Thursday, September 30, 2010

Woman's rape claim false, police say

A Saylorsburg woman was not telling the truth when she told state police she was raped at a party in her home, police said Tuesday.

Christine D. O'Neill, 46, is scheduled to face charges of unsworn falsification and making false reports at a preliminary hearing at 9:30 a.m. Monday before District Judge Jolana Krawitz.

O'Neill also is charged with two counts of intimidation of witnesses and two counts of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Police say O'Neill told them and Pocono Medical Center personnel that she was raped on the night of a party that included minors. State police at Lehighton later determined she had consensual sex with a man after her husband left the party.

Police did not say when the party took place.


Link:

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/police/mc-saylorsburg-womans-rape-claim-not-20100911,0,3730905.story

Woman's rape claim false, police say

A Saylorsburg woman was not telling the truth when she told state police she was raped at a party in her home, police said Tuesday.

Christine D. O'Neill, 46, is scheduled to face charges of unsworn falsification and making false reports at a preliminary hearing at 9:30 a.m. Monday before District Judge Jolana Krawitz.

O'Neill also is charged with two counts of intimidation of witnesses and two counts of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Police say O'Neill told them and Pocono Medical Center personnel that she was raped on the night of a party that included minors. State police at Lehighton later determined she had consensual sex with a man after her husband left the party.

Police did not say when the party took place.


Link:

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/police/mc-saylorsburg-womans-rape-claim-not-20100911,0,3730905.story

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Comment from slwerner from previous post on anonymity

THIS IS A COMMENT FROM ONE OF MOST ASTUTE READERS, SLWERNER, TO THE PREVIOUS POST ON ANONYMITY. IN THE COMMENT, HE IS RESPONDING TO ANOTHER READER.

Anonymous ”Trouble with anonymity is the serial rapists of the world like Andrew Luster, who would still be drugging and raping women had it not been for a few brave souls who came forward.”

Not only is this one single example (against hundreds of examples of innocent men being harmed by false accusations); there is nothing to indicate that if his name had not been publicized, he would not have been linked to the 20 women he was convicted of raping. In case your just dropping his name without actually knowing anything about the case, he was identified by three women who knew him already, and the police found videos enabling them to link him to the others. They NEVER needed the public-at-large’s help to do this. I’d say nice try, but that would be a lie. Your effort here was obvious and pathetic.

Anonymous - ”Not only that, if we had anonymity, it could double the number of rape-kit-test-results just sitting around in storage. It's estimated that there are now hundreds of thousands of these kits all over the country.”

Meaning what, exactly? Are you supposing that all those rape kits have been used, or are simply stockpiled in SANE exam rooms in the event they are needed? And, remember, all those women who are later revealed to have been lying (often about sexual contact even occurring), but who got SANE exams in response to their false allegation, also have a kit that was used. Why test those kits of women know to have lied? Danmell Ndonye had one done, so did Crystal Magnum. What value lies in testing such kits, except, as in the case of Mangum, exonerating those she accused?

And, since your illogic is so hard to follow, please explain how not having an alleged rapists identity publicly revealed is going to impact a woman’s decision on whether or not to file charges. A more rational argument would be that, knowing that her attacker would be exposed publicly, and that such exposure could allow others to figure out that she was an (alleged) victim, would have a much greater impact on making a woman ask to have charges filed and the kit processed. [bet your canned feminist talking points didn’t prepare you for that one]

How, exactly, would not publishing his identity actually allow a rapist a greater chance of not being convicted? Jurors are admonished to base their decisions on the evidence presented at trial, and not rely on anything they’ve read in the press. That’s why, despite the press being able to make any man seem guilty, even those cases that go to trial have a rather low rate of conviction. Evidence in NOT what the paper says it is.

Now, you want to know haw to help make it more likely for real rapists to walk? Easy! Encourage more women to make false rape claims.

I’ll give you a concrete example of how that works. Earlier this year, my wife, who is a prosecutor took a case of a man accused of raping an under-aged family member to trial (I’m a skeptic, but knowing some privileged info about the case, it seems more likely than not that this had been a real rape).

