Wednesday, June 30, 2010
But it was affirmed yesterday: Britain does not compensate men for the harm they suffer after being falsely accused, no matter how egregious. The double-standard is stark, and morally grotesque. It tells us much about how our society regards the victims of false rape claims.
After winning the right in court to apply for the same sort of monetary compensation as other crime victims receive, Clive Bishop, who lost his taxi business and was shunned by the community as a result of a false rape claim that sent his false accuser to jail for ten months, has been denied compensation for his ordeal by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) because he was not the victim of a violent crime. "It's just ripped the heart out of me and the last three-and-a-half years have been a total nightmare," Mr. Bishop said. See the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/somerset/10465915.stm
Earlier this year, Mr. Bishop told False Rape Society: "It is not about the money for me it is a recognition of the horrific consequences it brings." He added: ". . . sexual offences that are alleged are the only crime where innocent people are arrested locked up without any evidence to back up what someone has alleged. . . . Don't forget while I was arrested for a crime that never occurred and locked up, my freedom and liberty denied, she was in a comfortable suite being befriended and pandered. My emotions were ignored and I was arrested, judged and convicted without any compassion or evidence. Believe me when I say that I am still suffering!"
Who Is Covered?
The CICA, funded by the Ministry of Justice, pays victims of “violent crimes” according to an established scheme of tariffs. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) sets forth the standard amounts paid for each category of crime. The Scheme is found here. A payment will be made if the alleged violent crime was more likely than not to have occurred. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) ¶20) There is no necessity to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for conviction in UK criminal courts.
While the Compensation Scheme is designed to cover crimes of violence, an exception is made for non-forcible rape and other sexual crimes not involving violence. Payments are made for mental injury, including “temporary mental anxiety,” suffered by non-consenting victims of sexual offenses. (Criminal Injuries Compensation (2008) ¶9.) Under the compensation scheme, non-consensual penile penetration warrants UK £11,000. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) Page 34.) Greater sums are allotted depending on the severity of the injury inflicted. A non-penetrative sexual physical act “over the clothing” warrants UK £1000. (Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (2008) Page 34.) This, presumably, includes a single instance of inappropriate touching.
In the UK during 2008-2009, 1,938 payments were made to "victims" of rape for a total of £30,197,619. See here: http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Stern_Review_of_Rape_Reporting_1FINAL.pdf
Who Is Not Covered?
The UK does not compensate men who were falsely accused of rape, no matter how terrible their victimization. To verify this, I previously wrote to the CICA and asked if a false rape claim would be covered, noting that such claims often have the effect of mentally (not to mention financially) destroying the falsely accused. We received a prompt and professional response that included the following:
"Under the terms of our scheme unfortunately this would not be covered. Under the terms of our scheme for eligibility, applicants need to be the victim of a violent crime."
It is important to underscore the terrible double-standard here: the victim of a single instance of a sexual act over the clothing is entitled to compensation, but a man falsely accused of rape who is arrested and jailed for weeks, months or even years, who is subjected to untold mental agonies, who loses his friends, the esteem of his community, his job, his business, and his good name, is entitled to nothing.
The victimization of men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their injuries, is regarded less worthy of society’s protection than the victimization of non-forcible rape victims, no matter how slight their injuries.
Also not covered are the vast majority of boys who are statutorily raped by adult women. This is because victims of sexual offenses are not covered if they “consented in fact.” (Criminal Injuries Compensation (2008) ¶9(c).) This effectively rules out virtually all claims involving the statutory rape of a teen boy by an adult woman because the boy is typically a willing participant. The fact that the law has determined that boys are incapable of giving valid consent to engage in sexual acts with an adult is of no import to the CICA.
The Compensation Scheme Exacerbates the False Rape Epidemic
The premise of those who assert women don’t lie about rape is that women have no incentive to lie, and that the criminal ordeal a rape accuser is put through outweighs any possible benefit from lying. This, of course, is not true, and the Compensation Scheme indisputably furnishes a monetary incentive to lie about rape. It is well to note two things: (1) the compensation paid for sexual offenses is scarcely insignificant; and (2) women lie about rape for far less rational reasons. In Professor Eugene Kanin’s landmark study of a mid-size Midwestern city over the course of nine years, he found that 41 percent of all rape claims were not just false but actually recanted. Two of the three principal motivations for false claims identified by Kanin are the following: women lie to obtain attention/sympathy, and for revenge. If significant numbers of women are willing to lie about rape simply to get attention or revenge, is it not all the more plausible that some women will lie for the more rational reason of obtaining a significant sum of money? The question scarcely survives its statement.
Remember Grant Bowers? He was just an ordinary teenager when a 20-year-old woman named Sarah-Jane Hillard decided his life didn't mean as much as the £7,500 she would collect from the CICA if she claimed he raped her. She was caught, but Grant's life was destroyed. "I don't know why she did it but her lies have ruined my life," he said. Grant had to move out of his hometown because of threats against him. People were kicking the door of his flat in and shouting "rapist" though the letterbox. Someone offered a reward to learn his whereabouts. He was chased through town with a knife. Is it surprising that for a time, he was physically sick with worry and constantly teary? All because a woman wanted to collect money from the CICA. See here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/woman-destroys-teens-life-with-false.html
The problem of fraud in the Compensation Scheme has been evident for years. In 2001, the chief executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board blamed the growth in false criminal claims in general on a compensation culture. A CICA report published that year highlighted rampant fraud in the compensation system: “Among the [fraudulent] cases is that of a woman who has been asked to repay £7,500 after falsely claiming she was raped by a tramp. Last year, a court found that Natalie Knighting, a 21-year-old with three children, had made up the story. She was jailed for six months. Ms Knighting had won compensation from the CICA for the second time. She had been awarded the same amount of compensation for sexual assault as a child. So far, the authority has been unable to recover any money from her.” See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-now-the-worlds-compensation-capital-with-payouts-set-to-keep-rising-689105.html
But, of course, the government denies that the Compensation Scheme breeds false rape claims even though the CICA itself has acknowledged rampant fraud as a result of this compensation culture, and even though we know significant numbers of women lie about rape for far less rational reasons.
In a 2007 debate in the House of Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours questioned the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on this subject:
“My Lords, is it possible that one reason for high rates of false allegations and low rates of conviction for rape is that a minority—I stress that—of women make false allegations in order to win compensation which, in the case of rape, is £11,000? Why do we not move to the German system, where the state does not pay and where compensation follows civil action, as against the state paying? Surely the trauma of rape requires not state-funded windfalls but counselling services that really help victims.”
The Under-Secretary rejected the question out of hand:
“My Lords, a victim of rape should get both compensation and counselling and support. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As the noble Lord will know, it is very important that we make sure that where convictions are made, people can get some kind of recompense for the trauma and injury that they may have received. As for the reasons why people make false allegations, I do not agree that one of the primary objectives is to get £11,000. There may be very serious reasons why people do that, which we need to consider.”
See here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70515-0001.htm
While suggesting that the government should at least consider the reasons for false rape allegations, the Under-Secretary stuck her head in the sand and flatly refused to entertain the notion that women would lie about rape for anything as crass as money. It would have to be a more “serious” reason than that.
If someone wanted to do a study of the false rape problem in the UK, he could use the CICA’s Compensation Scheme as a microcosm: the government enables women to lie about rape and then wonders why the attrition rate for rape is so abysmal. And no matter how terribly men suffer from false rape claims, the government thinks they deserve nothing.
Your help is much appreciated!
What message are we sending other misguided young women prone to tell rape lies when we don't punish this serial false accuser?
And isn't it just a matter of time before this woman destroys an innocent man or boy?
Perhaps the most important question, why is there no outrage that this woman is not serving a long prison sentence for her awful lies?
