Oct. 26--A Muscogee County grand jury has refused to indict Zachary Allen on charges of rape and false imprisonment, according to his attorney and to court records
"I feel like it's long overdue," said defense attorney Richard Hagler. "It's an appropriate disposition for the case."
Hagler said he will now go about trying to resolve misdemeanor charges filed against Allen, who's the son of Columbus Councilor Gary Allen.
"I don't dispute their decision," said Assistant Solicitor General Ed Albright, who handled the case. "Exactly what we present to the grand jury is private, and I would rather not get into that."
The incident happened at Allen¹s Virginia Street home early on Nov. 25, 2007, the 19-year-old woman told police. She and two friends were planning a going-away party for the then 25-year-old Allen, Columbus police said.
Allen arrived, visited with the woman for a while and then returned to his apartment in the same building. The woman followed, and the pair began kissing, the woman told police. Allen asked her into the bedroom and the woman agreed, reports state.
At some point, Allen passed out on the bed. The woman left his apartment, ran to her friends home and woke them up, reports state.
Thirty minutes later, she was telling her story to police.
Allen spoke to police at 5 a.m. on Nov. 25, 2007, reports state. He told police that he was moving from his apartment, and he found a note from three women on his truck around 2 p.m. He met the women around 11:30 p.m., stayed with them for a while and then returned to his apartment for a beer along with a friend. One of the women said she wanted to come along, reports state.
Once in his apartment, Allen and the woman began kissing. Allen's male friend made an excuse and left. At some point, the pair went into his bedroom and they kept kissing, Allen told police, but he said he never had sex with her.
At some point, Allen fell asleep, he said. Later, the woman said she was going to the bathroom and when Allen woke again, police were in his house asking if he was all right, reports state.
Allen also faces charges of DUI and improper lane change after he was stopped in May 2008 at Veterans Parkway and Manchester Expressway. The charges came three weeks after Mayor Jim Wetherington said a five-month city investigation determined there was no cover-up in the handling of a November 2006 traffic accident Allen was involved in while employed as a Columbus firefighter.
In that incident, Allen tested positive for cocaine an hour and 15 minutes after he hit two cars at the intersection of Interstate 185 and Macon Road while en route to an emergency call. An initial internal report by Columbus Fire & EMS stated that the results were negative; the report was later amended.
Link:
http://dailyme.com/story/2010102600004351/grand-jury-issues-indictment-zachary-allen.html
Posts
26 comments:
Well, it would be interesting to find out if there was more to this story, because if this is it, every male of a certain age is at grave risk. Honestly, what kind of fool sends THIS to a grand jury? It is incomprehensible that this -- this -- NOTHING can hang over a young man's head for three years.
Yet, because it is "he said/she said," no false reporting charges will be filed. Here's a novel thought: if there was enough to send it to the grand jury to try to indict HIM, it's equally strong enough to send to a grand jury to get an indictment against HER. Except I'm not in favor of that, because you can't fight one wrong by advocating another.
"I don't dispute their decision," said Assistant Solicitor General Ed Albright, who handled the case. "Exactly what we present to the grand jury is private, and I would rather not get into that."
Pierce,
Makes you wonder if Mr. Albright was under some pressure to take this forward, that he doesn't sound too surprised that this is what the grand jurty came back with, and he didn't think the case should have gone forward to begin with.
I would LOVE to know what "Exactly what we present to the grand jury is private", means in terms of evidence. I get the feeling it would explain quite a bit.
"Makes you wonder if Mr. Albright was under some pressure to take this forward"
It's certainly a possibility. An accuser could have rich or powerful parents, or there could be other political pressures to take a "she said" forward. This is why we need to bring back a requirement for corroborating evidence. If it is illegal to prosecute someone on nothing more than the alleged victim's word, then the prosecutor can simply point to that law.
Allen obviously has drug and alcohol problems. Those are the only real facts I can see.
Article doesn't mention a rape kit test.
I tend to agree with the grand jury on this one.
To feminists, this a travesty of justice.
Why? Because of the false assertion that a woman would never lie about rape, that's why.
That's what PhD pseudo-intellectual feminists taught us in college.
They lie to keep the money coming in.