During the voir dire, the female defense attorney cleverly brought up the issue of false rape allegations, asking the question of each prospective juror that was called to the box. A number of them (mostly men, BTW) allowed that they’d heard of it happening, but claimed to have little idea about how likely it was. But, then, a woman was called up, who looked very classy, well educated, well read and up-to-date, and confident. When she was asked about FRA’s she proclaimed, “Oh, I know they happen all the time. People just don’t realize often it happens”.

Later, after the “not guilty” verdict, she indicated that she knew, that in that moment, the case had been lost. A woman who simply knew that FRA’s happen rather frequently, and who wasn’t afraid to tell the truth, was all it took to “poison” the jury, and ensure that (in all likelihood) and actual rapist “walked”.

Satisfied? Want to harm even more women? Just keep the FRA’s coming so that the world can see how often women DO lie, and for what specious reasons they chose to do so. Knowledge is power, as they say, and knowledge of FRA’s is certainly a boon to all innocent men – while unintentionally aiding real rapists. You have heard of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, haven’t you? FRA’s ending up helping rapist is a really good example of what it means.

Comment from slwerner from previous post on anonymity

THIS IS A COMMENT FROM ONE OF MOST ASTUTE READERS, SLWERNER, TO THE PREVIOUS POST ON ANONYMITY. IN THE COMMENT, HE IS RESPONDING TO ANOTHER READER.

Anonymous ”Trouble with anonymity is the serial rapists of the world like Andrew Luster, who would still be drugging and raping women had it not been for a few brave souls who came forward.”

Not only is this one single example (against hundreds of examples of innocent men being harmed by false accusations); there is nothing to indicate that if his name had not been publicized, he would not have been linked to the 20 women he was convicted of raping. In case your just dropping his name without actually knowing anything about the case, he was identified by three women who knew him already, and the police found videos enabling them to link him to the others. They NEVER needed the public-at-large’s help to do this. I’d say nice try, but that would be a lie. Your effort here was obvious and pathetic.

Anonymous - ”Not only that, if we had anonymity, it could double the number of rape-kit-test-results just sitting around in storage. It's estimated that there are now hundreds of thousands of these kits all over the country.”

Meaning what, exactly? Are you supposing that all those rape kits have been used, or are simply stockpiled in SANE exam rooms in the event they are needed? And, remember, all those women who are later revealed to have been lying (often about sexual contact even occurring), but who got SANE exams in response to their false allegation, also have a kit that was used. Why test those kits of women know to have lied? Danmell Ndonye had one done, so did Crystal Magnum. What value lies in testing such kits, except, as in the case of Mangum, exonerating those she accused?

And, since your illogic is so hard to follow, please explain how not having an alleged rapists identity publicly revealed is going to impact a woman’s decision on whether or not to file charges. A more rational argument would be that, knowing that her attacker would be exposed publicly, and that such exposure could allow others to figure out that she was an (alleged) victim, would have a much greater impact on making a woman ask to have charges filed and the kit processed. [bet your canned feminist talking points didn’t prepare you for that one]

How, exactly, would not publishing his identity actually allow a rapist a greater chance of not being convicted? Jurors are admonished to base their decisions on the evidence presented at trial, and not rely on anything they’ve read in the press. That’s why, despite the press being able to make any man seem guilty, even those cases that go to trial have a rather low rate of conviction. Evidence in NOT what the paper says it is.

Now, you want to know haw to help make it more likely for real rapists to walk? Easy! Encourage more women to make false rape claims.

I’ll give you a concrete example of how that works. Earlier this year, my wife, who is a prosecutor took a case of a man accused of raping an under-aged family member to trial (I’m a skeptic, but knowing some privileged info about the case, it seems more likely than not that this had been a real rape).

