Sunday, February 28, 2010

College women don't report rape because they don't know they have the right to report? Because of self blame? Puh-lease!

We have recently illustrated the preposterousness of the claim that yet more rape reforms are needed to end underreporting.  As we demonstrated, society has undergone an avalanche of rape reforms over the past 30 years precisely to encourage women to "come forward" and cry rape.  It is now easier than ever to charge and convict both rapists and innocent men of rape, yet underreporting seems to have gotten worse, not better.  A recent study purports to show that only five percent of college women report rape, much worse than the figures from the 70s we reported. That is, of course, absurd on its face.  Yet it is being touted as if there are twenty times more rapes on campus than are being reported.  The evidence for the alleged rapes in that survey are not tested or examined.  It would be most enlightening to have an objective, independent evaluator study the evidence for each claim, including the male's side of the story.  I promise you that, like the reports made to police, the incidents comprising the so-called rapes are anything but clear (see, for example, this recent post).

Indeed, "underreporting" is wielded either as a club to pass more and more reforms, or as an excuse to explain why there aren't a hell of a lot more rape claims.  After all, sexual assault advocates are being paid to sit around and respond to few claims, so they need to justify their existence.  The fact is, underreporting is the feminists' trump card to end all discussion about the prevalence of rape.  The argument goes something like this: Rape is rampant, and we know this from all the rapes that are not being reported.

Sorry, ladies.  Underreporting is entirely too politicized to be taken seriously.  You are the ones who have politicized it, so you must assume responsibility  for the fact it isn't taken seriously.

Yet, here's yet another  report, this one from Spokane, that helps fan the flames of rape hysteria.  It "explains" underreporting on campus:  "And many college-age women may not understand they have a right to report it, or they’re afraid."  And: "Perhaps the biggest deterrent to reporting, however, is self-blame. 'They think that if they went out to a party, and were drinking, they were somehow to blame for what happened,” said Shipman, of the Spokane sexual assault center. 'They need to understand they are the victim of a crime.'"

Allow me to pause to bang my head against the wall.  In 2010, college women need to be told that rape is a crime?  That they have a right to report it? Right. And I have some swamp land in Jersey to sell them. 

That doesn't just strain credulity, it shatters it into a thousand pieces.

Allow me to posit the number one reason college women aren't reporting rape: because they know that whatever happened in bed with a male classmate wasn't rape.  They might toss that word around to their girlfriends or to persons taking surveys, but when it comes to honestly answering that question, they know that they led the guy to believe that they wanted to have sex.  They are not reporting more rapes because there aren't more rapes.

College women don't report rape because they don't know they have the right to report? Because of self blame? Puh-lease!

We have recently illustrated the preposterousness of the claim that yet more rape reforms are needed to end underreporting.  As we demonstrated, society has undergone an avalanche of rape reforms over the past 30 years precisely to encourage women to "come forward" and cry rape.  It is now easier than ever to charge and convict both rapists and innocent men of rape, yet underreporting seems to have gotten worse, not better.  A recent study purports to show that only five percent of college women report rape, much worse than the figures from the 70s we reported. That is, of course, absurd on its face.  Yet it is being touted as if there are twenty times more rapes on campus than are being reported.  The evidence for the alleged rapes in that survey are not tested or examined.  It would be most enlightening to have an objective, independent evaluator study the evidence for each claim, including the male's side of the story.  I promise you that, like the reports made to police, the incidents comprising the so-called rapes are anything but clear (see, for example, this recent post).

Indeed, "underreporting" is wielded either as a club to pass more and more reforms, or as an excuse to explain why there aren't a hell of a lot more rape claims.  After all, sexual assault advocates are being paid to sit around and respond to few claims, so they need to justify their existence.  The fact is, underreporting is the feminists' trump card to end all discussion about the prevalence of rape.  The argument goes something like this: Rape is rampant, and we know this from all the rapes that are not being reported.

Sorry, ladies.  Underreporting is entirely too politicized to be taken seriously.  You are the ones who have politicized it, so you must assume responsibility  for the fact it isn't taken seriously.

Yet, here's yet another  report, this one from Spokane, that helps fan the flames of rape hysteria.  It "explains" underreporting on campus:  "And many college-age women may not understand they have a right to report it, or they’re afraid."  And: "Perhaps the biggest deterrent to reporting, however, is self-blame. 'They think that if they went out to a party, and were drinking, they were somehow to blame for what happened,” said Shipman, of the Spokane sexual assault center. 'They need to understand they are the victim of a crime.'"

Allow me to pause to bang my head against the wall.  In 2010, college women need to be told that rape is a crime?  That they have a right to report it? Right. And I have some swamp land in Jersey to sell them. 

That doesn't just strain credulity, it shatters it into a thousand pieces.

Allow me to posit the number one reason college women aren't reporting rape: because they know that whatever happened in bed with a male classmate wasn't rape.  They might toss that word around to their girlfriends or to persons taking surveys, but when it comes to honestly answering that question, they know that they led the guy to believe that they wanted to have sex.  They are not reporting more rapes because there aren't more rapes.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Idiocy from a radical feminist who couldn't care less about the falsely accused

Here's the literary equivalent of especially pungent feces from I Blame the Patriarchy,whose blogger seems not only to hate and despise and loathe approximately one-half of the population of planet earth solely due to their gender (don't trust me, go to her blog and decide for yourself) -- because, gee, wouldn't you know it, that half hates and oppresses and subjugates the other half! -- but almost as bad, she truly thinks she's funny. You know, "funny" in that supposedly sharp, intrusive, and er biting way that man-hating feminists aspire to be. "Pathetic" is too mild a word to describe them, much less their writing. Read this diarrhea of the keyboard by the person who runs that blog, as she tries to ridicule people concerned about men falsely accused of rape (and by the way, that includes such vile misogynists such as the folks who run The Innocence Project, and Janet Reno who's on the board of the Innocence Project, and Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Prof. KC Johnson, and countless others). Following the nutty blather, we'll try to put it in perspective for you (as if shit needs to be put into perspective):

Speaking of real life and downers, one of my aged relatives just called to complain to me about this situation, displayed on the front page of this morning’s Dallas Morning News: Wrongfully convicted rapist gets exonerated after a 12-year hitch, and the Great State of Texas reimburses him $600,000. But along comes the IRS with jaws that bite and claws that catch, claiming non-rapist owes a third of the dough to the federal government.

Along with a sympathetic pang for the dude unjustly accused of rape, my relative harbors an abiding antipathy toward the IRS.

“Bastards!” says the aged relative, getting pretty fired up.

“Now see here,” I say, “you’d better give me the keys to the Cessna.”

No doubt the IRS are bastards, but one can’t help but note that there is no commensurate front-page public outpouring of outrage on behalf of the rape victims whose rapists are never convicted at all. Nobody’s payin’ them 50 grand a year for pain and suffering. No newspapers are running front-page articles spotlighting the government’s failure to render justice on their behalf. And for sure no relatives are callin’ me up to complain that the rape conviction rate in the UK is only 6%.

Wrongful conviction for rape strikes quite the chord of intense indignation. So melodious is this chord to the ears of patriarchy enthusiasts that there still rages, in 2010, a huge debate over whether a rape victim may be held responsible for her own rape.


FRS COMMENTS: First, I am conflicted about printing this because it only furnishes ammunition to misogynists who don't need any more ammunition than they think they already have. The "person" who writes this blog is not representative of women, of course, but I still feel conflicted.

Second, I would have to be that vile misogynist Shakespeare (he's a "vile misogynist" because he's male) to adequately describe the idiocy at work in her "reasoning." I will say this much: isn't it wonderful how radical feminism can't see the difference between (1) the negligence and sometimes intentional misconduct of the criminal justice system, operating at the behest of society as a whole, when it works in complicity with a false rape accuser to deprive an innocent man or boy of his liberty for years or decades, destroying his life in the process, and (2) the felonious, unilateral act of a lone criminal who rapes a woman? But, hey, why let little things like, oh, facts and reality, get in the way of a good woman-as-perpetual-victim metanarrative?  Get it straight (and I know "straight" doesn't apply to you, lady):  in the former, the harm was caused by the system acting for all of us; in the latter, the harm was caused by a criminal. Get it? Those rape "victims" who are deprived of justice can sue their "rapists" civilly (with its attendant reduced burden of proof). But before they can prevail, they need to prove it.