Police: Woman Reports Fourth False Rape
Woman Made Up Rape, Police Say
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A 21-year-old woman admitted she fabricated being raped Monday night and was arrested on charges of making a false report, according to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
This was the fourth false rape report that Emily Riker has made, and the third in 2010, according to a police report.
Riker claimed a man driving a silver Toyota approached her in the parking lot of a CVS store and forced her into his car near Powers Drive and Silver Star Road, police said.
She said the man took her to the Geneva Motel and raped her, the police report indicated.
Riker, who complained of stomach pains from the rape, was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center, where doctors were unable to perform a sexual battery exam, according to the report.
Riker did not have any red marks or other injuries from the rape, police said.
Surveillance video from the Save-A-Lot Food store, near the CVS, showed that Riker was not forced into the car and willingly went back to kiss the driver after he dropped her back off, according to authorities.
Riker later admitted to police that she had been talking to the man on Facebook for the past two days and told police she lied about being raped because she was mad, the police report said.
The most recent rape she falsely reported was in Osceola County on Feb. 22.
She was taken to the Orange County Booking and Release Center where she was placed on a $500 bond.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Baltimore Sun's politicized irresponsibility could result in the arrest of more innocent young black men
The Baltimore Sun's editorial board has posted an appalling but politically correct and de rigueur defense of its recent lengthy article suggesting that Baltimore Police are improperly dismissing rape claims Don't take my word about what they've said -- read it yourself. Their defense continues the scattershot and largely incomprehensible attack on police practices that can be summarized in one sentence: the Sun, echoing the sexual grievance industry, just doesn't like the fact that Baltimore Police are aggressively weeding out baseless claims.
The logical result of the Sun's efforts will be to avoid serious questioning of rape accusers -- despite the fact that a rape conviction can send a man or boy to prison for decades. The logical result of the Sun's efforts will be to de facto automatically believe the "victim," as the Sun calls rape accusers, which will cause innocent young black men in their teens and 20s to be arrested, charged, and in some cases tried and convicted. Let us be honest, in Baltimore, young black males is the demographic most at risk.
If you want to see how this policy will play out, just review the facts of the Hofstra University false rape claim: the "victim" (actually just a false accuser, but I suspect the Sun would insist on calling her a "victim") was automatically believed, and four innocent young black men were jailed, and at least one of them got roughed up behind bars. Only later did police bother to check a video one had made showing the act was consensual. And we can show you innumerable other examples of the same thing. Black men are rarely listened to when they are accused of rape, in case you haven't noticed, and they are jailed even more readily than white men.
The Sun has unnecessarily politicized what is purely a law enforcement issue without giving a damn about the implications for innocent men and boys. Especially innocent black youths who will suffer the most from the witch hunts that surely will follow. But the Sun's editors can sleep well tonight, for they have apparently bought into the radical feminist canard that false rape claims are a myth. The evidence be damned.
By the way, I previously provided a summary of the evidence in my note to Mr. Fenton that demonstrates that false rape claims are not a myth: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-to-justin-fenton-baltimore-sun.html
And that is the primary reason this piece is unspeakably appalling: because it denigrates countless members of the community of the falsely accused by refusing to acknowledge their victimization.
H. L. Mencken must be spinning around in his grave.
Among the Sun's astounding assertions, and our comments interspersed, are the following:
SUN: "Rape is different from other crimes. Not only does it involve a violation more profound than any other crime . . . ."
FRS: A violation "more profound" than . . . murder? Than wrongly causing an innocent person to be imprisoned for months, years, even decades? What on earth does "more profound" mean in this context?
Suggesting that rape is worse than murder, by the way, is from a time when a woman was deemed the "property" of her husband or father and the "property" was ruined when it was defiled by rape. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made that point in the oral argument of the landmark Kennedy decision that outlawed the death penalty for child rape.
SUN: ". . . but it also comes with a social stigma that forces victims to relive the pain again and again."
FRS: If you want to honestly discuss a crime that leaves serious social stigma, please come and see us here at False Rape Society. Nowhere here, or in Mr. Fenton's piece, does that Sun even allude to the awful price of false rape claims. False accusations of rape have caused innumerable innocent men and boys to be jailed, charged, tried and even convicted for rapes that never occurred. Many of the men falsely accused have suffered prison atrocities and a good number have been brutally victimized by the very crime that they were falsely accused of committing. Moreover, false rape claims have severely stigmatized more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation.
SUN: "No one suggests that a victim of arson was really asking for it. No one asks whether an assault might really have been consensual. When a robbery victim is on the witness stand, the most private details of her life are not dissected under cross examination."
FRS: This old chestnut is still floating around? Astounding. The "victim" of arson . . . is . . . who? I'm sorry, I'm lost. I will say this: when a building burns down, police and insurers routinely probe into whether the owner stood to gain from it; whether he or she lied about it; and whether he or she caused the fire or hired someone to do it. You know, the same sort of probing police should do with rape claims. From what I can tell, the Baltimore police do engage in such probing but for some reason, the Sun doesn't like it. Kind of the way the corrupt police commissioner in the movies doesn't like it when the crusader cop is getting close to the truth.
As for asking whether an assault might have been consensual, well, it's almost impossible to know where to begin to respond to this terribly inane analogy. Let's go back to Rape 101: the difference between assault and rape is that the only physical evidence of the former typically is that of . . . you guessed it -- an assault. In contrast, the only physical evidence for rape is typically the residue of an act of love that has been played out somewhere around the world every second of every day since the beginning of time. See the difference? The first evidences only an assault; the second evidences an act of love far more often than a crime. Wow!
As for not asking a robbery victim about intimate details, well, it depends on whether those intimate details are relevant to a matter in dispute, doesn't it? If they are, do you think a good cop or prosecutor isn't going to ask about it? Seriously? When it comes to rape, where the issue is usually consent, and only two people know the truth -- and one of them might spend twenty years in prison -- intimate details are often relevant.
SUN: "The problem with rape is that it is too difficult for victims to come forward . . . ."
FRS: A breathtaking assertion that finds its only support in the serene ipse dixit of the sexual grievance industry. After thirty years of rape reforms that make charging easier than any other crime? And every change was supposed to eradicate "underreporting"? Aside from ditching the adversarial system and going to an inquisitorial system, aside from flipping the burden of proof, aside from just believing the "victim," as your radical feminst allies suggest, what on earth does the Sun propose?
Oh, I know: more genteel questioning, right? I mean, the Sun is in favor of some questioning of victims, isn't it? Isn't it?
By the way, a recent law review article demonstrated that underreporting is so terribly politicized it is not even certain it exists, much less its extent. But why let the facts, or the truth, or scholarship, get in the way of a good feminist victim metanarrative?
SUN: "It’s not that women routinely make up rape allegations — who would willingly submit themselves to such unjust public humiliation?"
FRS: Again, it is positively breathtaking that talking points from the 60s still find life in the blog of a major U.S. daily. I am truly appalled by this. Spend a few weeks reading through this blog and then you tell us. Here's False Rape 101: http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html and http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/.
SUN: "Worse, police reports obtained by The Sun and reviewed by Mr. Fenton show a disturbing pattern in which detectives aggressively question those who say they have been sexually assaulted . . . ."
FRS: How can the Sun determine a question is posed aggressively without hearing its tone? I did not see one concrete example of impropriety by any Baltimore police officer here or in Mr. Fenton's entire piece. Not one. Would someone kindly show me one question that should not have been asked when the issue is a crime that might send someone away for decades? I've seen a lot of conclusory assertions and examples that don't rationally support the conclusions you want people to reach.
I've written to Mr. Fenton, but he has not given me the courtesy of even a short response.