During the voir dire, the female defense attorney cleverly brought up the issue of false rape allegations, asking the question of each prospective juror that was called to the box. A number of them (mostly men, BTW) allowed that they’d heard of it happening, but claimed to have little idea about how likely it was. But, then, a woman was called up, who looked very classy, well educated, well read and up-to-date, and confident. When she was asked about FRA’s she proclaimed, “Oh, I know they happen all the time. People just don’t realize often it happens”.

Later, after the “not guilty” verdict, she indicated that she knew, that in that moment, the case had been lost. A woman who simply knew that FRA’s happen rather frequently, and who wasn’t afraid to tell the truth, was all it took to “poison” the jury, and ensure that (in all likelihood) and actual rapist “walked”.

Satisfied? Want to harm even more women? Just keep the FRA’s coming so that the world can see how often women DO lie, and for what specious reasons they chose to do so. Knowledge is power, as they say, and knowledge of FRA’s is certainly a boon to all innocent men – while unintentionally aiding real rapists. You have heard of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, haven’t you? FRA’s ending up helping rapist is a really good example of what it means.

Student’s rape claim found to be false

Athens-Clarke County police have stopped the investigation surrounding a University student’s alleged rape, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

According to ACC police Capt. Clarence Holeman, the 20-year-old student originally said she was raped in the bathroom of Bourbon Street bar early Tuesday morning.

After watching security tapes from the bar, police determined the student’s claim was false, Holeman told the AJC.

“At no time did it show the alleged victim going into the bathroom, or going into the bathroom with a male,” he told the AJC.


Link:
http://www.redandblack.com/2010/08/12/students-rape-claim-found-to-be-false/

Student’s rape claim found to be false

Athens-Clarke County police have stopped the investigation surrounding a University student’s alleged rape, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

According to ACC police Capt. Clarence Holeman, the 20-year-old student originally said she was raped in the bathroom of Bourbon Street bar early Tuesday morning.

After watching security tapes from the bar, police determined the student’s claim was false, Holeman told the AJC.

“At no time did it show the alleged victim going into the bathroom, or going into the bathroom with a male,” he told the AJC.


Link:
http://www.redandblack.com/2010/08/12/students-rape-claim-found-to-be-false/

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The 'under-reporting' canard

Among the more despicable prevarications of what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry is the assertion that our college campuses are cisterns of male sexual misconduct.  It is a lie, pure and simple, but a lie that is repeated so frequently that it has assumed a life of its own.  The myth of rampant male predatory sexual behavior is the engine that drives the so-called "rape culture," and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. 

But how is rampant male predatory sexual behavior "proven"?  It is not, of course.  The purveyors of this lie can only "support" it by positing the related falsehood that underreporting of rape, especially on campus, is of Biblical proportions. This claim has the advantage of not having to be proven, because it can't be proven.  We are left with this logic: Rape is rampant even though few women report they've been raped. We know rape is rampant because of rampant underreporting. We know underreporting is rampant because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring.

Get it? Neither do I.

Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. So they began to claim that huge percentages of rapes were not being reported.  Although the percentage of alleged underreporting varied from source to source, the sexual grievance industry claimed to know an exact percentage of rape claims that were not being reported.

Down the rabbit hole we tumble: the percentage of actual rapes among rape claims that are reported is unknown, and unknowable. See here.  That is an irrefutable fact.  Yet, mirabile dictu, the sexual grievance industry can tell us the exact percentage of rapes that are never reported. They can do this because they credit every blithe, untested assertion of rape made to a pollster as an assault that must have occurred solely because a woman said it did.  They can also do this because they engorge the definition of "rape" to include garden variety sex accompanied by "psychological coercion," which, of course, is not the test for "rape."  And none of these claims are investigated -- the male's side of the story is presumed to be non-existent. Either the female respondent who cries "rape" is automatically believed, or, if she doesn't cry "rape," her "experience" is recharacterized as a rape, because she is so brainwashed by patriarchal lies that she wouldn't know rape if it struck her about the head.

The logic is as maddening as it is dishonest.

Here is reality:  no one -- no one -- knows the precise extent of underreporting, and no one ever has. In fact, the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. See, 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).

