A teenage girl was locked up for six months today for crying rape - after she lied to stop her boyfriend finding out she'd cheated on him.
The 16-year-old girl made up the rape allegation after going home for sex with innocent Alex Lewis, 20, on a night out.
She lied to police that she was abducted, attacked and forced to perform a sex act during a violent assault by three men.
It led to Mr Lewis being arrested and held in custody for 36 hours. He spent two months on bail until the girl confessed it was all lies.
The 16-year-old girl made up the rape allegation after going home for sex with innocent Alex Lewis, 20, on a night out.
She lied to police that she was abducted, attacked and forced to perform a sex act during a violent assault by three men.
It led to Mr Lewis being arrested and held in custody for 36 hours. He spent two months on bail until the girl confessed it was all lies.
The girl, whose name cannot be revealed for legal reasons, admitted she was worried her boyfriend would be furious at finding she had sex with another man.
Can't be named for legal reasons? She's a convicted criminal. The fact that she's 16 scarcely matters. She was adult enough to know exactly what would happen when she leveled the rape charge, wasn't she?
Her lies unravelled when she was caught on CCTV drunkenly kissing and fondling Mr Lewis on the night out.
A judge yesterday ordered the girl should not be named - even though three innocent men she accused of rape were identified in court.
The trio, all aged 20, were arrested, quizzed and forced to give ‘intimate’ samples during their ‘terrifying’ ordeal after the girl's false claims.
Prosecutor David Pugh said: ‘She said she was pushed up a metal ladder to an attic bedroom by two men, one of whom held her down.
‘She said both kissed her all over her body and was raped by one of the men.’
But the girl's lies were uncovered when detectives viewed footage of her picking up the group in Merthyr Tydfil town centre in South Wales and kissing one of the men, Alex, before they jumped in a taxi together.
Mr Pugh added: ‘Images showed they became very close, with the girl kissing Mr Lewis and placing her head on his shoulder and getting in a taxi.’
They returned to Alex's parents' house and had consensual sex before the girl left and flagged down a police car, claiming she had been raped.
The girl was arrested and admitted making up the claims in June this year.
Mr Lewis spent two months on bail before police finally cleared him days before his 21st birthday.
‘The three men were subjected to a terrifying experience in the knowledge they were entirely innocent.
‘She is truly sorry.’
Oh, she's sorry. Well, that makes it all better.
He said that once she made the rape allegation, ‘a juggernaut was set in train’ - and the girl was too scared to admit she was lying.
Judge Mr Recorder Jeremy Jenkins QC yesterday sent the teenager to a young offender institution for six months.
The girl sat with her head bowed during the 20-minute hearing at Merthyr Crown Court and showed no emotion as the judge sentenced her.
No emotion. No remorse. For potentially sending a man to prison, and actually putting him in jail for 3 days. Moreover, he was subjected to very intrusive exams. That alone should merit more than 6 months. But wait, wasn't it just above, that it was stated that she was truly sorry? And yet she couldn't muster a tear during the hearing? Anyone care to wager that the only thing she is truly sorry about is getting caught in her lie? That seems to contradict what you have said counselor.
He told the teen: ‘When a woman makes an allegation of rape, it has to be treated with the utmost seriousness.’
‘Rape is an absolutely vile crime and it's the duty of the police to investigate it thoroughly and carefully.
‘False allegations of rape can have dreadful consequences to the men concerned.
‘For innocent men to be confronted with an allegation like that, held in custody for 36 hours and subjected to intrusive medical examinations is a terrible experience.
So it wasn't just Mr. Lewis who spent 3 days in jail, it was all 3 individuals. Interesting that the other 2 aren't named here. And at least the judge gets this part right. The people directly affected are those falsely accused. Not some hypothetical future victim who may not report because of the false allegation.
‘The police spent many hours and there was a substantial financial cost in investigating your wholly false allegations.’
He added: ‘Every time somebody makes a false allegation of rape, the public has less confidence in the truth of other complaints of sexual abuse made by genuine victims.’
And yet you still had to go there, didn't you, your honor?
Barrister Mr Pugh said the girl should be named and shamed - despite her age.
He said: ‘Members of the public need to know for their own future conduct and safety.’
I wish there were more prosecutors such as Mr. Pugh. Well done sir. Well done.
But the judge ordered the girl should not be identified publicly - even though her three victims were named in court.