SUN: " . . . . a process that, intentionally or not, gives victims the impression that the focus of the investigation is to prove that the victim is lying, not to catch and prosecute the attacker."
FRS: That is utterly appalling. By labeling an accuser a "victim" before a scrap of evidence has been admitted at trial, much less an adjudication of guilt, you have impliedly rushed to judgment and declared the accuser's allegation to be factual. Such a description does a grave disservice to (1) the presumptively innocent who are accused of rape since, by necessity, they must be guilty if their accusers are, in fact, "victims"; (2) actual rape victims, because you trivialize rape when you include among its victims women who might only be false accusers; and (3) your readers, who are entitled to accurate reporting but receive something less than that when you transform an accuser into a "victim."
I recently wrote to the New York Times about a similar misuse of the term "victim" in reference to a rape accuser, and the reporter immediately changed the word. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the Sun should do the same.
SUN: "The result is that Baltimore has a higher rate of unfounded complaints — by far — than nearly any other city in the nation."
FRS: WHAT QUESTIONS DO THEY ASK IN PITTSBURGH? PHILADELPHIA? ANYWHERE ELSE? Guess what. They do it the same everywhere. How does the Sun know that the "unfounded" rate is the result of these tactics? It doesn't. And why assume that Baltimore is worse than the others as opposed to being the one that does it right? Ah, because that doesn't fit the Sun's politics. Let's be honest.
SUN: ". . . a former commander of the unit that investigates sex offenses told Mr. Fenton that many reports of rape are made by women for “ill gain” — such as to explain to a husband or boyfriend why they hadn’t come home that night. That presumption is as offensive as it is nonsensical."
FRS: A presumption? Sorry, that's a fact. See http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html and http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/.
14 year old falsely claims rape and kidnapping.
Shreveport police have arrested a 14-year-old who allegedly filed a false kidnapping and rape report last week.
The girl was charged with one count of criminal mischief and was booked into the Caddo Parish Juvenile Detention Center this morning.
The girl is accused of making up a story about being kidnapped and raped to cover up an overnight absence from her home.
Police found during an investigation that the girl spent the night with an adult man on the night in question, said Sgt. Bill Goodin, Shreveport Police Department spokesman.Police are working to learn the identity of the man and determine what charges he may face.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Here's how the game is played: when discussing the prevalence of false rape claims, only include among "false" claims those that police are able to rule out as "false" in its initial investigation, and pretend the rest are actual rapes.
Read that last sentence again because as blatantly dishonest as that sounds, that's what's going on here.
Before we explain, let's understand the terminology used by the sexual grievance industry: "sexual assault cases are 'unfounded', if after a thorough investigation, they are determined to be false or baseless." It's fair to say that for both "false" and "baseless" claims, evidence is required to conclusively rule out rape. "False claims" differ from "baseless claims" in that for "false claims" a motive to deceive can also be shown. http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_factsheet_84.html
Thus, the sexual grievance industry explains that the following are not sufficient reasons to declare a claim either "false" or "unfounded": not being able to locate the victim; victim is uncooperative or won't follow through with prosecution; victim repeatedly changes her/his account of the rape; victim recants; and no assailant can be identified. http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_factsheet_84.html
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this terminology is appropriate. Does that mean that cases dropped for any of those reasons cited in the preceding paragraph were necessarily actual rapes? How about cases dropped for any other reason? How about cases that end up in trial where the defendant is exonerated -- were they necessarily actual rapes?
It absolutely does not mean that any of those were necessarily actual rapes, but the sexual grievance industry would have you believe they were.
Think I'm kidding? The sexual grievance industry says things like this: "Only 2% of all rape claims are false." Check it out -- it's all over the Internet. The implication is that the other 98% of rape claims are necessarily actual rapes, and that's as dishonest as it can possibly be.
The two percent (by the way, that number is typically much higher, depending on the jurisdiction) represents only claims for which the police conclusively ruled out rape in its investigation. It does not mean the other 98% were actual rapes. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it.
The fact is, we are reasonably certain a certain percentage of rape claims are false; we are reasonably certain percentage of rape claims were actual rapes. But for most claims -- claims in the vast middle area -- we have no idea whether they were false claims or actual rapes. To assume they were all rapes simply because police didn't have conclusive evidence to rule them out during its investigation (as the sexual grievance industry suggests) is a blatant lie.
The only fair way to discuss the prevalence of false claims is to talk only about the universe of claims for which we know, with reasonable certainty, whether a false claim or a rape occurred. And if we do that, by any measure, false rape claims are a significant percentage of the total.
This note will not afford your article "City rape statistics, investigations draw concernL Police defend tactics, but mayor orders review," the full attention it requires, but I wanted to immediately express my serious concerns about it.
Here's a follow-up on your excellent John and Lorena Bobbitt expose. Mrs. Bobbitt's mayhem is widely considered the ultimate act of feminist vengeance, but if the feminists stopped to think about why they celebrated the act of chopping off a penis, they would realize that their celebration was downright misogynistic.
The detention center also did an internal investigation. Police said during the course of that investigation officials learned the allegations were false. The 17-year-old, whose name has not been released, also admitted lying during follow-up interviews with police, police said. Police said the 17-year-old is charged with false swearing to law enforcement. He will be prosecuted in juvenile court.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
A massive number of rape claims in Baltimore are classified as "unfounded" and the sexual grievance industry is irate
Friday, June 25, 2010
Have you ever encountered the feminist claim that gender is a social construct and doesn't exist naturally?
The differences between individuals is greater than the differences between male and female, the claim goes. Here's an example of this propaganda put out by the Department of Education: http://www.campbell-kibler.com/Stereo.pdf
Except for minor physical characteristics, feminists say -- for example, women can give birth and men can pee their names in snow -- there are really no differences. They'll tell you this with a straight face, evidently expecting you to believe they really believe it.
They don't. Of course they don't. There could be no such thing as "rape culture" to anyone who believes gender difference does not exist.
Because who rapes, according to feminists? Men. Why do they rape? Because they are men. Women do not rape, because they are not men.
I believe the differences between male and female exist, but not the way feminists do. For them, the point of not recognizing gender differences is to elevate women; and the point of recognizing them is to trash men.
Why? Aside from simply expressing the hatred of men that underlies all feminist thought, the point is to give women an advantage in the classroom, in the office, in the home. But because men and women really are different, the advantage has to be an unfair one.
If there are no differences between men and women, why the VAWA? Why the "Title Nining" of college sports? Why reconstruct education in this country to be friendly to how girls learn, and hostile to how boys learn? If male and female are the same, what's the objection to single-sex classrooms? If there are no differences in the genders, wouldn't a classroom full of boys be exactly the same as a classroom full of girls and boys?
The blatant double standard of feminism is one of my strongest objections to it. It is illustrated many ways, but the cognitive dissonance of claiming no gender differences exist while proclaiming that we live in a "rape culture" is is one of the most conspicuous.
*Connie is a regular contributor to FRS. Her principal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
The epidemic presents a textbook case of many of the issues we routinely report on:
*The known false accusers are young (18 and 20 years old), which is typical.
*Two of the woman identified imaginary stereotypical "scary" men as their "rapists" -- men deemed by society to be more likely to rape (black and Hispanic), most likely to enhance the plausibility of their lies.
*At least one mainstream news media outlet reported an initial rape claim, which turned out to be a lie, as an actual rape (e.g., referring to the accuser as "the victim"). That, too, is far too common among the sloppy, and perhaps politicized, purveyors of rape news.
*The police voiced concerns about false rape claims but happened to leave out the single most serious concern: that when false rape claims are made, innocent men and boys too often are targeted as suspects, too often are arrested, too often are charged, and too often are convicted.
*Police openly expressed reluctance to arrest the false accusers. (For what other crime do police express reluctance to arrest criminals?)