But like other political issues where one noisy group cares greatly about a matter while the majority has no dog in that hunt, we took the word of the sexual grievance industry that rape was grotesquely under-reported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who supposedly suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. In other words, our politicians kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve a problem that no one can prove even exists.

So, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration.  Sounded fair, since other crimes had no such requirement.  All the while we ignored that rape isn't like other crimes. In many cases, the sole evidence of the crime is precisely the same as the sole evidence of the most common act of love, performed innumerable times throughout the world every day.  That act of love can be transmogrified into an alleged crime merely by claiming it was performed without consent. In practice, the elimination of corroboration essentially flipped the old law on its head: now, women don't need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys accused of rape are arrested, jailed, charged, and sometimes tried and convicted, solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if the men and boys can't produce corroborating evidence of their innocence. It is literally guilty until proven innocent.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that barred the admission in a rape trial of almost any evidence of the accuser's prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who mistook the acquiescence of a woman as consent were sent to prison.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws in the UK and a handful of US states that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man's name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate to the details of his humiliation.  In contrast, his accuser's identity is guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to shield Superman's.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence that might have proven them innocent -- corroborating witnesses, after-the-fact letters suggesting consent, receipts showing he was actually out of town that day -- has long disappeared.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted VAWA which, among many other things, pays the legal bills of alleged victims of sexual assault. VAWA pays none of the legal bills of men accused of rape, the presumptively innocent -- even the falsely accused.  In the UK, it's worse. They compensate alleged rape victims, even the ones not subjected to any physical force, no matter how slight their injuries; the UK does not compensate men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm. And, yes, sometimes false rape accusers are compensated.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that exempted rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the investigation of their rape claims. But polygraphs are considered just fine -- when they are used on men accused of rape.  If men refuse to submit to them, often even flimsy charges won't be dropped. (Moreover, polygraphs are routinely used to insure that sex offenders, predominantly male, are adhering to the terms of their probation, and a refusal to take the polygraph will land the refusing party in jail.)

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted draconian Federal Rule of Evidence 413, and many states adopted similar laws. With this law, unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, robbery, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant's commission of prior offenses of sexual assault to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue. This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant's prior acts, whether or not the defendant takes the stand. Even mere accusations of prior sexual offenses that occurred years before -- and even criminal allegations for which the defendant was acquitted -- are admissible if the alleged prior act is proven by just a preponderance of the evidence (far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt).  This law was enacted specifically to nab more rapists -- you know, show the jury smoke, and they'll assume there must be fire -- even when there isn't.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted rules on college campuses making it easier and easier to expel males accused of sexual wrongdoing, with kangaroo courts that forbid confronting accusers and employ inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, hearing processes that dispense with silly things like due process. Many college campuses also adopted rules that forbid charging rape accusers with underage drinking in connection with their accusation, thus providing young women looking to evade an underage drinking charge yet another motive to lie about rape.

On and on it goes, with seemingly no end.

But surely these massive reforms must have cut into underreporting of rape? Surely after decades of one reform cascading upon the next to encourage women to come forward, the women must be lining up, right?

Well, no, we are told.

In fact, the sexual grievance industry insists that nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and it is supposedly still rampant. After all that.

As but one example, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, we are told that more than ninety five percent of students who are sexually assaulted supposedly remain silent.  They tell us this with a straight face.

You see, all the rape reforms, all the bending over backwards to get victims to "come forward," have been a waste of time.

Can this be so?  What's really going on here?

Here's the reality: it's all nonsense.  The sexual grievance industry needs rampant "underreporting" to perpetuate the rape cottage industry.  So they manufacture it from whole cloth. There are powerful and entrenched financial interests at work that depend on rape hysteria.  That's a fact.

The "proof" proffered for underreporting ranges from unreliable to nonexistent, and the truth is held hostage by radical feminist ideology.

Yet underreporting remains the Excalibur of the sexual grievance industry, the secret weapon with magical powers that is whipped out and wielded any time someone suggests adding protections for the presumptively innocent who, too often, were falsely accused.