He said her age and ‘the long-term need for rehabilitation’ meant she should be given anonymity.
But Mr Greenwood claimed: ‘She should not be labelled for the rest of her life within the close community.’
Why not Mr. Greenwood? Mr. Lewis will certainly be labeled for the rest of his life. As will the other two falsely accused. Why shouldn't she? I, personally, would take the time in jail for contempt of court if I was one of the falsely accused -- and name her for all to know -- as loudly, and as often as I could. Giving her anonymity, means that she will be free to do so again.
I would ask our resident expert, AfOR (who brought this article to our attention - thank you), since she is 16, will her record be sealed when she turns 18, as it is here in the U.S., and will it be cleared at 21?
Can't be named for legal reasons? She's a convicted criminal. The fact that she's 16 scarcely matters. She was adult enough to know exactly what would happen when she leveled the rape charge, wasn't she?
Her lies unravelled when she was caught on CCTV drunkenly kissing and fondling Mr Lewis on the night out.
A judge yesterday ordered the girl should not be named - even though three innocent men she accused of rape were identified in court.
The trio, all aged 20, were arrested, quizzed and forced to give ‘intimate’ samples during their ‘terrifying’ ordeal after the girl's false claims.
Prosecutor David Pugh said: ‘She said she was pushed up a metal ladder to an attic bedroom by two men, one of whom held her down.
‘She said both kissed her all over her body and was raped by one of the men.’
But the girl's lies were uncovered when detectives viewed footage of her picking up the group in Merthyr Tydfil town centre in South Wales and kissing one of the men, Alex, before they jumped in a taxi together.
Mr Pugh added: ‘Images showed they became very close, with the girl kissing Mr Lewis and placing her head on his shoulder and getting in a taxi.’
They returned to Alex's parents' house and had consensual sex before the girl left and flagged down a police car, claiming she had been raped.
The girl was arrested and admitted making up the claims in June this year.
Mr Lewis spent two months on bail before police finally cleared him days before his 21st birthday.
Mr Pugh said: ‘The reason she said she gave the false account was she was scared her boyfriend would find out she cheated on him and it would lead to violence.’
And there you have it. She leveled the rape charge to cover up for cheating on her boyfriend. Remember what we said here? Slwerner, here's another one to add to the list where at least we are told the motivation behind the accusation. :)
The girl pleaded guilty to trying to pervert the course of justice.
Alex Greenwood, defending, said: ‘This is as serious an example of attempting to pervert the course of justice as one can imagine.
No counselor, this is as serious an example of falsely accusing 3 men of rape, that resulted in one man being arrested, as one can imagine.
And there you have it. She leveled the rape charge to cover up for cheating on her boyfriend. Remember what we said here? Slwerner, here's another one to add to the list where at least we are told the motivation behind the accusation. :)
The girl pleaded guilty to trying to pervert the course of justice.
Alex Greenwood, defending, said: ‘This is as serious an example of attempting to pervert the course of justice as one can imagine.
No counselor, this is as serious an example of falsely accusing 3 men of rape, that resulted in one man being arrested, as one can imagine.
‘The three men were subjected to a terrifying experience in the knowledge they were entirely innocent.
‘She is truly sorry.’
Oh, she's sorry. Well, that makes it all better.
He said that once she made the rape allegation, ‘a juggernaut was set in train’ - and the girl was too scared to admit she was lying.
Judge Mr Recorder Jeremy Jenkins QC yesterday sent the teenager to a young offender institution for six months.
The girl sat with her head bowed during the 20-minute hearing at Merthyr Crown Court and showed no emotion as the judge sentenced her.
No emotion. No remorse. For potentially sending a man to prison, and actually putting him in jail for 3 days. Moreover, he was subjected to very intrusive exams. That alone should merit more than 6 months. But wait, wasn't it just above, that it was stated that she was truly sorry? And yet she couldn't muster a tear during the hearing? Anyone care to wager that the only thing she is truly sorry about is getting caught in her lie? That seems to contradict what you have said counselor.
He told the teen: ‘When a woman makes an allegation of rape, it has to be treated with the utmost seriousness.’
‘Rape is an absolutely vile crime and it's the duty of the police to investigate it thoroughly and carefully.
‘False allegations of rape can have dreadful consequences to the men concerned.
‘For innocent men to be confronted with an allegation like that, held in custody for 36 hours and subjected to intrusive medical examinations is a terrible experience.