*The mainstream news media sought out sexual assault counselors for quotes, one of whom repeated the usual discredited sexual grievance industry blather that women don't lie about rape. The reporter allowed these far-fetched assertions to go unchallenged and, no doubt, thinks they are credible. I've written to him to disabuse him of these erroneous notions but haven't received the courtesy of a reply or even a "thank you, but here's why I think you're wrong."
*Among other things, one of the sexual assault counselors quoted doesn't like "drawing attention" to false rape claims, a manifestation of the sexual grievance industry's approach of sticking its head in the sand instead of actually doing something to end the false rape epidemic and, thus, enhancing the integrity of rape claimants.
*Some reporters were interested in the motives of the false rape accusers, presenting their "problems" in a sympathetic light. For what other crime is this done?
In short, just another day in our false rape society. Let's examine the specifics of the epidemic:
"Ms. Rendford called police after she wrecked her boyfriend's BMW on Rosamond Drive near North Orange Blossom Trail. . . . . The 18-year-old has been arrested after confessing when she was questioned about the details of the case. The arrest report states that Renford told detectives she found her boyfriend cheating on her. So, she took his car and intentionally crashed it. The report states Renford hoped if her boyfriend found out she was raped, he'd take her back and be nicer to her." See here
Ms. Renford "allegedly told Orlando Police she had been raped in Rosemont by three men who forced her off the road early Monday morning." See here "She went as far as to describe the suspect as three black males in their 20s wearing black clothing and masks." See here
So do the police chalk this up as a "false report"? No. ". . . the case is now considered unfounded." See here That, of course, illustrates the fact that there is no uniformity in the use of the term "unfounded." But it often is used synonymously with "false."
"Police said another woman, Luisa Martinez, also made a false claim she was raped on East Pine Street in downtown Orlando." See here Ms. Martinez is 20 years old. See here
How did the news media report the initial rape report? WFTV reported it as an actual rape: "Orlando police are searching for a man who raped a woman near Lake Eola early Sunday morning." And: "Investigators questioned the victim Sunday morning at police headquarters and are still looking for the attacker." (Emphasis added.) See here
Who was the scary "rapist"? "Orlando police said the suspect is a Hispanic male who was wearing a black shirt and jeans." See here
Lake Eola Rape Report
"A report of a rape near Lake Eola in May was deemed fake after possible suspects were questions. Police are looking to arrest the woman who made that claim." See here For reasons unfathomable, news outlets seem reluctant to publish the woman's name. See here
We recently reported this case here.
"Orlando police warned the public Tuesday morning that making a false claim is a crime after they said the 18-year-old woman who claimed she was raped Monday was lying. 'We want victims to continue to report crime, we do not want to spend needless resources chasing ghosts,' Sgt. Art Eld said in a press conference. Police said false reporting has reached an epidemic level. They said they will arrest anyone who makes a false report about a crime because doing so is against the law. 'False reports cause unnecessary fear in the community,' Eld said.'False reports take personnel away from other calls for service, increasing response time for real victims," Eld said. "It also taints the jury pool in Orange County for true legitimate rape cases.'" See here
(The police officer failed to state the single most damaging aspect of a false rape claim: innocent men and boys are too often arrested, charged, and even convicted for a crime they did not commit.)
"Cops said they don't want to arrest the women, but feel they must. They have the public's support." See here
"Another concern among police and advocates is backlash. Police are worried because of the recent false reports made by Renford and Martinez, other victims won't come forward." See here
Sexual Assault Counselor Reaction
Can you guess? "Nicole Quinn works with victims of sexual abuse. She said just because a report is considered false doesn't mean something didn't happen or that someone doesn't need help. 'Something traumatic has happened to them to make them come forward and make allegations of sexual assault, and they are usually in some sort of emotional trouble,' Quinn said." See here
The following reaction is even more problematic: "The leader of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence acknowledged that false rape reports make it harder for those who are real victims and also harder for police and others who serve victims. But Jennifer Dritt said police drawing attention to the false reports doesn't help, either. 'Ninety-two, 98 percent of [rape] reports are truthful, real,' said Dritt, executive director of FCASV, which is based in Tallahassee. 'That's not necessarily any more true than for a case of, say, insurance fraud or burglary. And it makes victims even less inclined to come forward. It also contributes to the myth that women falsify the rape when they don't.'" See here
Readers of this blog know that the assertions in the previous paragraph are not true. I wrote to the author of that news article, whose name is Walter Pacheco, and provided him with objectively verifiable information. He has not afforded me the courtesy of a response, or even a "thank you, but I think you're wrong, and here's why." Mr. Pacheco's full article, and my email to him, appears after the jump.
We long for the day when reporters in major US dailies become something other than stenographers for police and sexual assault counselors when reporting on alleged rape cases or on false rape claims.
The Kuala Belait Magistrate's Court was told that Hamenah binti Jeenoh, 49, made a statement to W/Sgt 2514 Sainah binti Hj Gador that she had been raped at her home in Jalan Maulana in Kuala Belait on August 6, 2009.
The Women and Children Abuse Unit looked into the case and the defendant's clothing, as well as bed sheets, were taken for examination.
Smears and swabs were also taken, However, none of the samples showed any evidence of rape.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The news media gladly destroys average men with even far-fetched rape accusations; why was the claim against Al Gore covered up for years?
The woman refused to be interviewed by detectives and didn't want the investigation to continue, so the police closed the case, citing insufficient evidence. "This case is exceptionally cleared as [the woman] refuses to cooperate with the investigation or even report a crime," the report states.
But then in 2009, the woman contacted the police again and gave another statement regarding the alleged incident. Detectives again determined that her statement lacked sufficient evidence to pursue the claim.
But earlier this month, the woman requested a copy of her statement, and a police spokeswoman said the woman said she planned to take her case to the media. Only then did this claim become public.
"It's already been documented that the media have, at least initially, ignored the allegation that global warming alarmist-in-chief and former Vice President Al Gore faced a sexual assault charge in 2006. But why? . . .. MSNBC 'Morning Joe' host Joe Scarborough, . . .explained their decision to ignore it was based on insufficient evidence' despite the police report documenting the allegation." See here.
While there is nothing to be gained from reporting an unfounded allegation about a three or four year-old non-rape, this case presents a stark and frightening contrast between the way the news outlets usually cover rape claims and the way it covered this claim.
Remember when three University of Arkansas players were accused of rape? A local television station actually cut into the station's regular programming to provide a four-plus minute breaking news report on the fact that a mere allegation was made -- the way a reporter might cut in to tell us about a plane crash or that an important politician has died. Note, the three young men hadn't been charged, they were merely being investigated. See here.
Remember how the Hofstra false rape claim was originally reported? The sole evidence was the word of the woman with whom the young men had consensual sex. See here. Can anyone look me in the eye and tell me there was more substance to that claim than the one against Al Gore? Yet the Hofstra claim received sensational coverage.
Where was the supposedly impartial news media -- so quick to destroy a bunch of teenagers at Hofstra, and a working class nobody like John Bobbitt, and an "entitled" athlete like Ben Roethlisberger, and tens of thousands of other men accused of rape solely on the basis of one woman's word -- when it came time to cover the same sort of allegation against Al Gore?
Not newsworthy, you say? This man is a former US Vice President, the most revered icon of the left, the man who got more popular votes in the 2000 election than George W. Bush, winner of the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award -- but a rape claim against him isn't even worth mentioning?
Where is the feminist outrage that the claim against Al Gore was brushed under the rug? Why, you can hear a pin drop, can't you?
Here's the reality: the way the news media covered the claim against Gore is the way the news media should cover all rape claims. But they don't do it that way, because the entire rape milieu is infested with an ugly gender-politicization that skews reality to the point that it seems we're looking at it through a funhouse mirror.
