Watch and other widespread media appeals for information would be engaged upon if they weren't that useful.
I can't help but think that the entire concept of suppressing identity in matters of justice was flawed from the start, and that rather than try and apply it for men charged, it should be completely abandoned for everyone.
Anything that stands in the way of the truth, such as keeping useful information from coming to light, does not ultimately serve justice.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FalseAccusers
Also visit:
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
"I can't help but think that the entire concept of suppressing identity in matters of justice was flawed from the start, and that rather than try and apply it for men charged, it should be completely abandoned for everyone."
I cannot agree, as much as I wish I could. You talk about "truth," but that's the point: "truth" doesn't matter when it comes to a rape accusation. The man is destroyed by the accusation, which, too often, is false. "Truth" is beside the point. To keep the man from being destroyed, we need anonymity.
http://www.freetomas.com/home
Hi Professor Brooks
If there is anything you could do with the regards to the case above it would be greatly appreciated. A friend of mine is serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit. He was convicted on the lies told by his ex who is the mother of his two children.
Thank you and please if there is anything you could do.
Thank you Arod
///////////////////////////////
Professor Brooks is with the San Diego innocence project. I hope he looks into the email I sent him above.
Oct 7, 2010 10:04:00 PM
Although I agree that the truth doesn't matter much in ruining a man's reputation, I also think we should be able to agree that if there is anonymity, it should not be one-sided. Since there will never be a law requiring anonymity in the United States because of the First Amendment. The battle becomes one of changing the practice of only printing the names of the accused. Getting the press to print both is the best fairness we can hope to achieve.
Although, I have noticed in many of the news articles here, that the press often does not mention the name of the accused if it is an FRA story, as opposed to a rape story.
Post a Comment