Third, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism knows that when a man or boy accused of rape is cleared or exonerated or found "not guilty," the justice system by necessity has "failed" the "victim"? Never mind that such failure must be taken as a matter of faith by relying on the word of -- cough, cough -- radical feminists, who hate men like this "human being" seems to (again, don't take my word for it -- read her blog and decide for yourself).

Fourth, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism truly, really thinks that when it comes to rape, the justice system is working at the behest of the rape accuser alone as opposed to society as a whole? You know, it's in no one's interest aside from the accuser to get rapists off the street. Right.

Fifth, isn't it astounding when radical feminists complain that there is widespread indignation for the falsely accused when they, themselves, spearheaded an avalanche of rape reforms in the past three decades to make it easier and easier and easier to convict innocent men and boys of rape?  Because of "people" like this, society has handed women and girls unprecedented power to bring their rapists to justice, but it never bothered to consider what to do when when they abuse that power.

But enough of this. I have "misogny" I need to practice: I have to respond to some email from men falsely accused of rape.

Idiocy from a radical feminist who couldn't care less about the falsely accused

Here's the literary equivalent of especially pungent feces from I Blame the Patriarchy,whose blogger seems not only to hate and despise and loathe approximately one-half of the population of planet earth solely due to their gender (don't trust me, go to her blog and decide for yourself) -- because, gee, wouldn't you know it, that half hates and oppresses and subjugates the other half! -- but almost as bad, she truly thinks she's funny. You know, "funny" in that supposedly sharp, intrusive, and er biting way that man-hating feminists aspire to be. "Pathetic" is too mild a word to describe them, much less their writing. Read this diarrhea of the keyboard by the person who runs that blog, as she tries to ridicule people concerned about men falsely accused of rape (and by the way, that includes such vile misogynists such as the folks who run The Innocence Project, and Janet Reno who's on the board of the Innocence Project, and Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Prof. KC Johnson, and countless others). Following the nutty blather, we'll try to put it in perspective for you (as if shit needs to be put into perspective):

Speaking of real life and downers, one of my aged relatives just called to complain to me about this situation, displayed on the front page of this morning’s Dallas Morning News: Wrongfully convicted rapist gets exonerated after a 12-year hitch, and the Great State of Texas reimburses him $600,000. But along comes the IRS with jaws that bite and claws that catch, claiming non-rapist owes a third of the dough to the federal government.

Along with a sympathetic pang for the dude unjustly accused of rape, my relative harbors an abiding antipathy toward the IRS.

“Bastards!” says the aged relative, getting pretty fired up.

“Now see here,” I say, “you’d better give me the keys to the Cessna.”

No doubt the IRS are bastards, but one can’t help but note that there is no commensurate front-page public outpouring of outrage on behalf of the rape victims whose rapists are never convicted at all. Nobody’s payin’ them 50 grand a year for pain and suffering. No newspapers are running front-page articles spotlighting the government’s failure to render justice on their behalf. And for sure no relatives are callin’ me up to complain that the rape conviction rate in the UK is only 6%.

Wrongful conviction for rape strikes quite the chord of intense indignation. So melodious is this chord to the ears of patriarchy enthusiasts that there still rages, in 2010, a huge debate over whether a rape victim may be held responsible for her own rape.


FRS COMMENTS: First, I am conflicted about printing this because it only furnishes ammunition to misogynists who don't need any more ammunition than they think they already have. The "person" who writes this blog is not representative of women, of course, but I still feel conflicted.

Second, I would have to be that vile misogynist Shakespeare (he's a "vile misogynist" because he's male) to adequately describe the idiocy at work in her "reasoning." I will say this much: isn't it wonderful how radical feminism can't see the difference between (1) the negligence and sometimes intentional misconduct of the criminal justice system, operating at the behest of society as a whole, when it works in complicity with a false rape accuser to deprive an innocent man or boy of his liberty for years or decades, destroying his life in the process, and (2) the felonious, unilateral act of a lone criminal who rapes a woman? But, hey, why let little things like, oh, facts and reality, get in the way of a good woman-as-perpetual-victim metanarrative?  Get it straight (and I know "straight" doesn't apply to you, lady):  in the former, the harm was caused by the system acting for all of us; in the latter, the harm was caused by a criminal. Get it? Those rape "victims" who are deprived of justice can sue their "rapists" civilly (with its attendant reduced burden of proof). But before they can prevail, they need to prove it.

Third, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism knows that when a man or boy accused of rape is cleared or exonerated or found "not guilty," the justice system by necessity has "failed" the "victim"? Never mind that such failure must be taken as a matter of faith by relying on the word of -- cough, cough -- radical feminists, who hate men like this "human being" seems to (again, don't take my word for it -- read her blog and decide for yourself).

Fourth, isn't it also wonderful that radical feminism truly, really thinks that when it comes to rape, the justice system is working at the behest of the rape accuser alone as opposed to society as a whole? You know, it's in no one's interest aside from the accuser to get rapists off the street. Right.

Fifth, isn't it astounding when radical feminists complain that there is widespread indignation for the falsely accused when they, themselves, spearheaded an avalanche of rape reforms in the past three decades to make it easier and easier and easier to convict innocent men and boys of rape?  Because of "people" like this, society has handed women and girls unprecedented power to bring their rapists to justice, but it never bothered to consider what to do when when they abuse that power.

But enough of this. I have "misogny" I need to practice: I have to respond to some email from men falsely accused of rape.

Proof that no male is immune from false rape claims

Here's an outrageous false rape news story out of Pakistan.  Knowing what we know, as reported here day in and day out, is it so difficult to believe this could occur in the US or the UK?  We often say on this site that virtually no man is immune from a false rape claim.  This case proves it.  

The cousin of a mentally unstable woman accused a man of raping the woman.  The accused man was arrested and jailed for a full month.  Only after police received the medical report of the "victim" (that's what the story calls her) was the man cleared. The man alleged that police officers implicated him in the alleged crime because a relative of one of the police officers wanted to purchase land he owned.

What makes the story outrageous is that the falsely accused man is 90-years-old.  That's right: a 90-year-old man was deemed sufficiently dangerous to be jailed for one month after being accused of raping a mentally unstable woman, and before the police even saw the medical test results. 

According the news story: "A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape.  Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them."

See here: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/27-Feb-2010/90yearold-acquitted-in-rape-case

Full story: 90-year-old acquitted in rape case

RAWALPINDI - An Additional District and Sessions (ADS) judge Friday exonerated a 90-year-old accused from a rape case after the medical report of the victim confirmed that crime was not committed with the woman.


According to the details, ADS judge Malik Sajid Ali Awan acquitted Muhammad Akbar from the charges of raping a lunatic woman in a village of Kalar Syedan on June 26 2009 since the charges could not be proved against the accused.

Syed Manzoor Shah had complained to the police that Akbar raped his cousin who was not mentally fit as some people of the area witnessed the incident.

Police arrested the old man who was later granted bail by the Lahore High Court as he remained in the jail for a month. It was on his appeal that the Supreme Court took suo moto notice of implicating the old man in a rape case.

The subsequent inquiry into the case by district and sessions judge recommended reinvestigation in the case as many lacunas were detected.

A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape.

Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them.

Muhammad Akbar had alleged that the DSP Khalid Jamil Paracha implicated him with the help of other police officers just to deprive him of a piece of land as a relative of the DSP wanted to purchase that land.

Proof that no male is immune from false rape claims

Here's an outrageous false rape news story out of Pakistan.  Knowing what we know, as reported here day in and day out, is it so difficult to believe this could occur in the US or the UK?  We often say on this site that virtually no man is immune from a false rape claim.  This case proves it.  