Rape is not just a crime, it's a "women's issue," the ultimate manifestation of male oppression of females, and that dictates how it is covered in the news. Let us be frank: Al Gore did not fit the preferred narrative, so he was given a free pass. If it were Dick Cheney, this would have been front page news the day after it happened. Let's at least tell the truth about this one, so we can highlight how terribly, and how unfairly, the average man is treated when a similar allegation is made against him.
Counter-Feminist takes on Amanda Marcotte's disparagement of people who speak up too much for the falsely accused
Fidelbogen has taken his well-honed scalpel to Amanda Marcotte's inanity in a piece aptly titled Amanda Marcotte Says That You Want to Rape Her! Ms. Marcotte disparaged persons who speak up too much for men and boys falsely accused of rape and, unfortunately for her, Fidelbogen got wind of it.
I had planned to simply repost the entire piece here, but that would make it too easy to avoid actually visiting and checking out this essential site.
A JUDGE has ruled that a Clare woman maliciously slandered a delivery man by falsely claiming that he had sexually assaulted her while making a delivery of building supplies to her home.
At Ennis Circuit Court on Friday, Judge James O’Donohoe found that Eileen Kearse of 53 Clancy Park, Ennis, maliciously slandered married father-of-four, James Kennedy of Carrowduff, Kilshanny, north Clare to his employers in September 2004.
Judge O’Donohoe ordered that retired truck driver, Mr Kennedy be paid €7,500 in damages and also ordered Ms Kearse to pay his costs.
Ms Kearse alleged that during a delivery to her home in April 2004, Mr Kennedy had pinned her up against the sink in her kitchen in her home by grabbing her arms and pushing himself against her, making a lewd comment.
The married woman also alleged that she threw Mr Kennedy off, before he followed her and pinned her against the door when she grabbed a hammer nearby to protect herself.
However, Mr Kennedy had denied the allegations, telling the court, “I had no act, hand or part in any assault on the woman.”
Counsel for Mr Kennedy, Donal O’Rourke BL said that Ms Kearse had made the malicious allegation of sexual assault as part of a vendetta against Mr Kennedy because of continuing trouble between Mr Kennedy and Ms Kearse’s son, Jonathan, at their workplace, Shannonside Building Supplies in Ennis.
In evidence, Ms Kearse, now living in Lissycasey, denied this. She told the court: “I told the truth. James Kennedy attacked me in my own home.”
However, in his judgment, Judge O’Donohoe said: “I’ve no doubt that Eileen Kearse maliciously slandered Mr Kennedy to his employers in September 2004.”
He added: “The motive, I have no doubt, relates to her son and his precarious employment position at Shannonside Building Supplies and his difficult relationship with Mr Kennedy.”
Judge O’Donohoe said: “The defendant did not report the sexual assault to the Gardaí until after her son’s job had been terminated. I found the defendant to be unreliable in her evidence, particularly in relation to the date of the alleged assault.”
The judge stated that qualified privilege would be a legal defence in a defamation action when reporting such an incident.
However, Judge O’Donohoe said that the legal position is that malice destroys Ms Kearse’s qualified privilege and he found that to be the case in this instance.
Stating that Mr Kennedy be paid €7,500 in damages, Judge O’Donohoe said that this figure would have been higher but for Ms Kearse didn’t of her own accord immediately report or slander him to his employer.
“I take into account, while he suffered personal distress, Mr Kennedy didn’t suffer any ill consequences as a result of the report to his employer where they communicated to him that they were satisfied these events didn’t happen,” said the judge.
Speaking afterwards, Mr Kennedy said that he was “very happy” with the outcome. He said: “I’m glad I took the action – for everyone’s sake.”
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
This date in history: Lorena Bobbitt sliced off her husband's penis and exposed the politics of hate
The mutilation of John Wayne Bobbitt by his wife, Lorena, on June 23, 1993, marks one of the most appalling and reprehensible chapters in modern Western gender relations. The story is well known: Lorena Bobbitt said her husband abused her over a prolonged period of time and that, on the night in question, he raped her. In a moment of what she claimed was temporary insanity, while her husband slept, she went to the kitchen of their apartment, grabbed a knife, returned to the bedroom, and proceeded to cut off most of his penis. She then hopped in her car, penis in hand, and drove away. As she sped by a field, she tossed the severed appendage out the window. The organ was later recovered and, miraculously, reattached to its owner.
The Bobbitt affair was appalling and reprehensible, and not merely because of the gruesome act of mayhem that defined it. It was all the more despicable because of the unspeakable glee, the unbridled delight, and the inexplicable exultation expressed by feminists and large segments of the female population, who luxuriated in the vile mutilation of some lower class nobody, a man who had difficulty holding onto a job as a manual laborer. Feminists regarded the event as both a watershed moment in the battle of the sexes and a justifiable assault on maleness itself. Just as ancient warriors sometimes took the penises of their vanquished enemies as war trophies, what better way of trumpeting victory in the battle of the sexes than to take patriarchy's quintessential symbol from one of its foot soldiers?
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, with de rigueur, mindless, knee jerk fidelity, women's organizations branded the perpetrator "the victim" and the victim "the perpetrator" strictly along gender lines, even though the alleged rape was "he said/she said," and even though there was no question that she mutilated him while he slept. This wasn't just a rush to judgment; it was a 60-meter sprint, completed in record time. Before a single scrap of evidence was considered by a jury, for feminists and many women, the trial was over even before it had begun. They arrogated to any woman the right to exact the most gruesome vigilante justice on any "member" of any member of the opposite sex. The Bobbitt affair was feminist stardust wishfulness come true.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A TWISTED teenager falsely accused her ex-boyfriend of raping her.
Nasty Ceilidh McCreadie, 18, subjected the innocent young man to a police investigation because she wanted him to feel extreme pain.
He was forced to undergo a police interview, give DNA and surrender his clothes for forensic examination.
Meanwhile, police scoured CCTV footage, undertook door-to-door enquiries and carried out a scene of crime examination.
But after she refused to have a medical examination, McCreadie, who lived in Ayr at the time, admitted she had made the whole thing up.
She now faces jail over her false claims.
This week at Ayr Sheriff Court, she pleaded guilty to rendering her victim liable to suspicion and accusation.
The charge also reads that she wasted the time of the police and deprived the public of their services while they investigated her false claim.
Depute fiscal Isabel Vincent told Sheriff Desmond Leslie that McCreadie and her brother turned up at Ayr police office at around 11.45pm on July 31 last year.
McCreadie told officers she had been raped but while she was making a statement, her behaviour became problematic.
She refused to co-operate and was upset and crying.
On completion of the statement, the investigation process was explained to her.
At that point, McCreadie grabbed the paper her statement was written on and scrunched it up.
She initially refused to give a medical examination but when officers explained it would provide a forensic opportunity, she agreed.
McCreadie went with police to Glasgow for the medical exam but on arrival she immediately refused to have it.
Officers later tried to get another statement from McCreadie and she asked for it to be retracted.
McCreadie stated that she had a “deep hatred” towards her ex-boyfriend.
She said that due to his conduct she wanted him to “experience extreme pain.”
Sheriff Leslie deferred sentence on McCreadie, who now lives in Dundonald, for background reports.
Monday, June 21, 2010
A Feminist Flare Up
By Cathy Young
Perhaps all the talk of the "Year of the Conservative Woman," sparked by the crop of fairly conservative Republican women running for office, has slightly unhinged some feminists on the left. Or maybe it's a flare-up of the Palin Derangement Syndrome caused by Sarah Palin's galling insistence on calling herself a feminist. For whatever reason, the Feminist Dogma Police is out in force, handing down edicts on where the party lines must be drawn -- and, for whatever reason, they have been getting a platform for these edicts not in specialty publications but in the mainstream media. The loser, ultimately, is feminism itself.