So it wasn't just Mr. Lewis who spent 3 days in jail, it was all 3 individuals. Interesting that the other 2 aren't named here. And at least the judge gets this part right. The people directly affected are those falsely accused. Not some hypothetical future victim who may not report because of the false allegation.
‘The police spent many hours and there was a substantial financial cost in investigating your wholly false allegations.’
He added: ‘Every time somebody makes a false allegation of rape, the public has less confidence in the truth of other complaints of sexual abuse made by genuine victims.’
And yet you still had to go there, didn't you, your honor?
Barrister Mr Pugh said the girl should be named and shamed - despite her age.
He said: ‘Members of the public need to know for their own future conduct and safety.’
I wish there were more prosecutors such as Mr. Pugh. Well done sir. Well done.
But the judge ordered the girl should not be identified publicly - even though her three victims were named in court.
He said her age and ‘the long-term need for rehabilitation’ meant she should be given anonymity.
But Mr Greenwood claimed: ‘She should not be labelled for the rest of her life within the close community.’
Why not Mr. Greenwood? Mr. Lewis will certainly be labeled for the rest of his life. As will the other two falsely accused. Why shouldn't she? I, personally, would take the time in jail for contempt of court if I was one of the falsely accused -- and name her for all to know -- as loudly, and as often as I could. Giving her anonymity, means that she will be free to do so again.
I would ask our resident expert, AfOR (who brought this article to our attention - thank you), since she is 16, will her record be sealed when she turns 18, as it is here in the U.S., and will it be cleared at 21?
Posts
15 comments:
"I would ask our resident expert, AfOR (who brought this article to our attention - thank you), since she is 16, will her record be sealed when she turns 18, as it is here in the U.S., and will it be cleared at 21?"
I actually have no idea on that one, I would have thought so, but not sure.
” And yet you still had to go there, didn't you, your honor?”
As long as they are willing to include the actual harms done to the actual victims (or even potential victims), I see no reason why they shouldn’t also be confronted with their harms to other future victims as well as the cost in resources they’ve caused. Why spare them from having to face any facet of the damages they’ve done?
BTW, that would also include naming them (as you’ve already well argued).
I find it very encouraging that not one single comment at the DailyMail site sought to defender her, nor try to recast the debate back onto (actual) rape (as is normally the case).
All comments followed with the views typically expressed here.
One that was a bit unique, and that I found very insightful (and thus worthy of being partially quoted here) was this:
”I can't wait until a new generation of men come through the legal system as judges, lawyers and barristers, and replace the chivalrous idiots who don't seem to realise that women are laughing up their sleeves at them. - - Rob, Edinburgh, 7/12/2010 10:01”
Something I had not bothered to consider, but is looming in the years ahead is the increasing prominence of men (and women) who’ve become aware of the injustice brought about via feminism who will becoming judges, and who aren’t as likely to be issuing “P*ssy Passes” as we see far too often from old white-knighting chivalrous mangina judges doing.
” Slwerner, here's another one to add to the list where at least we are told the motivation behind the accusation. :)”
Indeed. This particular story should serve as an example of how these stories should all be handled (with the understanding that in not naming her, they were following the courts instructions). Both actual harms and motivations put on display for the public should be the norm rather than the exception.
I suppose that the fact that she was actually punished (with jail time) as a consequence is also in the public interest to know (even if only as a deterrent to others)
Let the world know why they're doing it, and what happens when they do.
I think you're being a bit unfair here. This is a positive story. She did a terrible thing and she got caught - and once she got caught, she came clean, didn't try to wriggle out of it, didn't make excuses or try to minimise the seriousness of what she'd done. She threw herself on the mercy of the court and took her punishment without a murmur. She's going to jail for longer than her victims were held for, and the judge mentioned the harm done to the falsely accused before the hypothetical harm done to potential future rape victims. Don't let your anger on behalf of falsely accused men blind you to the fact that, in this case, justice has been done for falsely accused men.
Paddy Brown - "She threw herself on the mercy of the court and took her punishment without a murmur."
This might carry some weight here if if men who are facing conviction for rape or sexual assault could also actually gain any mercy by throwing themselves to the court.
Many, many women can do so and get a "P*ssy Pass" (I won't dump any on you here and now, but rest assured that there are literally thousands of known and well documented examples).
There are not corresponding examples of a "Penis Pass", no matter how sorry, pitiful, and contrite a man can appear to be.