The cousin of a mentally unstable woman accused a man of raping the woman.  The accused man was arrested and jailed for a full month.  Only after police received the medical report of the "victim" (that's what the story calls her) was the man cleared. The man alleged that police officers implicated him in the alleged crime because a relative of one of the police officers wanted to purchase land he owned.

What makes the story outrageous is that the falsely accused man is 90-years-old.  That's right: a 90-year-old man was deemed sufficiently dangerous to be jailed for one month after being accused of raping a mentally unstable woman, and before the police even saw the medical test results. 

According the news story: "A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape.  Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them."

See here: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/27-Feb-2010/90yearold-acquitted-in-rape-case

Full story: 90-year-old acquitted in rape case

RAWALPINDI - An Additional District and Sessions (ADS) judge Friday exonerated a 90-year-old accused from a rape case after the medical report of the victim confirmed that crime was not committed with the woman.


According to the details, ADS judge Malik Sajid Ali Awan acquitted Muhammad Akbar from the charges of raping a lunatic woman in a village of Kalar Syedan on June 26 2009 since the charges could not be proved against the accused.

Syed Manzoor Shah had complained to the police that Akbar raped his cousin who was not mentally fit as some people of the area witnessed the incident.

Police arrested the old man who was later granted bail by the Lahore High Court as he remained in the jail for a month. It was on his appeal that the Supreme Court took suo moto notice of implicating the old man in a rape case.

The subsequent inquiry into the case by district and sessions judge recommended reinvestigation in the case as many lacunas were detected.

A superintendent of the police in his investigation stated that no incident of the rape occurred as man was too old to commit rape and medical examination of the victim woman did not confirm the rape.

Police suspended a deputy superintendent of police, the station house officer and three sub inspectors for implicating the old man in a false rape case and criminal proceedings were initiated against them.

Muhammad Akbar had alleged that the DSP Khalid Jamil Paracha implicated him with the help of other police officers just to deprive him of a piece of land as a relative of the DSP wanted to purchase that land.

High school girl falsely accuses male classmate of rape

A high school girl falsely accused an acquaintance, a 17-year-old male classmate, of rape, according to a news report.  The following news account of the incident is rare because it identifies the juvenile false accuser but properly does not identify the victim, the falsely accused boy.  This is how all similar cases should be treated by the news media.

New Hanover County Sheriff's Office Detectives Charge Student with False Rape Report

NEW HANOVER - Detectives investigated the report of an alleged rape of a female Ashley High School student Wednesday February 24. The incident allegedly happened in a school bathroom adjacent to the football field at Ashley High School - and involved a male student as the alleged perpetrator.

The student reported the incident to a relative who notified the Sheriff's Office. As Detectives continued to investigate the alleged rape they determined the incident did not occur, as earlier reported.

On Friday, February 26, detectives arrested and charged the student who first reported she was raped by another student on Wednesday. Heather Marie Conklin, 17 of Wilmington, first told Detectives she was raped in a bathroom adjacent to the football fields at Ashley High School. Conklin later admitted the incident was consensual. Detectives have since charged Conklin with filing a false police report - a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Conklin was released from the New Hanover County Detention Facility after posting a $500 secured bond.

Link: http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10144&Itemid=1

High school girl falsely accuses male classmate of rape

A high school girl falsely accused an acquaintance, a 17-year-old male classmate, of rape, according to a news report.  The following news account of the incident is rare because it identifies the juvenile false accuser but properly does not identify the victim, the falsely accused boy.  This is how all similar cases should be treated by the news media.

New Hanover County Sheriff's Office Detectives Charge Student with False Rape Report

NEW HANOVER - Detectives investigated the report of an alleged rape of a female Ashley High School student Wednesday February 24. The incident allegedly happened in a school bathroom adjacent to the football field at Ashley High School - and involved a male student as the alleged perpetrator.

The student reported the incident to a relative who notified the Sheriff's Office. As Detectives continued to investigate the alleged rape they determined the incident did not occur, as earlier reported.

On Friday, February 26, detectives arrested and charged the student who first reported she was raped by another student on Wednesday. Heather Marie Conklin, 17 of Wilmington, first told Detectives she was raped in a bathroom adjacent to the football fields at Ashley High School. Conklin later admitted the incident was consensual. Detectives have since charged Conklin with filing a false police report - a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Conklin was released from the New Hanover County Detention Facility after posting a $500 secured bond.

Link: http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10144&Itemid=1

Comments policy

Comments are not moderated at present, but can be if necessary.  Comments do not express the views of the owners of this blog. 

We do not tolerate comments that are insulting to the persons who comment or post here.  Nor do we tolerate offensive comments, including but not limited to comments that are racist or that negatively characterize, attack, or degrade the characteristics of an entire gender. Comments that criticize or question social policies that favor one gender over another are, of course, not offensive.  Example: saying "women are inherent liars" is offensive.  Saying "laws enable women to lie about rape" is not.

This blog is dedicated to giving voice to, and raising awareness about the problems encountered by, persons falsely and wrongfly accused of rape and sexual assault.  We welcome any comments consistent with that mission. We do not tolerate comments inconsistent with that mission or that minimize or trivialize the importance of that mission.

Off-topic comments consistent with the mission of this blog are welcome because they are often a valuable source of information about matters of importance to this blog.

Comments policy

Comments are not moderated at present, but can be if necessary.  Comments do not express the views of the owners of this blog. 

We do not tolerate comments that are insulting to the persons who comment or post here.  Nor do we tolerate offensive comments, including but not limited to comments that are racist or that negatively characterize, attack, or degrade the characteristics of an entire gender. Comments that criticize or question social policies that favor one gender over another are, of course, not offensive.  Example: saying "women are inherent liars" is offensive.  Saying "laws enable women to lie about rape" is not.

This blog is dedicated to giving voice to, and raising awareness about the problems encountered by, persons falsely and wrongfly accused of rape and sexual assault.  We welcome any comments consistent with that mission. We do not tolerate comments inconsistent with that mission or that minimize or trivialize the importance of that mission.

Off-topic comments consistent with the mission of this blog are welcome because they are often a valuable source of information about matters of importance to this blog.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Details on McCaffrey wrongful conviction: Priest made sure reluctant recanter recanted

His name is Rev. Zeljko Guberovic.  He's the priest who hounded Biurny Peguero Gonzalez to come forward and recant.

I tried to locate Father Guberovic, because I want to write to him. He seems to have moved on from the parish where this incident occurred and I can't find him.  If anyone knows his whereabouts, please let us know. 

You see, Father Guverovic is a hero, and I want to thank him.

In an age when Catholic clergymen have been unfairly  painted with a broad brush as child molestors (similar to the hateful attitude that declares "all men are rapists"), it is well to remember that countless clergymen are out in the trenches day in and day out, helping countless people in countless ways we never hear about.  This particular priest knew that a terrible injustice had occurred, and that for every day a man sat in prison, a terrible justice was still occurring.  He insisted that a young woman who had told a terrible lie make it right. This had to be painful for the good priest, and it would have been easier for him not to become involved. 

The next time you hear some Catholic basher make an off-hand "jest" about Catholic priests and altar boys, kindly remember Father Zeljko Guberovic, and in his name, chide the "comedian" that the vast majority of priests, like the vast majority of men, are good people who do their jobs and try to do the right thing day in and day out.  And sometimes, like Father Guberovic, they even do heroic things.

Read the news story below:

Rape Liar Didn't Want To Confess Because She Was Pregnant

The woman whose false rape accusations put an innocent man in prison for four years wouldn't have admitted her story was a lie if she knew she was pregnant at the time, according to court documents. Biurny Peguero Gonzalez told investigators she wouldn't have come forward during confessional with her priest if she knew she was going to have a child. "She said that had she been aware of her pregnancy, she probably would not have confessed when she did," the papers state.

According to the Post, the documents filed by the prosecution also reveal that after learning of her pregnancy, Gonzalez tried to avoid contacting authorities. The 27-year-old—who claimed she was raped in Upper Manhattan in 2005 to cover up a fight with her girlfriends and make them feel sorry for her—reportedly lied to her priest by saying she couldn't confess to her lawyer because she had lost her cellphone.