First, The Washington Post ran blogger Jessica Valenti's diatribe against Palin and other women who, in her view, were trying to usurp the feminist mantle. Sure, Valenti allowed, diversity of opinions is good -- but goddess forbid there should be feminists who dissent from the sisterhood's orthodoxy on abortion or pay equity, or who believe that women in America today are not oppressed by "the patriarchy." Then, Slate.com published a piece by another big gun of the left-wing feminist blogosphere, Amanda Marcotte, titled "A short history of 'feminist' anti-feminists" and painting Palin as the latest in a line of "women who call themselves feminist" while opposing the feminist movement.
Marcotte's account, which identifies three generations of "feminist anti-feminists," is pretty shoddy history. For one, her first generation -- the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly or Concerned Women for America founder Beverly LaHaye -- consists of women who never called themselves feminists and explicitly opposed gender equality as counter to the God-given roles of the sexes. (Bizarrely, Marcotte even calls this first wave "plain ol' anti-feminism.") And her third generation, which includes Palin and is clumsily labeled "co-opting feminism anti-feminism," is a random list of women and organizations whose only common feature seems to be that they either oppose abortion or believe that women are ill-served by a sexually permissive culture.
Then there's Marcotte's attack on what she classes as the second wave of feminism's critics: "'Independent Feminism' Anti-Feminism," of which I myself have been a part. Arising in the early 1990s, "independent feminism" embraced the feminist challenge to women's traditional place but also asserted that the major battles for women's rights had been won -- and not only celebrated feminist achievements but questioned exaggerated claims of female oppression and male evil. Among other things, this dissident feminism criticized the tendency to redefine rape (particularly "date rape") so broadly as to include miscommunication due to mixed signals or sex under the influence of alcohol.
Marcotte sarcastically asserts that one of the major "victories" of "independent feminism" was "maintaining a cultural and legal framework that made it difficult to prosecute rape." What does this mean? Her previous writings on the subject provide some context. In 2006-2007, Marcotte emerged as a leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax. On her blog, anyone questioning the guilt of the three lacrosse players charged with sexually assaulting an exotic dancer at a team party was branded a "rape apologist." In a particularly vicious broadside, she sneered at syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker for arguing that "unless the victim is 9 years old and a virgin and white and blonde ... rape isn't so much a crime as a feminist plot to put all men in jail." This wasn't so much hyperbole as outright distortion: while Parker had deplored the "rush to judgment" in the Duke case, she had explicitly condemned the notion that the alleged victim was less deserving of sympathy because she was a stripper. (Parker is one of the "independent feminists" on Marcotte's Slate blacklist.)
The true extent of Marcotte's hate-filled zealotry is evident in a profanity-laced rant she posted about a CNN special report on the Duke case aired after the rape charges were dismissed. (She later deleted the post when it became an issue in the controversy over her short-lived appointment as blog coordinator for the John Edwards presidential campaign.) Slamming CNN as "pure evil," Marcotte vented her outrage at having to "listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***ed her against her will," and concluded sarcastically, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."
It seems that, in Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the "independent feminists'" is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault. If so, that is indeed a victory. Depriving men of their civil rights is no victory for women -- both as a matter of principle and because most women have men in their lives whom they would not want to see face a false charge of rape under Marcotte-style standards of justice.
The real mystery is why a publication of Slate.com's stature, and its "women's section," Double XX, would run an article whose main purpose is to exclude dissent from feminist discourse and smear the dissenters. (Whether any respectable media outlet would extend such courtesy to a blogger who wrote about women, gays, or black men with the kind of vitriol Marcotte shows toward white males is another question.) What happened to letting a hundred flowers bloom?
For the record, I strongly disagree with some of the women on Marcotte's enemies list, right-to-life feminists in particular. Aside from the issue of government control over people's bodies, I am troubled by their tendency to portray women who have abortions as victims of predatory males -- rhetoric that echoes the "victim feminists" of the left. But that doesn't mean there should be no place at the feminist table for women who genuinely believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, no dialogue or search for compromise. Yes, even the biggest tent must have some boundaries: to expand "feminism" to include advocacy of male superiority or female submission would strip the concept of all meaning. But, last time I checked, women who held such views were in no rush to appropriate the term. And if the question is how best to achieve gender equity and how much of it has been achieved already, why not try debate rather than excommunication?
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. She can be reached at email@example.com
Doctor selling female condom with "teeth" isn't peddling a useful crime prevention device, she's hawking radical feminist empowerment
According to a news report: "Jagged rows of teeth-like hooks line its inside and attach on a man's penis during penetration, Ehlers said. Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it -- a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest. 'It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," she said. "If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin, and there's no danger of fluid exposure.'" The condom "allows justice to be served, she said. . . . .Critics have accused her of developing a medieval device to fight rape. 'Yes, my device may be a medieval, but it's for a medieval deed that has been around for decades,' she said." http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/
This device has actually been around for a few years, but the gimmick of giving away some 30,000 of them at the World Cup has put the modern day Dracula inventor back in the news. It is actually fitting that this story is in the news because it dovetails nicely with the extremely disturbing piece on the anniversary of Lorena Bobbitt's mutilation of her husband.
Lest we minimize the, ah, impact of this device to men, read what the good doctor said about the same, or a similar, horrid product in this 2007 article: "But for Ehlers this device, which is inserted in the vagina, could give women vital seconds to escape the rapist while he was busy dealing with his pain. 'The surprise factor will give women a chance to escape,' says Ehlers, explaining that the rapist would be in great pain as the 25 teeth attach themselves to the shaft of the penis."
It will cause "great pain" to men. See, that's the most important thing.
Let's make one thing clear, the good doctor isn't selling a useful crime prevention device; she's peddling feminist empowerment. She's hawking the ultimate in radical feminist wishfulness, the dream of chopping off dicks. And please, ladies, before you whine that this is an unfair cliche, read our piece on Lorena Bobbitt, and more specifically, the reaction to the gendered mayhem.
The fact that this woman has been selling this thing for years but is now giving 30,000 away might suggest there's no market for it. That would be a good thing, all around. People concerned about women's rights are saying this thing is a bad idea. "Critics say the female condom is not a long-term solution and makes women vulnerable to more violence from men trapped by the device."
The few people concerned about men's rights aren't talking about it, but among many, many problems with Rape-aXe is that, contrary to what this mad scientist believes, it does not necessarily allow "justice" to be served. It does not necessarily "prove" that a rape occurred.
A woman might insert this atrocity in her vagina before going on a blind date, as Dr. Frankenstein suggests, but then proceed to send off signals indicating her willingness to engage in intercourse. Perhaps she's had a few drinks and has even forgotten she's wearing the appalling device. If her unwitting date proceeds, he will be subjected to the surprise of his life when this 13th Century torture device clamps down on his dick. That is not rape, regardless of what Dr. Ehlers believes; rather, it's the innocent man who's just been brutally assaulted.
Aside from getting tipsy and forgetting she's wearing it, would a woman ever wear this device but then allow a guy she doesn't dislike to proceed? It's more than plausible. The literature is replete with examples of women secretly desiring not to engage in intercourse but sending off signals indicating a willingness to proceed.
But wouldn't a conflicted woman want to spare a partner the pain of having his penis attacked? Well, put it this way: wouldn't a conflicted woman want to spare a partner the pain of a false rape claim? Conflicted women don't always do that. All a woman would have to do is say, "no, I don't want to," and virtually every guy would stop. The fact that conflicted women don't always stop a guy from plowing ahead, you see, is just a manifestation of her conflict. And it's a reason false rape claims are so widespread.