So what's the answer?  The answer is an honest, objective look at both rape and false rape claims, which likely will show that the former is not nearly as prevalent as the sexual grievance industry insists, and the latter not only is far more common, but becoming more and more prevalent because it is not deterred. An honest look at these issues will promote a greater respect for the rights of the presumptively innocent, many of whom are, in fact, falsely accused; moreover, it will enhance the credibility of actual rape victims, which has been badly hurt by decades of doing nothing about false rape claims.

What the sexual grievance industry has never been able to explain is this: if rape victims are refusing to come forward, how do we explain so many false rape claims?  The liars seem to have no difficulty "coming forward," do they?

The 'under-reporting' canard

Among the more despicable prevarications of what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry is the assertion that our college campuses are cisterns of male sexual misconduct.  It is a lie, pure and simple, but a lie that is repeated so frequently that it has assumed a life of its own.  The myth of rampant male predatory sexual behavior is the engine that drives the so-called "rape culture," and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. 

But how is rampant male predatory sexual behavior "proven"?  It is not, of course.  The purveyors of this lie can only "support" it by positing the related falsehood that underreporting of rape, especially on campus, is of Biblical proportions. This claim has the advantage of not having to be proven, because it can't be proven.  We are left with this logic: Rape is rampant even though few women report they've been raped. We know rape is rampant because of rampant underreporting. We know underreporting is rampant because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring.

Get it? Neither do I.

Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. So they began to claim that huge percentages of rapes were not being reported.  Although the percentage of alleged underreporting varied from source to source, the sexual grievance industry claimed to know an exact percentage of rape claims that were not being reported.

Down the rabbit hole we tumble: the percentage of actual rapes among rape claims that are reported is unknown, and unknowable. See here.  That is an irrefutable fact.  Yet, mirabile dictu, the sexual grievance industry can tell us the exact percentage of rapes that are never reported. They can do this because they credit every blithe, untested assertion of rape made to a pollster as an assault that must have occurred solely because a woman said it did.  They can also do this because they engorge the definition of "rape" to include garden variety sex accompanied by "psychological coercion," which, of course, is not the test for "rape."  And none of these claims are investigated -- the male's side of the story is presumed to be non-existent. Either the female respondent who cries "rape" is automatically believed, or, if she doesn't cry "rape," her "experience" is recharacterized as a rape, because she is so brainwashed by patriarchal lies that she wouldn't know rape if it struck her about the head.

The logic is as maddening as it is dishonest.

Here is reality:  no one -- no one -- knows the precise extent of underreporting, and no one ever has. In fact, the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists. See, 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).

But like other political issues where one noisy group cares greatly about a matter while the majority has no dog in that hunt, we took the word of the sexual grievance industry that rape was grotesquely under-reported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who supposedly suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. In other words, our politicians kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve a problem that no one can prove even exists.

So, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration.  Sounded fair, since other crimes had no such requirement.  All the while we ignored that rape isn't like other crimes. In many cases, the sole evidence of the crime is precisely the same as the sole evidence of the most common act of love, performed innumerable times throughout the world every day.  That act of love can be transmogrified into an alleged crime merely by claiming it was performed without consent. In practice, the elimination of corroboration essentially flipped the old law on its head: now, women don't need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys accused of rape are arrested, jailed, charged, and sometimes tried and convicted, solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if the men and boys can't produce corroborating evidence of their innocence. It is literally guilty until proven innocent.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that barred the admission in a rape trial of almost any evidence of the accuser's prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who mistook the acquiescence of a woman as consent were sent to prison.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws in the UK and a handful of US states that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man's name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate to the details of his humiliation.  In contrast, his accuser's identity is guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to shield Superman's.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence that might have proven them innocent -- corroborating witnesses, after-the-fact letters suggesting consent, receipts showing he was actually out of town that day -- has long disappeared.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted VAWA which, among many other things, pays the legal bills of alleged victims of sexual assault. VAWA pays none of the legal bills of men accused of rape, the presumptively innocent -- even the falsely accused.  In the UK, it's worse. They compensate alleged rape victims, even the ones not subjected to any physical force, no matter how slight their injuries; the UK does not compensate men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm. And, yes, sometimes false rape accusers are compensated.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted laws that exempted rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the investigation of their rape claims. But polygraphs are considered just fine -- when they are used on men accused of rape.  If men refuse to submit to them, often even flimsy charges won't be dropped. (Moreover, polygraphs are routinely used to insure that sex offenders, predominantly male, are adhering to the terms of their probation, and a refusal to take the polygraph will land the refusing party in jail.)