When she finally called her attorney, "it was from a church phone, with the priest watching to be sure she finished the job," the tabloid notes. Gonzalez's admission allowed Bronx construction worker William McCaffrey, 33, to have his 20-year sentence overturned. Gonzalez was sentenced yesterday 1 to 3 years behind bars for perjury.

Link: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/25/woman_who_lied_about_rape.php

Details on McCaffrey wrongful conviction: Priest made sure reluctant recanter recanted

His name is Rev. Zeljko Guberovic.  He's the priest who hounded Biurny Peguero Gonzalez to come forward and recant.

I tried to locate Father Guberovic, because I want to write to him. He seems to have moved on from the parish where this incident occurred and I can't find him.  If anyone knows his whereabouts, please let us know. 

You see, Father Guverovic is a hero, and I want to thank him.

In an age when Catholic clergymen have been unfairly  painted with a broad brush as child molestors (similar to the hateful attitude that declares "all men are rapists"), it is well to remember that countless clergymen are out in the trenches day in and day out, helping countless people in countless ways we never hear about.  This particular priest knew that a terrible injustice had occurred, and that for every day a man sat in prison, a terrible justice was still occurring.  He insisted that a young woman who had told a terrible lie make it right. This had to be painful for the good priest, and it would have been easier for him not to become involved. 

The next time you hear some Catholic basher make an off-hand "jest" about Catholic priests and altar boys, kindly remember Father Zeljko Guberovic, and in his name, chide the "comedian" that the vast majority of priests, like the vast majority of men, are good people who do their jobs and try to do the right thing day in and day out.  And sometimes, like Father Guberovic, they even do heroic things.

Read the news story below:

Rape Liar Didn't Want To Confess Because She Was Pregnant

The woman whose false rape accusations put an innocent man in prison for four years wouldn't have admitted her story was a lie if she knew she was pregnant at the time, according to court documents. Biurny Peguero Gonzalez told investigators she wouldn't have come forward during confessional with her priest if she knew she was going to have a child. "She said that had she been aware of her pregnancy, she probably would not have confessed when she did," the papers state.

According to the Post, the documents filed by the prosecution also reveal that after learning of her pregnancy, Gonzalez tried to avoid contacting authorities. The 27-year-old—who claimed she was raped in Upper Manhattan in 2005 to cover up a fight with her girlfriends and make them feel sorry for her—reportedly lied to her priest by saying she couldn't confess to her lawyer because she had lost her cellphone.

When she finally called her attorney, "it was from a church phone, with the priest watching to be sure she finished the job," the tabloid notes. Gonzalez's admission allowed Bronx construction worker William McCaffrey, 33, to have his 20-year sentence overturned. Gonzalez was sentenced yesterday 1 to 3 years behind bars for perjury.

Link: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/25/woman_who_lied_about_rape.php

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS STANDS UP FOR THE FALSELY ACCUSED

The single greatest editorial we've seen in a long, long time:

This case was a crime: DAs must learn tough lessons from false rape conviction

Five years after crying rape and sending a man to prison for a crime that never happened, Biurney Peguero has been slapped with a one- to three-year sentence for committing perjury.

She deserves that much - and more. Peguero should have been required to spend at least as much time behind bars as did William McCaffrey, the innocent man she locked away.

That Peguero eventually admitted fabricating her account of a brutal assault by McCaffrey and two other men does not mitigate her offense. Nor was hers garden-variety perjury of the kind that witnesses perpetrate to, say, dodge an indictment.

Peguero's sworn words stole the freedom of a blameless individual as surely as if she had kidnapped and held him hostage for 50 months. Her eligibility to apply for parole in a year pales in comparison.

She also played the criminal justice system - the police, the Manhattan district attorney's office, a judge and two juries - for fools. They bought a story that in the clear light of hindsight had grounds for doubt.

And, so, the Peguero case must serve as an object lesson for law enforcement authorities and judges as to the makings of a wrongful conviction. It should also reinforce for them the need for speedy reconsideration when there is substantial evidence that an injustice has been done.

Peguero's tale was horrifying. She said she met McCaffrey after a long night of drinking in upper Manhattan and wound up with him and his friends in a van. In graphic detail, she described being raped at knifepoint by McCaffrey and two others. She offered as evidence a bite mark.

So convincing was Peguero that Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers slammed McCaffrey with a 20-year sentence - more than the recommended maximum - saying, "she gave up caring what you and your accomplices were doing in sexually assaulting her; hoping only that you would not take her life."

But a medical exam had turned up no evidence that Peguero had been raped at all, let alone by McCaffrey, let alone by three men.

But she had also told a friend there had been only one rapist.

But the men returned Peguero to her friends rather than dumping her on the street.

But police couldn't bring cases against the other two supposed attackers.

But a witness said Peguero had gotten into an unrelated fight with her friends, the melee in which she suffered the bite mark.

The DA's office says it investigated to the fullest extent possible. Still, this was that most dangerous of prosecutorial entities: the single-witness case. And it went horribly wrong.

Later, in 2007, after advances in DNA technology, McCaffrey's lawyers asked for access to DNA left with the bite mark. The material should have been provided forthwith, in keeping with then-DA Robert Morgenthau's stated policy. But a year passed before a DNA test proved that McCaffrey had not bitten Peguero, as had been presented at his trial.

Then, after Peguero recanted her story in March 2009, it took yet another nine months before he was freed.

When that day finally came, Carruthers apologized profusely and called the conviction a catastrophe for both McCaffrey and the criminal justice system..

The judge was right on both counts. Now, the goal must be never to stumble into another such disaster. New DA Cy Vance made a campaign issue of preventing wrongful convictions. He is moving to create a special unit for that purpose.

The horrible saga of McCaffrey's imprisonment must be part of the curriculum.

Link:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/26/2010-02-26_this_case_was_a_crime.html#ixzz0geBXg5OA

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS STANDS UP FOR THE FALSELY ACCUSED

The single greatest editorial we've seen in a long, long time:

This case was a crime: DAs must learn tough lessons from false rape conviction

Five years after crying rape and sending a man to prison for a crime that never happened, Biurney Peguero has been slapped with a one- to three-year sentence for committing perjury.

She deserves that much - and more. Peguero should have been required to spend at least as much time behind bars as did William McCaffrey, the innocent man she locked away.

That Peguero eventually admitted fabricating her account of a brutal assault by McCaffrey and two other men does not mitigate her offense. Nor was hers garden-variety perjury of the kind that witnesses perpetrate to, say, dodge an indictment.

Peguero's sworn words stole the freedom of a blameless individual as surely as if she had kidnapped and held him hostage for 50 months. Her eligibility to apply for parole in a year pales in comparison.

She also played the criminal justice system - the police, the Manhattan district attorney's office, a judge and two juries - for fools. They bought a story that in the clear light of hindsight had grounds for doubt.

And, so, the Peguero case must serve as an object lesson for law enforcement authorities and judges as to the makings of a wrongful conviction. It should also reinforce for them the need for speedy reconsideration when there is substantial evidence that an injustice has been done.

Peguero's tale was horrifying. She said she met McCaffrey after a long night of drinking in upper Manhattan and wound up with him and his friends in a van. In graphic detail, she described being raped at knifepoint by McCaffrey and two others. She offered as evidence a bite mark.

So convincing was Peguero that Supreme Court Justice Richard Carruthers slammed McCaffrey with a 20-year sentence - more than the recommended maximum - saying, "she gave up caring what you and your accomplices were doing in sexually assaulting her; hoping only that you would not take her life."

But a medical exam had turned up no evidence that Peguero had been raped at all, let alone by McCaffrey, let alone by three men.

But she had also told a friend there had been only one rapist.

But the men returned Peguero to her friends rather than dumping her on the street.

But police couldn't bring cases against the other two supposed attackers.

But a witness said Peguero had gotten into an unrelated fight with her friends, the melee in which she suffered the bite mark.

The DA's office says it investigated to the fullest extent possible. Still, this was that most dangerous of prosecutorial entities: the single-witness case. And it went horribly wrong.