So, if the product isn't going to help stop rape, and could actually chomp down on innocent penises, why is it being marketed? Why not teach women things that will actually help them avoid dangerous situations instead?
Well, as you can imagine, innocent penises are not their concern. As for doing something useful to stop rape, forget it. You see, it is anything but empowering to teach women techniques to actually avoid being raped. For many radical feminists, that's "victim blaming."
But all of that misses the point about this product. For radical feminists, rape isn't just a crime, it's a symbol of purported male oppression, and the only way to "defeat" rape is to empower women by figuratively emasculating men -- even though that approach won't stop a single actual rapist and would only make matters worse for women. To the misandrists interested in "get-evenism," as Connie Chastain put it, stopping rape is beside the point; belittling maleness with dramatic symbolism, such as this inane, inhumane product, is the goal.
ORLANDO -- Police say a woman who claimed she was raped at Lake Eola admitted she made up the whole story.
The woman said she was pulled into the bushes and sexually battered near the 200 block of Central Boulevard in downtown Orlando around 2 a.m. on May 14.
She gave a detailed description of a man in his 50s with gray hair and a beard.
Detectives said they followed up on the claim, interviewing people the woman said she had contacted before and after the rape report.
Police said none of the witnesses could confirm the woman’s story, and there were no forensics to support her claim.
When a detective re-interviewed the victim Wednesday, police said she admitted she made it all up, and denied any sexual assault.
The woman told the detective she came up with the suspect’s description from a man who did speak to her, telling her she was attractive and did not belong on the streets.
However, she said there was no further action from there.
The false rape report led to over 100 tips from first responders and CrimeLine before the woman admitted her story was not true.
Police said not only did they spend time interviewing multiple witnesses and reviewing surveillance video, but the false report placed the entire community in fear.
"As much as there was a lot of work done on it, you know, a lot of people were gosh, they were scared. In the end, it didn't happen. But, you know, we did have that case last year that did happen. So obviously people should always -- whether it happened or not -- should always take their own proactive measures," said Sgt. Barbara Jones from the Orlando Police Department.
Currently, investigators are not releasing any more information about why the woman would lie about being sexually assaulted at Lake Eola.
She could face charges for making a false report.
There are a number of reasons why someone would lie about something as serious as sexual assault.
But the bottom line is that this woman not only lied to police, she scared a lot of people.
So why would someone lie about something as serious as sexual assault?
News 13 spoke with mental health expert Deedra Hunter, who counsels sexual abuse victims.
"There has to be a reason why this woman lied," Hunter said.
Hunter, who has never met the woman, said some people lie just to get attention. Others lie as a cry for help and actually want to get caught.
"They want somebody to, perhaps, find them out and ask them ‘why would you do this?’" Hunter said.
Guilt and fear about past actions can also lead to lying.
Hunter said people who lie about rape only make it more difficult for true victims to come forward.
"For years, women weren't believed,” Hunter said. “For years, women didn't come forward because in court they would be questioned and grilled."
Orlando police encourage anyone to continue to report any suspicious activity.
They said even though this sexual assault turned out not to have happened, they will continue take all reports seriously.
FRS Comment: It would be nice, just once, to stop hearing all of the excuses as to WHY a false report was made. And of course, the same old line is trotted out that real victims of rape won't come forward because someone else lied about being raped. Some day, I would really like to see the evidence for that claim.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The overwhelming misandry lobbed in dad's direction need not be chronicled here because it is dealt with extensively elsewhere. But of all the misandry directed at fathers, none is as painful to read about as false rape claims.
What does it say about a society that regards a father as less credible than the far-fetched musings of an angry daughter who falsely accuses him of rape after he grounds her? Or an angry partner, with an obvious motive, who lies that the father of her children committed rape solely so she can gain the upperhand in a custody battle? Fathers -- the men who make sure their kids have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, who sit up all night when their sons or daughters are sick, who rearrange their lives to make room for ballet lessons and hockey tournaments and a thousand other kid things, who pump up a daughter who doesn't think she's pretty, who become stern even when it's against their natures in order to motivate a kid who's underperforming in school, and who too often put up with wild mood swings and even abuse of their children's mother -- yes, those guys -- are rounded up, arrested, charged, jailed, and treated to a multitude of indignities on the say so of a lone accuser. Child protection agencies and survivor groups don’t want to even acknowledge that false allegations can happen, too often resulting in fathers being falsely accused, charged, and convicted.
On this Father's Day, we salute all fathers, and especially all the dads who've been victimized by the worst thing that can happen to any human being short of murder, a false rape charge. The following are just a few of the recent cases where fathers are treated as flotsam -- trust me, we could provide many more examples:
*An 18-year-old female falsely accused her father of raping her over the course of two to three years. She made up the terrible lie because he was strict with her. A police spokesman warned that "people who make false claims waste police time and resources." http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/18-year-old-woman-falsely-accuses.html
*An 18-year-old girl laid false charges of sexual molestation and rape against her father, a transport controller, who said the incident had turned his whole life upside down. "She has put me through an emotional rollercoaster," he said. "My wife does not live with me and refuses to talk to me. I am barred from communicating with my son." He said the community had ostracised him. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/false-rape-charges-ruined-my-life.html
*Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened. Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand to clear their father's name. Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone. Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent. Despite his commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/07/kids-recant-abuse-claims-after-dad.html
*A woman falsely accused the 27-year-old father of the their two children of rape to gain the upper-hand in a custody dispute, which rape supposedly occurred when she was at his house picking up the children. The father was arrested at his job. A few days later, the police got around to looking into the woman's story, which led to charges against her for fabricating a rape allegation. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/search?q=Crider
*A woman falsely accused the father of her child of kidnapping his own daughter and sexually assaulting the woman, because the woman was angry at him. The false claim led to an Amber Alert, and the father's arrest. He was charged with child abduction, home invasion, aggravated criminal sexual assault and domestic battery. The woman, by the way, had been convicted of filing a false police report in 2007 and was placed on conditional discharge for that crime. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/04/woman-she-lied-about-sexual-assault.html
*Another innocent man who spent two months in jail after the mother of his daughter falsely accused him of rape? They had had consensual sex, but she was angry at him, so not only did she lie to police about the rape, for good measure she added that he was armed and dangerous. So 12-15 police cars came for him. He was humiliated. Two of the arresting deputies were people he knew from school. He faced 25 years to life for a crime he didn't commit and finally raised $25,000 for his bail. The false accuser finally recanted, but not before his life was ruined. His false arrest cost him countless jobs and $40,000 in legal fees. And he still must pay $460 per month on his bail (and likely child support, to the false accuser). http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/09/important-post-want-to-see-what-happens.html
*In the midst of a nasty divorce, Mr. Amine Baba-Ali’s wife falsely accused him of raping their daughter during a custody visit at his Queens apartment. At nearly every turn, his case became a study in the miscarriage of justice. Prosecutors ignored medical evidence that appeared to prove his innocence, then failed to disclose it to the defense until a few days before the trial. He was sentenced to a maximum security prison, and even after being cleared of the charges, has not seen his daughter -- she doesn't want to see him. And no matter how many judges declare him flatly and unequivocally innocent, he will remain shadowed by child abuse charges for the rest of his life. As but one example, the Census Bureau turned him down for a job because of the conviction. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/06/vindicated-but-still-not-freed-from.html
*A 15-year-old girl lied that her step-father raped her. He was jailed, and the vile accusation hung over him for five months before the girl admitted she made the whole thing up. The girl's punishment? A curfew for three months. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/01/girl-15-lied-about-rape.html
*Another father, Gerard Wilson, had been searching frantically for more than a day for his 14-year-old daughter when sheriff's deputies found her in a motel room with a convicted pedophile from Texas whom she met on the Internet. The girl told police she had sex with that man, but she also made sure to tell police that her father had touched her inappropriately. Wilson, a middle school teacher, had not slept in more than 24 hours when investigators began an hours-long interrogation. They finally coerced him to write his daughter a letter apologizing for the things she said he'd done. Wilson was immediately arrested and jailed on a $4-million bond. The girl later testified that she made up the claims -- to shift police attention to her father instead of her illicit lover, whom she said she wanted to marry. Jurors deliberated for less than half an hour before acquitting. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/06/red-flags-indicative-of-false-claims.html
*Brian Scott Harden, father of three, faced the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison when his wife claimed he raped her at gunpoint before DNA evidence exonerated him. Astoundingly, the wife admitted under oath that if DNA testing hadn't been performed, she "probably" would have continued to lie at trial that Mr. Harden raped her and assaulted her with a gun. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/06/rape-charges-dropped-given-depth-and.html
*Prosecutor David Gorcyca dropped charges against a father accused of raping his autistic daughter after the man spent 80 days in jail. The case collapsed because the court could never establish the girl, who cannot speak, was the author of the rape claim allegedly made with the help of a teaching aide through a widely dismissed method known as facilitated communication. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/06/red-flags-indicative-of-false-claims.html
Happy Fathers Day, men!