Your point is well take that we should consider it a positive that she was caught and punished. But, frankly, her expression of sorrow her willing acceptance of her punishment isn't going to play well here to gain any sympathy for her.
@slwerner,
That comment was directed more at the part about the "real victims". Sorry, but the primary victim of a false accusation should be enough. To constantly refer to some hypothetical, future rape victim, and how the false rape accusation affects them, minimizes the effect on the falsely accused (IMO).
@Paddy,
It's not anger, it's disgust. The article still has the tone of pointing to her as a victim. Yes, she was punished, and rightfully so, but there are still things wrong with the way the issue is being presented.
@slwerner
We're heading for a steaming pile of shit as all the feminazis that constitute 80% of all state workforces hit retirement, because nobody is going to be around to pay sufficient taxes to support their pensions or their security.
Quite looking forwards to it myself.
The UK is essentially bankrupt, but nobody is actually calling us on it yet, when they do the government purse (government ability to borrow money) is going to basically evaporate.
When that happens you'll see a MAJOR backlash against all the single mums on state benefits, state housing, state supports, state strongarming...
In my city the local police force is trying to balance the books by pushing all the older, more experienced, worthwhile, cops to take early retirement.
(USA, dial 911, UK dial 999)
As 50% of 999 calls are currently from women attempting to report domestic violence, we are going to see major attitude changes within the next few years.
E. Steven Berkimer - "Sorry, but the primary victim of a false accusation should be enough."
Upon reflection, if your concern is that including her additional harms in the enumeration will result in the dilution of what should remain the primary harm being addressed, then I can see you point about that alone being enough.
I suppose I was also looking at it through a lens of providing more complete public information, calculating that "stacking" on all of her associated "sins" would serve to better turn the hearts and minds towards seeing things "our way".
AfOR - "As 50% of 999 calls are currently from women attempting to report domestic violence..."
Am I correct in assuming (given the high rate) that the definitions of DV have been greatly expanded in the UK as they have here in the US?
Here, we have woman calling to have their partners arrested for such dubious offenses as not giving them money to go out drinking (real example). Thus, it would be no wonder that more than half of all calls would be "DV".
Slwerner:
But, frankly, her expression of sorrow her willing acceptance of her punishment isn't going to play well here to gain any sympathy for her.
Nor from me. That's not my point. My point is, in this case, we got everything would could have hoped for from the court and from the criminal, given that a false accusation had been made. Save your disgust for when, as so often, justice isn't done.
@slwerner
yup, DV is basically anything a woman says it is, and of course they all lie, oooh, he threatened to kill me... etc
Paddy, i appreciate yer optimism.
Regarding domestic violence in the UK, the new government has announced that legal aid (where in the state pays your legal fees) will no longer be available for divorce cases - except where domestic violence is alleged. Expect claims of dv in divorcing couples to go through the roof.
@ Paddy
I have heard, first hand, family law lawyers and associated officials openly discussing ways to maintain their work and therefore income, so as you say, 95% of all divorce cases and child custody cases will feature extreme DV and / or allegations of sexual abuse from early 2011.
Currently, in the UK family courts are secret, expect this shit to blow the lid off it.
Paddy is very astute, and we certainly thank him for his insight.
The reason we grow ever more disgusted is because judges, cops, and everyone else insists on forcing false rape claims into the rape narrative -- as if a false rape claim isn't bad enough without emphasizing it's effect on the phantom, hypothetical future victims of the "real" crime -- rape. (You never hear a judge chide a rapist for making false claims more likely, do you?) These comments may not be significant, in and of themselves in an isolated case. But the cumulative effect of always discussing false claims in terms of the harm to the war on rape trivializes false rape claims.
Most of the time, the judge/cop/sexual assault counselor is concerned because false claims will supposedly discourage women from coming forward -- the thinking is, every false claim forces women to fear they won't be believed. Now we learn from the head of RAINN that even this is not true: "A generation ago,' the reasons were things like, 'fear of not being believed; fear of being interrogated about and blamed for their own behavior, and what they were wearing. In short, they feared that they would be the one on trial.' Today, 'the perception of many victims has evolved.' Now they don't report for these reasons: 'they don't want their loved ones to know what happened; they're ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them.'"
I'm not sure justice was truly done here. False rape accusers should go to prison for "attempted destruction of a man's life". Not too different from an attempted murder charge.
6 months? That's an insult.
Post a Comment