Later, in 2007, after advances in DNA technology, McCaffrey's lawyers asked for access to DNA left with the bite mark. The material should have been provided forthwith, in keeping with then-DA Robert Morgenthau's stated policy. But a year passed before a DNA test proved that McCaffrey had not bitten Peguero, as had been presented at his trial.

Then, after Peguero recanted her story in March 2009, it took yet another nine months before he was freed.

When that day finally came, Carruthers apologized profusely and called the conviction a catastrophe for both McCaffrey and the criminal justice system..

The judge was right on both counts. Now, the goal must be never to stumble into another such disaster. New DA Cy Vance made a campaign issue of preventing wrongful convictions. He is moving to create a special unit for that purpose.

The horrible saga of McCaffrey's imprisonment must be part of the curriculum.

Link:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/26/2010-02-26_this_case_was_a_crime.html#ixzz0geBXg5OA

Reported sexual assault results in false alarm

The Lyndon State community woke up to disturbing news Tuesday morning after an alleged sexual assault was reported.

A further investigation by police concluded the student, whose identity has not been revealed, filed a false report, according to an e-mail from President Carol Moore to students and faculty. George Hacking, director of public safety, confirmed the report was false and said the state police will be filing charges against the student for filing a false report.

Jonathan Davis, associate dean of student affairs, sent out a campus warning to students and faculty Tuesday morning in regards to the reported sexual assault. The report claimed that an unidentified male had crawled through a first floor window in Stonehenge around 1:00 a.m. At the time of the reported assault, neither a description of the assaulter nor any other suspects were available. Jonathan Davis was not available for further comment at the time of publication.

Hacking stressed the need for students to understand the report filed by the student was false and said, "We are as safe today as we were before the report came in." Hacking acknowledged it would be unwise to not learn from the incident. "We recognize there are ways to get into the residence halls if you really want to," Hacking said, "we have some control over that but it's really the students responsibility to take control."

In order to prevent intruders from getting into the buildings, students need to report people who are propping open doors or leaving windows open, Hacking says. "We need the assistance of the community," he said.

Since the false sexual assault was reported, Public Safety has increased patrols in Stonehenge and specifically in the Crevecoeur area, Hacking said. "One of the more positive side effects of the incident," says Hacking, "is that the patrols are going into suites and finding the suite doors are now being locked."

In regards to handling reports of any kind, Hacking says you must always assume the report is real. When the call went out that an alleged sexual assault had taken place on campus, public safety officers, including two student officers, immediately responded to the area, where they contacted the RHD on duty. At the same time, the state police were notified and arrived on campus and began investigating the incident, Hacking said. Three uniformed officers, one with a canine to search for a possible suspect trail and four detectives were on campus, Hacking said.

"I came in as did Jonathan Davis as soon as we were notified," says Hacking.

Hacking did note the emergency texting system worked well but, "we're still working out some bugs with the email system."

Link:
http://media.www.lyndonstatecritic.com/media/storage/paper1401/news/2010/01/29/News/Reported.Sexual.Assault.Results.In.False.Alarm-3860613.shtml

Reported sexual assault results in false alarm

The Lyndon State community woke up to disturbing news Tuesday morning after an alleged sexual assault was reported.

A further investigation by police concluded the student, whose identity has not been revealed, filed a false report, according to an e-mail from President Carol Moore to students and faculty. George Hacking, director of public safety, confirmed the report was false and said the state police will be filing charges against the student for filing a false report.

Jonathan Davis, associate dean of student affairs, sent out a campus warning to students and faculty Tuesday morning in regards to the reported sexual assault. The report claimed that an unidentified male had crawled through a first floor window in Stonehenge around 1:00 a.m. At the time of the reported assault, neither a description of the assaulter nor any other suspects were available. Jonathan Davis was not available for further comment at the time of publication.

Hacking stressed the need for students to understand the report filed by the student was false and said, "We are as safe today as we were before the report came in." Hacking acknowledged it would be unwise to not learn from the incident. "We recognize there are ways to get into the residence halls if you really want to," Hacking said, "we have some control over that but it's really the students responsibility to take control."

In order to prevent intruders from getting into the buildings, students need to report people who are propping open doors or leaving windows open, Hacking says. "We need the assistance of the community," he said.

Since the false sexual assault was reported, Public Safety has increased patrols in Stonehenge and specifically in the Crevecoeur area, Hacking said. "One of the more positive side effects of the incident," says Hacking, "is that the patrols are going into suites and finding the suite doors are now being locked."

In regards to handling reports of any kind, Hacking says you must always assume the report is real. When the call went out that an alleged sexual assault had taken place on campus, public safety officers, including two student officers, immediately responded to the area, where they contacted the RHD on duty. At the same time, the state police were notified and arrived on campus and began investigating the incident, Hacking said. Three uniformed officers, one with a canine to search for a possible suspect trail and four detectives were on campus, Hacking said.

"I came in as did Jonathan Davis as soon as we were notified," says Hacking.

Hacking did note the emergency texting system worked well but, "we're still working out some bugs with the email system."

Link:
http://media.www.lyndonstatecritic.com/media/storage/paper1401/news/2010/01/29/News/Reported.Sexual.Assault.Results.In.False.Alarm-3860613.shtml

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Rape advocates: stop being dishonest about the prevalence of rape

This post will illustrate a point we try to make often.  Please follow me -- this isn't about false claims per se; it's about the fact that we don't know what percentage of all rape claims are actual rapes, so rape advocates shouldn't pretend they do. 

Rape "experts" have no difficulty tossing out a definite percentage of actual and false claims.  Some are stuck on the two percent false claims (which is a lie); others say 9 percent.  They thereby suggest that since 2 or 9 percent are false, the other 98 or 91 percent must be actual rapes.

Let's not mince words: it's a lie.  But it's what they do, and we must be vigilant about it.

I repeatedly make the point that we are reasonably certain that some rape reports were actual rapes; and that some were false claims. However, the majority of rape claims fall in that big, gray area that defies certainty. 

Rape advocates wrongly, and disingenuously, suggest that the big, gray area must be comprised of actual claims.

But let's talk reality.  Let's pretend we are reasonbly certain that 15 percent are false, and that 15 percent were actual rapes -- we do not know about the rest.  So how should we characterize the percentage of false claims?  Should it be 15%?  Only if we make clear that we only know that only 15% were likely actual rape. Rape advocates don't do that: they say that "only 15% of all rape claims are false," suggesting that the other 85% were actual rapes. So to avoid the lies, we should insist that they only talk about the ones of which we are reasonably certain.  Thus, in my example: 50% of all rape claims of which we are reasonably certain are false.

To illustrate this big, gray area, here's a snapshot of one city, Saginaw, for 2009. It's not a typical American city because it is very violent.  There were 119 incidents of criminal sexual conduct (which includes penetration) investigated in 2009:  "Of those, the city pursued 22 arrest warrants, closed 22 for lack of leads, deemed 17 unfounded and continue to actively investigate 35. Another 13 involved uncooperative victims, while 10 await evidence analysis . . . ."

Of all those investigations, the city pursued arrest warrants for 18.5% of the reports.  But 43.7% were closed for "lack of leads," or because they were "unfounded" (which usually include both claims that are false for which there were insufficient evidence) or involved uncooperative victims.  About 37.8% are still being investigated.

How many of these are reasonably certain to be false?  We can't tell from these stats.  We would be speculating if we tossed out a figure.

But how many are reasonably certain to be actual rapes?  Well, we don't know that, either. Perhaps some of the 18.5% referenced above, perhaps more, perhaps less.

You see where this is going: we have no idea how many actual rapes were committed, or the actual percentage.  But it is grossly dishonest to suggest, for example, that "only" 14% of all rape claims are "unfounded" (thereby suggesting that the other 86% were actual rapes).

That is the kind of lie rape advocates tell.

Rape advocates: stop being dishonest about the prevalence of rape

This post will illustrate a point we try to make often.  Please follow me -- this isn't about false claims per se; it's about the fact that we don't know what percentage of all rape claims are actual rapes, so rape advocates shouldn't pretend they do. 