To the Moderators:
I realize this topic isn't the place for this, so feel free to move it into its own post.
I found this in my internet travels and would like to know if anyone is familiar with this?
The person who posted it said it was authentic but may not be in current use. I have no idea when this was created and used.
I'm curious if someone here has military experience and may know about it. Also, of course, curious what anyone here thinks of it.
Part 1:
RAPE ALLEGATION CHECKLIST
Created by the US Pentagon and
Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D. USAF, OSI
Initial Complaint
Points
1 Was the complaint timely? N=0.5
2 Was the initial complaint made by the victim to a friend? Y=0.5
3 Were law enforcement authorities notified by someone other than the victim? Y=3.0
Nature of the Allegation
4 Does victim report being abducted?Y=0.5
5 Does victim report being intoxicated at the time of the assault? Y=3.0
6 Does victim’s recollection of the details of the assault seem overly broad? Y=0.5
7 Does victim report offering vigorous resistance to her assailant? Y=3.0
8 Is victim able to identify or locate the scene of the assault? N=3.0
9 Does victim report passing out or losing consciousness during the assault? Y=0.5
10 Does victim report waking up (or coming to) and finding her assailant engaging in intercourse with her? Y=0.5
11 Does victim have difficulty in describing the sexual details of the assault? Y=0.5
12 Does victim report anal sex (sodomy)? N=1.0
13 Does victim report forced oral sex (fellatio)? N=0.5
14 Does victim’s story contain any significant changes in subsequent retelling? Y=2.0
15 Does victim describe the assault in flat, unemotional tones? Y=0.5
16 Does victim describe the assault with a sense of relish or enthusiasm? Y=0.5
17 Does victim report being assaulted at gunpoint? Y=3.0
Suspect Description
18 Does victim report being assaulted by multiple assailants? Y=0.5
19 Does victim report her assailant(s) as being of a different race or ethnic group? Y=0.5
20 Does victim report keeping her eyes closed during the assault (and therefore not able to identify her assailant)? Y=0.5
21 Does victim describe her assailant as having an unsavory appearance? Y=0.5
22 Does victim report her assailant wore a mask? Y=0.5
23 Does victim report her assailant wore gloves?Y=0.5
24 Does victim describe her assailant as a person she knows or who is familiar to her but can’t provide a good physical description? Y=3.0
Physical and Medical Evidence
25 Is the crime scene consistent with the story? N=3.0
26 Does victim display any minor sharp weapon injuries (lacerations)? Y=3.0
27 Is the condition of victim’s clothing consistent with her story? N=3.0
28 Does victim present bruises from the assault which are inconsistent in color (age) with the time of the assault? Y=0.5
29 Does victim display any cross-hatching scratches to the face? Y=5.0
30 Does victim display shallow scratches to the face, neck, breasts, thighs or stomach? Y=5.0
31 If scratches are present on the face or breasts, do they cross the eyes, lips or nipples? N=3.0
32 Do any lacerations include hesitation wounds? Y=5.0
33 Does victim display any writing on her body allegedly done by the assailant? Y=5.0
To the Moderators:
I realize this topic isn't the place for this, so feel free to move it into its own post.
I found this in my internet travels and would like to know if anyone is familiar with this?
The person who posted it said it was authentic but may not be in current use. I have no idea when this was created and used.
I'm curious if someone here has military experience and may know about it. Also, of course, curious what anyone here thinks of it.