Friday, June 18, 2010
Language is a funny thing. "Duke Lacrosse" has come to symbolize false accusation, specifically false accusations of sexual wrongdoing by males.
The game of lacrosse, as played by native Indian tribes in America at the time of European settlement, was called "little brother of war."
Ah, symbolism. If an untrue accusation of rape could be likened to war, could not a false accusation of sexual harassment be called the little brother of war? Or maybe, the little sister of war would be more accurate.
Last year, I began a search for statistics on false accusations of sexual harassment for a novel I was writing. My interest in writing about this subject grew from my distaste for feminism, which dates back to my earliest acquaintance with the second-wave era when I was in high school.
You don't have to be a feminist to falsely accuse a man of sexual wrongdoing but feminists have seemingly turned it into a combination art form, scientific discipline and political statement. And by now, the West is so permeated with feminist ideology, even women who do not consciously ascribe to feminist thought can be deeply influenced by it.
A false accusation of sexual harassment, while not as serious as a false accusation of rape, nevertheless finds its origins in the same mentality -- a hatred of men, a desire to evilize male sexuality, or men in toto, and/or an overwhelming sense of get-evenism.
Perhaps the seed for my eventual writing on the subject was planted by the lurid spectacle of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill sexual harassment case on my TV screen right in my living room. Although I had no trouble believing Thomas's character witnesses declarations that he was a decent man and innocent of the accusation, my reaction to Hill -- visceral distrust and disbelief -- made a far greater impression on me.
Or perhaps my interest grew because the subject was shoved in our faces in the pages of women's magazines, news reports and women's films. In any case, because I wasn't raised to see men as the evil creatures feminism implies they are, my approach to claims of sexual harassment was skepticism--of innocent until proven guilty.
Certainly there are men who would sexually harass women but most don't, just as most men don't rape. But simply making a declarative statement to that effect would not help with my writing project. I wanted statistics.
My online search took me to the website of the federal government's EEOC -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where I found this amazing table:
The statistic that caught my attention immediately was the "Percent of Charges Filed by Males" which was 16% in 2009, the highest of any year back to 1997. That means that that 84% or more are filed by women. No surprise there, really.
The second attention-getter was the resolution type titled "No Reasonable Cause." In 2005, almost half the cases filed with the EEOC, 49.5%, were resolved as having no reasonable cause, and in other years hovered nearby. The website's Definition of Terms page says this means, "EEOC's determination of no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation. The charging party may exercise the right to bring private court action."
Look at that again. No reasonable cause to believe the discrimination -- i.e., the sexual harassment -- occurred, based on evidence obtained in investigation.
Even if all the claims brought by men were resolved as no reasonable cause, that would mean over a third of the cases resolved for the same reason were brought by women.
And yes, this determination is not evidence of a false accusation; it is possible that sexual harassment could have occurred even though no evidence could be obtained for it. But I find it very interesting that these statistics for the little brother of war so closely parallel those of false rape accusations.
*Connie is a regular contributor to FRS. Her principal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
What does it mean when the jury comes back with a "not guilty" verdict in just one hour -- after a week-long rape trial?
Read the story. The man, who was named (of course) spent 12 months in custody awaiting trial, which included 22 hours a day in lock-down, for an alleged rape that supposedly occurred in broad daylight. The trial on three different criminal charges lasted a week, but the jury was back in just an hour.
I suspect the jury was sending a message. Instead of reviewing evidence admitted throughout the week, the speed with which this jury returned clearly signaled one thing: "bullshit."
Bottom line: the system kept a man locked up, and in lock-down, for a full year -- on a bullshit claim. Try to imagine all the things you would have missed over the past year if you had your life taken away from you as this man did. As many men do. And if you are a male, it could easily happen to you, too.
We can't trust the persons leading the opposition. They are largely the same persons who have engaged in dishonest tactics to make it appear that rape is rampant and tolerated in the UK. They are advocates with an agenda to jack up rape convictions, not objective policymakers. It is well to note that their dishonesty may actually have hurt rape victims. How have they been dishonest? The Home Office, and politicians seeking to jack up rape convictions, have long cited the attrition rate for rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is 6%. But, the Home Office, and everyone, uses the conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) for all other crimes. The result has been to make it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape. Please re-read that and make sure you understand it. The UK has insisted that only 6% of "rapists" are convicted, as opposed to the correct figure: 58%. Stern Review, see page 45. "Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates." See here. This is dishonesty of Biblical proportions. The Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Stern Review, see page 45.
Beyond that, we have debunked every point posited in opposition to anonymity. Not a single point stands up to the light of day.
So who can we trust to give us an unbiased view? How about someone who has experienced up close both a rape and a false rape claim?
At a Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton four years ago, anonymity for men accused of rape was debated, and activist Jacqui Gasson, 68, a rape victim whose attacker has never been found, spoke up.
Mrs. Gasson favors anonymity for the presumptively innocent.
The Cardiff activist recounted how she was raped 40 years ago on the steps of her London home. "Despite yelling for help and there being plenty of people on the street above, nobody helped."
The ordeal forced Mrs. Gasson to leave London and caused her to suffer a nervous breakdown.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Gasson spoke out in favor of anonymity for those accused or rape.
Why is Mrs. Gasson sympathetic to a plight that she, as a woman, would almost certainly never suffer herself? Because her husband was wrongly accused of an unrelated assault.
Mrs. Gasson has been victimized by rape, and she isn't satisfied enough is being about it. She called for more sexual assault referral centres for rape victims. "You feel dirty, you feel unclean and you need a haven not a police station."
But Mrs. Gasson also has been touched by a false claim in a very personal way.
Mrs. Gasson's position on this issue needs to be listened to. She demonstrates that rape victims and the victims of false rape claims are not at odds. Read that last sentence again. Helping the latter does not hurt the former. Extending a hand to the victims of false rape claims does not suggest that rape victims should be ignored. We are not playing a zero sum game. As members of the civilized family of man, we are supposed to try to help all victims, even the ones born with penises.
These are simple lessons that we've preached here for years, but our message doesn't resonate in the politically charged world of rape advocacy, where it is difficult to tell if the real goal is to help rape victims or to punish an entire gender, including innocent victims of false rape claims, for the sins committed by a tiny percentage of men.
In a nation where the rape debate is marked by gross dishonesty, policymakers would do well to heed the honest voice of Jacqui Gasson, someone who knows what she's talking about, and whose "rape" credentials can scarcely be assailed.