Rape "experts" have no difficulty tossing out a definite percentage of actual and false claims.  Some are stuck on the two percent false claims (which is a lie); others say 9 percent.  They thereby suggest that since 2 or 9 percent are false, the other 98 or 91 percent must be actual rapes.

Let's not mince words: it's a lie.  But it's what they do, and we must be vigilant about it.

I repeatedly make the point that we are reasonably certain that some rape reports were actual rapes; and that some were false claims. However, the majority of rape claims fall in that big, gray area that defies certainty. 

Rape advocates wrongly, and disingenuously, suggest that the big, gray area must be comprised of actual claims.

But let's talk reality.  Let's pretend we are reasonbly certain that 15 percent are false, and that 15 percent were actual rapes -- we do not know about the rest.  So how should we characterize the percentage of false claims?  Should it be 15%?  Only if we make clear that we only know that only 15% were likely actual rape. Rape advocates don't do that: they say that "only 15% of all rape claims are false," suggesting that the other 85% were actual rapes. So to avoid the lies, we should insist that they only talk about the ones of which we are reasonably certain.  Thus, in my example: 50% of all rape claims of which we are reasonably certain are false.

To illustrate this big, gray area, here's a snapshot of one city, Saginaw, for 2009. It's not a typical American city because it is very violent.  There were 119 incidents of criminal sexual conduct (which includes penetration) investigated in 2009:  "Of those, the city pursued 22 arrest warrants, closed 22 for lack of leads, deemed 17 unfounded and continue to actively investigate 35. Another 13 involved uncooperative victims, while 10 await evidence analysis . . . ."

Of all those investigations, the city pursued arrest warrants for 18.5% of the reports.  But 43.7% were closed for "lack of leads," or because they were "unfounded" (which usually include both claims that are false for which there were insufficient evidence) or involved uncooperative victims.  About 37.8% are still being investigated.

How many of these are reasonably certain to be false?  We can't tell from these stats.  We would be speculating if we tossed out a figure.

But how many are reasonably certain to be actual rapes?  Well, we don't know that, either. Perhaps some of the 18.5% referenced above, perhaps more, perhaps less.

You see where this is going: we have no idea how many actual rapes were committed, or the actual percentage.  But it is grossly dishonest to suggest, for example, that "only" 14% of all rape claims are "unfounded" (thereby suggesting that the other 86% were actual rapes).

That is the kind of lie rape advocates tell.

More incorrect information from college women about rape

More inanity from college women about rape:

". . . among college women, less than 5 percent of sexual assaults are reported. Moreover, only 2–3 percent of these reports are false, a percentage on par with the statistics on false reports of burglary or grand theft auto. With these numbers in mind, it is imperative to believe someone who reports a sexual assault."

From What constitutes consent? by Katie Rodriguez , Avital Ludomirsky, Amanda Yamasaki, and Jillian Hewitt (I am including their names here so that when they Google themselves, they will find this.  Warning: excessive self-Googling can lead to blindness.)

Sigh.  Where to begin?  How much can we possibly write to debunk these grossly erroneous assertions? 

I.  ONLY TWO-TO-THREE PERCENT OF ALL RAPE CLAIMS ARE FALSE

I won't try to debunk this one -- we've been over this so many times.. I will direct them to these basic sources that furnish objectively verifiable information and that demonstrate the inaccuracy of their assertion:

First, it is grossly incorrect.  This canard was one that led me to blog about false rape claims. I once believed the feminist two percent claim -- and I must be honest, I found it very comforting. But when I continued to research it, I found that it doesn't withstand the light of day. I realiced that much of their agenda was built on lies. I have long believed that rape advocates hurt their cause by insisting that this particular stat is true -- if they would admit the truth about this one stat, they'd have much more support.. But don't believe me, see the following:

*Bruce Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associaton, Dec. 22, 2008 (a great summary of every major study).  By the way, among other things it shows is that the FBI puts the number at KNOWN false claims at four to seven-and-one-half times greater than for all aother crimes. (This doesn't mean that we KNOW how many false claims there are -- rape claims do not lend themselves to that kind of certainty. We know there are AT LEAST that number of  false claims exist.)

*False Rape Allegations by Eugene Kanin (Gross talks about this, but you need to read it for yourself to see how its detractors mischaracterize it). Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false.”  Kanin, for the uninitiated, was a feminist icon until he blew the lid off of false rape claims. Then, when people like me started citing his rape study, he became a nitwit who didn't know the first thing about research.  Sigh.

*E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947. Great scholarly article traces the two percent canard to its unreliable source.

*The Air Force study: In a 1985 study of 556 rape allegations, 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

*"Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

II.  ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF COLLEGE WOMEN REPORT THEIR ASSAULTS

Nonsense.  A recent law review article that appeared in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement explains that the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009). Excerpt here.

As we recently demonstrated, the five percent figure shows that underreporting is WORSE than it was before all the rape reforms. This only proves that all of the rape reforms enacted to encourage women to come forward -- and that made it more likely to charge and convict innocent men -- were for nought (if you believe the feminist stats, what other possible conclusion could you reach?). Why not do away with the reforms since they don't help?  The fact is, alleged underreporting is a lie -- nobody knows how much underreporting, if any, there is.  It has always been wielded like a sword to continually push for more and more and more rape reforms, and some of the reformers won't be satisfied until rape accusers are permitted to act as both judge and jury in the trials of their own accusations.

III.  IT IS IMPERATIVE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO REPORTS A SEXUAL ASSAULT

This inanity deserves short shrift because, by any measure, it is morally grotesque.  It does a grave disservice to the presumed innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, if we must believe any accusation of rape, then the men and boys accused mus t be presumed to be rapists. That sort of injustice might have been the norm in the Salem witch hunts, but it has no place in civilized society.  This admonition also trivializes rape by including among its victims women who very possibly could be false accusers.

More incorrect information from college women about rape

More inanity from college women about rape:

". . . among college women, less than 5 percent of sexual assaults are reported. Moreover, only 2–3 percent of these reports are false, a percentage on par with the statistics on false reports of burglary or grand theft auto. With these numbers in mind, it is imperative to believe someone who reports a sexual assault."

From What constitutes consent? by Katie Rodriguez , Avital Ludomirsky, Amanda Yamasaki, and Jillian Hewitt (I am including their names here so that when they Google themselves, they will find this.  Warning: excessive self-Googling can lead to blindness.)

Sigh.  Where to begin?  How much can we possibly write to debunk these grossly erroneous assertions? 

I.  ONLY TWO-TO-THREE PERCENT OF ALL RAPE CLAIMS ARE FALSE

I won't try to debunk this one -- we've been over this so many times.. I will direct them to these basic sources that furnish objectively verifiable information and that demonstrate the inaccuracy of their assertion:

First, it is grossly incorrect.  This canard was one that led me to blog about false rape claims. I once believed the feminist two percent claim -- and I must be honest, I found it very comforting. But when I continued to research it, I found that it doesn't withstand the light of day. I realiced that much of their agenda was built on lies. I have long believed that rape advocates hurt their cause by insisting that this particular stat is true -- if they would admit the truth about this one stat, they'd have much more support.. But don't believe me, see the following:

*Bruce Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associaton, Dec. 22, 2008 (a great summary of every major study).  By the way, among other things it shows is that the FBI puts the number at KNOWN false claims at four to seven-and-one-half times greater than for all aother crimes. (This doesn't mean that we KNOW how many false claims there are -- rape claims do not lend themselves to that kind of certainty. We know there are AT LEAST that number of  false claims exist.)

*False Rape Allegations by Eugene Kanin (Gross talks about this, but you need to read it for yourself to see how its detractors mischaracterize it). Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false.”  Kanin, for the uninitiated, was a feminist icon until he blew the lid off of false rape claims. Then, when people like me started citing his rape study, he became a nitwit who didn't know the first thing about research.  Sigh.

*E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947. Great scholarly article traces the two percent canard to its unreliable source.