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted draconian Federal Rule of Evidence 413, and many states adopted similar laws. With this law, unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, robbery, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant's commission of prior offenses of sexual assault to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue. This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant's prior acts, whether or not the defendant takes the stand. Even mere accusations of prior sexual offenses that occurred years before -- and even criminal allegations for which the defendant was acquitted -- are admissible if the alleged prior act is proven by just a preponderance of the evidence (far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt).  This law was enacted specifically to nab more rapists -- you know, show the jury smoke, and they'll assume there must be fire -- even when there isn't.

That wasn't enough, they said. So we enacted rules on college campuses making it easier and easier to expel males accused of sexual wrongdoing, with kangaroo courts that forbid confronting accusers and employ inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, hearing processes that dispense with silly things like due process. Many college campuses also adopted rules that forbid charging rape accusers with underage drinking in connection with their accusation, thus providing young women looking to evade an underage drinking charge yet another motive to lie about rape.

On and on it goes, with seemingly no end.

But surely these massive reforms must have cut into underreporting of rape? Surely after decades of one reform cascading upon the next to encourage women to come forward, the women must be lining up, right?

Well, no, we are told.

In fact, the sexual grievance industry insists that nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and it is supposedly still rampant. After all that.

As but one example, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, we are told that more than ninety five percent of students who are sexually assaulted supposedly remain silent.  They tell us this with a straight face.

You see, all the rape reforms, all the bending over backwards to get victims to "come forward," have been a waste of time.

Can this be so?  What's really going on here?

Here's the reality: it's all nonsense.  The sexual grievance industry needs rampant "underreporting" to perpetuate the rape cottage industry.  So they manufacture it from whole cloth. There are powerful and entrenched financial interests at work that depend on rape hysteria.  That's a fact.

The "proof" proffered for underreporting ranges from unreliable to nonexistent, and the truth is held hostage by radical feminist ideology.

Yet underreporting remains the Excalibur of the sexual grievance industry, the secret weapon with magical powers that is whipped out and wielded any time someone suggests adding protections for the presumptively innocent who, too often, were falsely accused.

So what's the answer?  The answer is an honest, objective look at both rape and false rape claims, which likely will show that the former is not nearly as prevalent as the sexual grievance industry insists, and the latter not only is far more common, but becoming more and more prevalent because it is not deterred. An honest look at these issues will promote a greater respect for the rights of the presumptively innocent, many of whom are, in fact, falsely accused; moreover, it will enhance the credibility of actual rape victims, which has been badly hurt by decades of doing nothing about false rape claims.

What the sexual grievance industry has never been able to explain is this: if rape victims are refusing to come forward, how do we explain so many false rape claims?  The liars seem to have no difficulty "coming forward," do they?

False Rape Report

Argyle — A Washington County woman has been arrested for falsely reporting a rape.

State Police have arrested 42 year old Michelle Kidd of Argyle after she told authorities she had been forcibly raped by a stranger in her Cossayuna Lake apartment on August 17th.

A few days later, Kidd recontacted the Investigators and stated that she was able to positively identify her attacker, then pointed out a local resident with whom she was not acquainted.

Kidd eventually admitted that she’d made it all up.

She was arrested for the misdemeanors of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree and making a punishable false written statement.


Link:

http://www.looktvonline.com/false-rape-report

False Rape Report

Argyle — A Washington County woman has been arrested for falsely reporting a rape.