Part 1:
RAPE ALLEGATION CHECKLIST
Created by the US Pentagon and
Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D. USAF, OSI
Initial Complaint
Points
1 Was the complaint timely? N=0.5
2 Was the initial complaint made by the victim to a friend? Y=0.5
3 Were law enforcement authorities notified by someone other than the victim? Y=3.0
Nature of the Allegation
4 Does victim report being abducted?Y=0.5
5 Does victim report being intoxicated at the time of the assault? Y=3.0
6 Does victim’s recollection of the details of the assault seem overly broad? Y=0.5
7 Does victim report offering vigorous resistance to her assailant? Y=3.0
8 Is victim able to identify or locate the scene of the assault? N=3.0
9 Does victim report passing out or losing consciousness during the assault? Y=0.5
10 Does victim report waking up (or coming to) and finding her assailant engaging in intercourse with her? Y=0.5
11 Does victim have difficulty in describing the sexual details of the assault? Y=0.5
12 Does victim report anal sex (sodomy)? N=1.0
13 Does victim report forced oral sex (fellatio)? N=0.5
14 Does victim’s story contain any significant changes in subsequent retelling? Y=2.0
15 Does victim describe the assault in flat, unemotional tones? Y=0.5
16 Does victim describe the assault with a sense of relish or enthusiasm? Y=0.5
17 Does victim report being assaulted at gunpoint? Y=3.0
Suspect Description
18 Does victim report being assaulted by multiple assailants? Y=0.5
19 Does victim report her assailant(s) as being of a different race or ethnic group? Y=0.5
20 Does victim report keeping her eyes closed during the assault (and therefore not able to identify her assailant)? Y=0.5
21 Does victim describe her assailant as having an unsavory appearance? Y=0.5
22 Does victim report her assailant wore a mask? Y=0.5
23 Does victim report her assailant wore gloves?Y=0.5
24 Does victim describe her assailant as a person she knows or who is familiar to her but can’t provide a good physical description? Y=3.0
Part 2:
Physical and Medical Evidence
25 Is the crime scene consistent with the story? N=3.0
26 Does victim display any minor sharp weapon injuries (lacerations)? Y=3.0
27 Is the condition of victim’s clothing consistent with her story? N=3.0
28 Does victim present bruises from the assault which are inconsistent in color (age) with the time of the assault? Y=0.5
29 Does victim display any cross-hatching scratches to the face? Y=5.0
30 Does victim display shallow scratches to the face, neck, breasts, thighs or stomach? Y=5.0
31 If scratches are present on the face or breasts, do they cross the eyes, lips or nipples? N=3.0
32 Do any lacerations include hesitation wounds? Y=5.0
33 Does victim display any writing on her body allegedly done by the assailant? Y=5.0
Victim’s attitude
34 Does victim seem ambivalent toward her injuries? Y=0.5
35 Does victim appear to feign emotions when relating details of the assault? Y=0.5
36 Is victim reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities? Y=0.5
37 When telling about the assault, does victim have difficulty explaining anomalies or inconsistencies? Y=0.5
38 Does victim demand to be treated by a female physician or interviewed by a female police officer? Y=1.0
39 Does victim express a desire to “drop” the whole matter or otherwise indicate she does not want it investigated? Y=1.0
40 Does victim become outraged when asked to corroborate her assault? Y=1.0
41 Does victim try to steer the interview into “safe” topics or those that will engender sympathy? Y=0.5
Assailant’s Communications
42 Does victim report receiving obscene phone calls prior to the assault? Y=1.0
43 Does victim report receiving phone calls from the assailant after the assault? Y=1.0
44 Does victim report receiving any kind of written communication from her assailant before, during, or after the assault? Y=1.0
45 If victim has received a written communication, was it a “cut and paste” note? Y=3.0
46 If victim has received written communication, does it contain any kind of rhyming scheme or take the form of poetry? Y=3.0
47 Does victim report being watched (surveilled) by her assailant prior to the assault? Y=0.5
48 Does the victim report being complimented by her assailant during the assault? Y=0.5
Personality and Lifestyle Issues
49 Does victim report engaging in high risk behavior prior to her assault? Y=2.0
50 Does victim have a history of alcohol abuse? Y=3.0
51 Does victim have a history of financial problems? Y=1.0
52 Does victim have a history of mental or emotional problems? Y=3.0
53 Does victim have a significant medical history? Y=2.0
54 Does victim report prior rapes or assaults? Y=2.0
55 Does victim have a history of work-related problems? Y=2.0
56 Does victim have problems in her interpersonal relationships (i.e., with her husband, boyfriend, or others)? Y=3.0