*The Air Force study: In a 1985 study of 556 rape allegations, 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

*"Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

II.  ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF COLLEGE WOMEN REPORT THEIR ASSAULTS

Nonsense.  A recent law review article that appeared in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement explains that the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009). Excerpt here.

As we recently demonstrated, the five percent figure shows that underreporting is WORSE than it was before all the rape reforms. This only proves that all of the rape reforms enacted to encourage women to come forward -- and that made it more likely to charge and convict innocent men -- were for nought (if you believe the feminist stats, what other possible conclusion could you reach?). Why not do away with the reforms since they don't help?  The fact is, alleged underreporting is a lie -- nobody knows how much underreporting, if any, there is.  It has always been wielded like a sword to continually push for more and more and more rape reforms, and some of the reformers won't be satisfied until rape accusers are permitted to act as both judge and jury in the trials of their own accusations.

III.  IT IS IMPERATIVE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO REPORTS A SEXUAL ASSAULT

This inanity deserves short shrift because, by any measure, it is morally grotesque.  It does a grave disservice to the presumed innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, if we must believe any accusation of rape, then the men and boys accused mus t be presumed to be rapists. That sort of injustice might have been the norm in the Salem witch hunts, but it has no place in civilized society.  This admonition also trivializes rape by including among its victims women who very possibly could be false accusers.

'How do you compensate someone or his family for 17 years?'

City may pay $1.2 million in false rape conviction

The City of Buffalo will likely pay $1.2 million to the estate of a man falsely accused of being the “Tifft Farm rapist” who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

The Common Council is expected to approve a settlement today authorizing payment to the family of the late Vincent H. Jenkins, who later changed his name to Warith Habib Abdal.

He was convicted in the 1982 rape and robbery of a 23-year-old Buffalo woman at what was then the Tifft Farm Nature Preserve. He was freed from prison 17 years later after DNA tests proved he wasn’t the rapist.

The state paid Abdal $2 million in 2002 to settle a wrongful- imprisonment suit.

Abdal died several years ago, but his family pursued a lawsuit he filed against the city alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution by the Buffalo Police Department. His attorneys alleged that investigators used suggestive and coercive tactics to prod the victim to identify him as the attacker.

“The police botched this case, and now we’re out $1.2 million,” said Niagara Council Member David A. Rivera, a retired Buffalo police officer.

Rivera heads the Council’s Claims Committee, which has met with city legal experts to discuss the proposed settlement. In reviewing the facts, Rivera said this should become a textbook case for new police recruits about how not to handle criminal investigations.

David A. Jay, a prominent civil rights attorney who represented Abdal in the lawsuit, could not be reached to comment. Jay worked on the case with some attorneys who were part of O. J. Simpson’s “Dream Team” during his murder trial, including Barry Scheck.

City attorneys are encouraging the Council to approve the $1.2 million settlement. They told members of the Claims Committee that if the case went to trial, the city could face damages and legal costs that approach $5 million. In a best-case scenario, attorneys argued, the city would likely be found responsible for the defendant’s 440-day incarceration from the date of wrongful arrest to the start of his trial.

While the city authorizes hundreds of settlements each year, settlements that hit the $1 million mark are quite rare.

Rivera said the rape case is an unfortunate case for all parties involved. “How do you compensate someone or his family for 17 years?” he asked.

Abdal was a former Lackawanna resident who had a previous criminal record. A jury convicted him of raping and robbing a woman during a bird-watching expedition at the South Buffalo nature preserve.


Link: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/942950.html

'How do you compensate someone or his family for 17 years?'

City may pay $1.2 million in false rape conviction

The City of Buffalo will likely pay $1.2 million to the estate of a man falsely accused of being the “Tifft Farm rapist” who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

The Common Council is expected to approve a settlement today authorizing payment to the family of the late Vincent H. Jenkins, who later changed his name to Warith Habib Abdal.

He was convicted in the 1982 rape and robbery of a 23-year-old Buffalo woman at what was then the Tifft Farm Nature Preserve. He was freed from prison 17 years later after DNA tests proved he wasn’t the rapist.

The state paid Abdal $2 million in 2002 to settle a wrongful- imprisonment suit.

Abdal died several years ago, but his family pursued a lawsuit he filed against the city alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution by the Buffalo Police Department. His attorneys alleged that investigators used suggestive and coercive tactics to prod the victim to identify him as the attacker.

“The police botched this case, and now we’re out $1.2 million,” said Niagara Council Member David A. Rivera, a retired Buffalo police officer.

Rivera heads the Council’s Claims Committee, which has met with city legal experts to discuss the proposed settlement. In reviewing the facts, Rivera said this should become a textbook case for new police recruits about how not to handle criminal investigations.

David A. Jay, a prominent civil rights attorney who represented Abdal in the lawsuit, could not be reached to comment. Jay worked on the case with some attorneys who were part of O. J. Simpson’s “Dream Team” during his murder trial, including Barry Scheck.

City attorneys are encouraging the Council to approve the $1.2 million settlement. They told members of the Claims Committee that if the case went to trial, the city could face damages and legal costs that approach $5 million. In a best-case scenario, attorneys argued, the city would likely be found responsible for the defendant’s 440-day incarceration from the date of wrongful arrest to the start of his trial.

While the city authorizes hundreds of settlements each year, settlements that hit the $1 million mark are quite rare.

Rivera said the rape case is an unfortunate case for all parties involved. “How do you compensate someone or his family for 17 years?” he asked.

Abdal was a former Lackawanna resident who had a previous criminal record. A jury convicted him of raping and robbing a woman during a bird-watching expedition at the South Buffalo nature preserve.


Link: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/942950.html

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Great article blasting Harry Reid's misandry

Robert Franklin, Managing Editor at Glenn Sacks.com, has written a brilliant piece -- explaining the misandry of Harry Reid's remarks better than I ever could. Robert and Glenn are authorities on domestic violence, and this piece is extremely informative.

Must reading: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4611

I also linked it on reddit mensrights.

Great article blasting Harry Reid's misandry

Robert Franklin, Managing Editor at Glenn Sacks.com, has written a brilliant piece -- explaining the misandry of Harry Reid's remarks better than I ever could. Robert and Glenn are authorities on domestic violence, and this piece is extremely informative.

Must reading: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4611

I also linked it on reddit mensrights.

Which is worse, a five-second "rape," or several years in prison for a rape that never happened?

Yesterday's conviction of Biurny Peguero, and the controversy about whether she should have been incarcerated after her recantation, reminded me of the following post, which our newer readers might find extremely interesting: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/boy-who-delays-five-seconds-withdrawing.html

Which is worse, a five-second "rape," or several years in prison for a rape that never happened?

Yesterday's conviction of Biurny Peguero, and the controversy about whether she should have been incarcerated after her recantation, reminded me of the following post, which our newer readers might find extremely interesting: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/boy-who-delays-five-seconds-withdrawing.html

Anyone who would 'lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist,' said man falsely imprisoned

More on Biurny Peguero:  "What happened in this case is one of the worst things that can possibly happen in our criminal-justice system," said the judge as he issued sentence, which allows Gonzalez to be eligible for parole in one year. According to the Post, prosecutors wanted her to be sentenced to two to six years "so that there's a chance that she will serve what he served." McCaffrey said he hopes Gonzalez "doesn't go through what I went though," considering that in prison "rape is the worse crime possible." He added that anyone who would "lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist or a real murderer," but said he wishes her "the best of luck," the tabloid reports. "Jail isn't easy," he said.
Read the full story here: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/24/woman_who_lied_about_rape_sentenced.php

Anyone who would 'lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist,' said man falsely imprisoned

More on Biurny Peguero:  "What happened in this case is one of the worst things that can possibly happen in our criminal-justice system," said the judge as he issued sentence, which allows Gonzalez to be eligible for parole in one year. According to the Post, prosecutors wanted her to be sentenced to two to six years "so that there's a chance that she will serve what he served." McCaffrey said he hopes Gonzalez "doesn't go through what I went though," considering that in prison "rape is the worse crime possible." He added that anyone who would "lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist or a real murderer," but said he wishes her "the best of luck," the tabloid reports. "Jail isn't easy," he said.
Read the full story here: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/24/woman_who_lied_about_rape_sentenced.php

Men named the official piñatas of the Democratic Party: the top U.S. Senator slams out-of-work men

Last year, prominent Democrats didn't want stimulus money to benefit dreaded "white males" to the exclusion of women and minorities -- the persons that liberals claimed were more severely damaged by the recession. President Obama dutifully complied.  We saw how the stimulus has worked for men: the unemployment gap between men and women has never been this large. 