57 Does the allegation solve a problem for the victim? Y=5.0
SCORING SCALE:
0 - 15: EQUIVOCAL
16 - 35: ALLEGATION PROBABLY FALSE
36 - 75: FALSE ALLEGATION
76 + UP: OVERKILL
Part 2:
Physical and Medical Evidence
25 Is the crime scene consistent with the story? N=3.0
26 Does victim display any minor sharp weapon injuries (lacerations)? Y=3.0
27 Is the condition of victim’s clothing consistent with her story? N=3.0
28 Does victim present bruises from the assault which are inconsistent in color (age) with the time of the assault? Y=0.5
29 Does victim display any cross-hatching scratches to the face? Y=5.0
30 Does victim display shallow scratches to the face, neck, breasts, thighs or stomach? Y=5.0
31 If scratches are present on the face or breasts, do they cross the eyes, lips or nipples? N=3.0
32 Do any lacerations include hesitation wounds? Y=5.0
33 Does victim display any writing on her body allegedly done by the assailant? Y=5.0
Victim’s attitude
34 Does victim seem ambivalent toward her injuries? Y=0.5
35 Does victim appear to feign emotions when relating details of the assault? Y=0.5
36 Is victim reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities? Y=0.5
37 When telling about the assault, does victim have difficulty explaining anomalies or inconsistencies? Y=0.5
38 Does victim demand to be treated by a female physician or interviewed by a female police officer? Y=1.0
39 Does victim express a desire to “drop” the whole matter or otherwise indicate she does not want it investigated? Y=1.0
40 Does victim become outraged when asked to corroborate her assault? Y=1.0
41 Does victim try to steer the interview into “safe” topics or those that will engender sympathy? Y=0.5
Assailant’s Communications
42 Does victim report receiving obscene phone calls prior to the assault? Y=1.0
43 Does victim report receiving phone calls from the assailant after the assault? Y=1.0
44 Does victim report receiving any kind of written communication from her assailant before, during, or after the assault? Y=1.0
45 If victim has received a written communication, was it a “cut and paste” note? Y=3.0
46 If victim has received written communication, does it contain any kind of rhyming scheme or take the form of poetry? Y=3.0
47 Does victim report being watched (surveilled) by her assailant prior to the assault? Y=0.5
48 Does the victim report being complimented by her assailant during the assault? Y=0.5
Part 3:
Personality and Lifestyle Issues
49 Does victim report engaging in high risk behavior prior to her assault? Y=2.0
50 Does victim have a history of alcohol abuse? Y=3.0
51 Does victim have a history of financial problems? Y=1.0
52 Does victim have a history of mental or emotional problems? Y=3.0
53 Does victim have a significant medical history? Y=2.0
54 Does victim report prior rapes or assaults? Y=2.0
55 Does victim have a history of work-related problems? Y=2.0
56 Does victim have problems in her interpersonal relationships (i.e., with her husband, boyfriend, or others)? Y=3.0
57 Does the allegation solve a problem for the victim? Y=5.0
SCORING SCALE:
0 - 15: EQUIVOCAL
16 - 35: ALLEGATION PROBABLY FALSE
36 - 75: FALSE ALLEGATION
76 + UP: OVERKILL
Sorry for the length. I had to cut it up to make it fit.
Thanks anon. That is the scoring for mcdowells research into false allegations that looked at the claims of rape in the Air Force back in the early eighties.
For future reference, please feel free to email us at the address listed in the "Contact Us" link at the top of the main page. This is something, if Pierce doesn't already have a copy, that we will likely post it under the "Informative Sources" link, also at the top of the main page.
Thanks Steve.
I also apologize for the double postings. I don't know how that happened.
Any other thoughts from FRSers?
Anonymous - "Any other thoughts from FRSers?"
I was looking over McDowell's checklist, with particular note to the weighted scoring (and which items were given increased weight). For the most part, it seems clear why the questions would be asked (#46 as an example of one where I’m not sure I get the point, and why isn’t #25 worth 10 or 15 points?).
Yet, it seems not to be a list of questions pertinent to a police interview of an alleging victim, but rather something that would be better done by a trained physiologist who could better get to some o the answer which a woman (especially a woman fabricating her claim) might not be inclined to wish to answer truthfully (i.e. the “Personality and Lifestyle Issues” section).
I think what might be useful for police in a limited version, focusing on those which will have more obvious (and less subjective) answers, with perhaps a list of additional items which a alleging victim might let slip out without the need for a police officer or detective needing to tease it out.
E Steven Berkimer - ” Makes you wonder if Mr. Albright was under some pressure to take this forward, that he doesn't sound too surprised that this is what the grand jurty came back with, and he didn't think the case should have gone forward to begin with.”
It seems to me that (questionable) rape allegations tend to be quite a “hot potato” that many would rather not have to deal with – so there seems to me to be quite a bit of good old fashion “buck passing”.
I would note the recent decline and ultimately failure of US Senatorial candidate Ken Buck here in Colorado, as an indication of what can happen to those who simply chose to take a principled stand.
[Just so that the trolls don’t start whining that the FRS is going pro-R political, I’d note that were legal issues in Buck’s past that should have made him a less attractive candidate, but didn’t seem to resonate with voters; and that my wife worked briefly with him at the US Attorney’s Office, and found him a very dislikable person, who she, as a more devout Republican could not bring herself to vote for. My issue was never with his politics, nor whether he deserved to be elected, but rather that it was his decision to decline to prosecute a “he said/she said” rape allegation that was used (very effectively) to attack him. I did not believe that he should have been elected, but for other, far more compelling reasons. And, even though he decline to prosecute that one case, there are other instances (2 or 3 that were covered as main stories here on FRS that I can recall (search “Weld County” and/or “Greeley”) that demonstrate that he is no friend of falsely accused men.]
It seems to me that police investigators look to prosecutors to “bail” them out on cases where there is a strong demand for prosecution, but little or no evidence; and that prosecutors, in turn, look for ways to likewise “bail”. I know that prosecutors here are very happy to have the Statutory Rape laws which eliminate those cases where the “victim” is 14 or older, and there is a 4-year or less age difference. In that they can simply invoke the law to decline to prosecute 19 year olds who’s 16 year-old girlfriend’s parents are out for blood in demanding “justice”, they have a legal way to bail out of cases that none of them ever want to prosecute.
But, often, there is no “legal” way out. They may resort to offering a plea deal, or they might just feel that they have to go ahead and let a jury decided (passing to buck to them) to avoid additional unpleasantness from “victims” (and/or their families).
While I have never seen a “he said/she said” case take to a Grand Jury (seems like a terrible waste of time and effort to try to find evidence that investigators could not), doing so while expecting that there would be no chance of an indictment would serve as the ultimate way to pass the buck and bail out of a real “looser” case. No need to take it to trial, and no way that the prosecutor (nor the DA’s office – usually the real “issue”) would have to take any heat.
If Ken Buck had simply wasted thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to get a Grand Jury to do his dirty work in disposing of a “bad” case, his opponents would not have been able to attack him for it, as he could point to his “sincere effort” to get an indictment. Then, despite his far more serious issues and short-comings, he’d most likely be on his way to DC next year.
Never mind letting organized criminals off, nor a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. No, what really matters to (women) voters is that he could be made out to be a “rape apologist”. [despite the claims of one troll, he remained ahead in the polls until the “rape issue” came up, even though all his other “issues” had already been aired]
Part 2
Physical and Medical Evidence
#33: Does victim display any writing on her body allegedly done by the assailant? Y=5.0
Anybody know the reason for this question and why 5 points?
It is a social and societal perversion that has fostered the false rape culture we are now in the midst of.
Anonymous - "Anybody know the reason for this question and why 5 points?"
Because history teaches us that those women who DO have stuff marked on them are just as likely as not to have done it themselves (Tawana Brawley (spelling?), the women who carved a "B" on her face,and plenty of others).
Also, real rapists tend to take great precautions to NOT leave any traces of evidence. Writing on or otherwise marking the victim would just be "sloppy". And, if some rapists was wanting to "Make a point", the rape alone would do that.
All-in-all, such marking supposedly made by the assailant seems more like an attempt to "sell" the idea of a violent attack than anything a person who had actually plotted and planned a rape would have done.
I initially looked at the 5-point scoring for it with some skepticism, but, on reflection, I could not remember a single instance in which a woman with such marks turned out not to have made it up (perhaps a search would turn up some legitimate examples of rapists "marking" their victims; but, I know of several examples of known FRA's that would turn up as well).