Despite this, the Democrats don't miss an opportunity to kick men in the balls while they are down: the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate has declared that men who don't have jobs tend to be abusive.

You heard me right.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking on the floor of the Senate in support of the jobs bill, made this astounding comment:  "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs, either, but women aren't abusive, most of the time. Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive. Domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed. That's the way it is all over the country."

The Washington Post sought out the opinion of "experts" to lend support the learned Senator: "Senator Reid is absolutely correct that high unemployment exacerbates domestic violence," said Peg J. Dierkers, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "Abusers who lose their jobs are home more often. If they used their income as a means of controlling their victim, they may turn to violence when that source of control is gone. Victims who lose their jobs may feel more financially dependent on their abuser and less able to leave."

First, would any other group tolerate being negatively stereotyped in this manner?  Men have become the official piñatas not only of the Democratic party but of their devotees in the sexual grievance industry.

Second, exactly what have these people done to keep men from being out of work?

Just a reminder, early last year, Obama economic advisor Robert Reich suggested where Mr. Obama should put stimulus money: ". . . if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out."  And he's quoted here:  "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And, therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."  And see this op-ed, which lays out the feminist manifesto for making sure the stimulus monies are not focused on men.

Sadly, Mr. Obama dutifully complied: "The administration report projects that women would get about 42% of the jobs created or saved, even though they lost only 20% of the jobs in the recession."  See here.

The result?  Read this: "As the job market stabilizes, who is being hired back first?  The answer: older white women. . . . . The unemployment rate for adult white women fell to 6.8 percent in January, down 0.6 percentage points from December, according to a report Friday from the Labor Department. . . . . Unemployment for white women has been falling since the fall of 2009, when it was 7.4 percent. . . . . By way of comparison, white adult males had an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent last month, down from a peak of 9.9 percent last fall. Industries that tend to hire white men, such as construction and manufacturing, have been suffering. According to the Labor Department, out of the 541,000 people who said they found work last month, 178,000 were over age 55. Of that group, 140,000 were women – 26 percent of all the hires that month."

Thank you, Democrats. You don't miss an opportunity to mug for your feminist constituents.

The "men's" movement, like it or not, is political. Countless laws need to be changed to insure gender equity where men's interests are not being protected, and that requires a political effort. However, unlike most other movements, this one seems hellbent on avoiding any suggestion that it is allied with a party that its members should support, and that will, in turn, support at least some of its members' goals. Neither party adequately supports the interests of males, but the Democratic party is beholden to NOW and its ilk, and it is extremely unlikely to do anything contrary to the feminist agenda. Democrats are at the forefront of every feminist initiative, from VAWA to rape reform to making gender discrimination easier to prove to funneling enormous economic support to women's causes. Far left Democratic intellectuals support initiatives as bizarre and as hateful as the "man tax."  The Democratic party can never, ever embrace the interests of men, as a group. Repbulicans, too, have ill served men's interests in many areas, especially on law and order issues where the interests of the presumed innocent who have been wrongly accused of rape and allied offenses are not adequately protected. But, among many other things, the GOP has more respect for the "traditional" family, which is a code word for "families with fathers." And while the GOP hasn't embraced important men's initiatives, part of the reason is that the men's movement hasn't supported the GOP.  Don't forget, before feminism became a political force to be reckoned with, the Democrats did not always serve its interests. Ted Kennedy once even opposed abortion rights.

As a lifelong Democrat, I say to my fellow men and to the women who grow weary of the women-as-victim metanarrative, especially those who belong to traditional Democratic-friendly groups (Jews, blacks, atheists, some Catholics, among others): it's time to back the only major party that might advance our interests, the Republican Party.

Men named the official piñatas of the Democratic Party: the top U.S. Senator slams out-of-work men

Last year, prominent Democrats didn't want stimulus money to benefit dreaded "white males" to the exclusion of women and minorities -- the persons that liberals claimed were more severely damaged by the recession. President Obama dutifully complied.  We saw how the stimulus has worked for men: the unemployment gap between men and women has never been this large. 

Despite this, the Democrats don't miss an opportunity to kick men in the balls while they are down: the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate has declared that men who don't have jobs tend to be abusive.

You heard me right.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking on the floor of the Senate in support of the jobs bill, made this astounding comment:  "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs, either, but women aren't abusive, most of the time. Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive. Domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed. That's the way it is all over the country."

The Washington Post sought out the opinion of "experts" to lend support the learned Senator: "Senator Reid is absolutely correct that high unemployment exacerbates domestic violence," said Peg J. Dierkers, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "Abusers who lose their jobs are home more often. If they used their income as a means of controlling their victim, they may turn to violence when that source of control is gone. Victims who lose their jobs may feel more financially dependent on their abuser and less able to leave."

First, would any other group tolerate being negatively stereotyped in this manner?  Men have become the official piñatas not only of the Democratic party but of their devotees in the sexual grievance industry.

Second, exactly what have these people done to keep men from being out of work?

Just a reminder, early last year, Obama economic advisor Robert Reich suggested where Mr. Obama should put stimulus money: ". . . if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out."  And he's quoted here:  "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And, therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."  And see this op-ed, which lays out the feminist manifesto for making sure the stimulus monies are not focused on men.

Sadly, Mr. Obama dutifully complied: "The administration report projects that women would get about 42% of the jobs created or saved, even though they lost only 20% of the jobs in the recession."  See here.

The result?  Read this: "As the job market stabilizes, who is being hired back first?  The answer: older white women. . . . . The unemployment rate for adult white women fell to 6.8 percent in January, down 0.6 percentage points from December, according to a report Friday from the Labor Department. . . . . Unemployment for white women has been falling since the fall of 2009, when it was 7.4 percent. . . . . By way of comparison, white adult males had an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent last month, down from a peak of 9.9 percent last fall. Industries that tend to hire white men, such as construction and manufacturing, have been suffering. According to the Labor Department, out of the 541,000 people who said they found work last month, 178,000 were over age 55. Of that group, 140,000 were women – 26 percent of all the hires that month."

Thank you, Democrats. You don't miss an opportunity to mug for your feminist constituents.

The "men's" movement, like it or not, is political. Countless laws need to be changed to insure gender equity where men's interests are not being protected, and that requires a political effort. However, unlike most other movements, this one seems hellbent on avoiding any suggestion that it is allied with a party that its members should support, and that will, in turn, support at least some of its members' goals. Neither party adequately supports the interests of males, but the Democratic party is beholden to NOW and its ilk, and it is extremely unlikely to do anything contrary to the feminist agenda. Democrats are at the forefront of every feminist initiative, from VAWA to rape reform to making gender discrimination easier to prove to funneling enormous economic support to women's causes. Far left Democratic intellectuals support initiatives as bizarre and as hateful as the "man tax."  The Democratic party can never, ever embrace the interests of men, as a group. Repbulicans, too, have ill served men's interests in many areas, especially on law and order issues where the interests of the presumed innocent who have been wrongly accused of rape and allied offenses are not adequately protected. But, among many other things, the GOP has more respect for the "traditional" family, which is a code word for "families with fathers." And while the GOP hasn't embraced important men's initiatives, part of the reason is that the men's movement hasn't supported the GOP.  Don't forget, before feminism became a political force to be reckoned with, the Democrats did not always serve its interests. Ted Kennedy once even opposed abortion rights.

As a lifelong Democrat, I say to my fellow men and to the women who grow weary of the women-as-victim metanarrative, especially those who belong to traditional Democratic-friendly groups (Jews, blacks, atheists, some Catholics, among others): it's time to back the only major party that might advance our interests, the Republican Party.