Got it, thx
"anybody know the reason for this question and why 5 points?"
To add to what slwerner said, I remember reading, I'll try to find the link, that several of the women involved had phone numbers writting on their hands or forearms, and that happened AFTER the encounter took place. I wouldn't think a rapist would write his phone number on someone after a rape. That goes to the mindset, as in, did he think the encounter was consensual.
Makes you wonder how these military women survived the eighties with such a rigged scoring system, and also, if regular law enforcement used a similar system.
We need more studies on this subject.
Barrister Global Services Scam
Hi Elly!
The military women survived (and continue to survive) by a chivalrous system that believes a woman would never lie about rape.
Mr. SL Werner -
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them a "troll".
This particular "troll" has been censored on another thread praising you as the only person who actually read and replied intelligently about another posting of mine. I zinged 'em pretty good. Sorry you missed that.
I'd say your wife's negative instincts about Ken Buck just MIGHT be valid.
As far as THIS "troll's" instincts go - I must admit, I fully believe it was a false/vengeance seeking accusation and Mr. Buck was most certainly prudent in not wasting the tax payer's money pursuing it, even going so far as to cover his donkey by seeking the'libuuural' Boulder DA's blessings.
Thankew Mr. Buck.
It is beyond my belief this accuser didn't just happen to SECRETLY record and save Mr. Buck's contemptiously unprofessional "buyer's remorse" remark years earlier in hopes of derailing some possible *Ken Buck* future political career ambitions yeeeeaaars down the road.
It is MY intuitive belief that Mr. Buck broadcasted his contempt and disrespect to this woman in prior interviews, and she secretly recorded the damning conversation in hopes of someday airing her grievances to a more sympathetic audience.
I easily found the ensuing explanation of his actions valid, and dismissed the woman's claims as false - as any intelligent person would.
However, I found his 'buyer's remorse" remark wholly inappropriate, as one taking advantage of his position to be contemptuous and disrespectful - highly unprofessional and unworthy of someone in his esteemed position.
As someone on the receiving end of a false accusation, I have come to DEEPLY appreciate and DEEPLY value professionalism -for ALL parties involved, WHETHER IT SERVES MY OWN PERSONAL AGENDA OR NOT.
Elly - "Makes you wonder how these military women survived the eighties with such a rigged scoring system, and also, if regular law enforcement used a similar system."
Charles McDowell's "scoring system" for the USAF was not in effect in the 80's. The 80's were when he began his review of rape cases at the behest of the USAF.
That's the study wherein fully 27% of the women who made rape accusations recant (admitted to having lied about being raped)either after being given a polygraph test, or after being asked to take one.
It was from his follow-up work on those admitted false accusations that he developed his scoring system for military use (IIRC, it was not implemented until 2006).
He correlated commonalities amongst the false claim to see how good an indicator each might be when compared to the other cases that were either "unknown" or actual rapes. Those which were almost always correlated only with FRA's will, of course, be those which carry the highest weighted weight scores.
I have some links stored that I can dig out if you're interested in reading up on McDowell's work.
Anonymous - "It is beyond my belief this accuser didn't just happen to SECRETLY record and save Mr. Buck's contemptiously unprofessional "buyer's remorse" remark years earlier"
First, as you do seem to be a returning poster, and not a drive-by sort, I apologize for disparaging you as a troll (I had though you were the person who seemed to be trying to discredit the FRS as a pro-republican political establishment. I'm probably a bit too quick to figure individual anti-FRS posts as the work of trolls. But, then again, I've repeatedly suggested that anonymous posters could identify and differentiate themselves with just a couple of characters at the end of their posts).
That said, Buck's "buyers remorse" remark was not made to the women, nor recored by her. He actually said that to a news paper reporter who asked him about the non-prosecution incident.
Buck has had a serious foot-in-mouth issue for years.
I was about to go into some detail regarding my wife's experience with him - but realized that doing so would be highly inadvisable. Suffice it to say, he's had that "issue" for many years.
His actual response (the one the women recorded) was actually one of his finer moments, in that he did give her a very reasonable and rational answer, instead of launching off into one of his "trade mark" foul-mouthed tirades.
Post a Comment