State Police have arrested 42 year old Michelle Kidd of Argyle after she told authorities she had been forcibly raped by a stranger in her Cossayuna Lake apartment on August 17th.

A few days later, Kidd recontacted the Investigators and stated that she was able to positively identify her attacker, then pointed out a local resident with whom she was not acquainted.

Kidd eventually admitted that she’d made it all up.

She was arrested for the misdemeanors of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree and making a punishable false written statement.


Link:

http://www.looktvonline.com/false-rape-report

Monday, September 27, 2010

The lies we are told about rape . . .

The following is an article published this month by Caroline May:

College campus rape rate 10 times higher than Detroit’s? Don’t believe everything the Justice Department tells you

As college students poured back into classrooms this week, ABC Nightline breathlessly reported (and other news outlets and blogs echoed): “A recent study from the Department of Justice estimated that 25 percent of college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a four-year college period.”

The short statement is enough to make parents think twice before sending their daughter to college. Despite the seriousness of the claim, the hook is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations — not least of which is the actual statistic.

Indeed, nearly 50 percent of the “rape victims” referred to in the report said they had not been raped.

The document in question, “Acquaintance Rape of College Students,” by attorney Rana Sampson, is not a study but rather a report combining and relying on several studies — the largest of which remains problematic.

Sampson released her report more than four years ago and though the Justice Department provided her with some funding, she was not a Justice Department employee. “The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice,” the report disclaims.

The one-in-four statistic, according to footnotes, is derived from a study conducted in 2000 called, “The Sexual Victimization of College Women” (SVCW), by Bonnie S. Fisher, Francis T. Cullen and Michael G. Turner.

Dr. Neil Gilbert, a professor of social welfare at University California, Berkeley, told The Daily Caller that the SVCW’s numbers are severely inflated due to the study’s broad definition of rape and the manner in which subjects were questioned.

According to Gilbert, the SVCW study results found a rate of rape that was 10 times higher than when the methodology for the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) was used. Namely, “the National Crime Victimization study had a check to make sure that the codes [or definitions of rape, force, etc.] of responses reflected the interviewees precise description. The SVCW study did not use this type of control on coding,” Gilbert explained.

In the SVCW study, researchers asked subjects to explain what happened to them and then decided, using their own definitions, what was and was not rape. The study defined rape in exceptionally wide terms: “Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”

The inclusion of the phrase “psychological coercion” as part of the definition greatly increased the number of “victims.”

In an interview with TheDC, Sampson made no distinction between violent rape and regret after seduction. “Rape is rape is rape,” she said. “I think that the kind of harm that one experiences during rape is not something we want to belittle.”

Apart from the hair-raising 25 percent figure, the SVCW study reports that when those categorized as rape victims were asked if what they described was rape, nearly 50 percent said “no.” Further, 80 percent of the subjects researchers labeled as rape victims stated that the incident resulted in neither physical or emotional injuries. Only 5 percent of those identified as victims of rape actually reported the incident. “If an attorney defending a rapist were to use this, they’d say ‘Well, what’s the big deal? 80 percent of women who are raped don’t have any adverse affects,’” Gilbert said.

“It expands the definition in a way that it includes a lot of events — you know sexual activity at that age can be confusing, there is regret after, there are break ups, all kinds of things that go on,” Gilbert said.

But, according to Sampson many women do not actually realized they have been raped. “It often doesn’t register as rape to women because it does not look like the image they have in their mind. It turns out that image is not the most common type of rape and that is why so many people are able to get away with it,” she said.

Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald put Sampson’s rape report numbers up against Detroit’s, a city with one of the highest violent crime rates of any city in the country. In that city, at the time of the report’s release, the violent crime rate was 2.4 percent, which includes crimes of rape, murder, assault and robbery.

“If 25 percent of all college women were experiencing a violent crime rate that was 10 times higher than anything experienced in the most violent areas, colleges would be transformed. They would be shut down,” Mac Donald told TheDC. “Parents would not be clamoring to get their daughters into Harvard and Yale and Brown and Wesleyan and every other college. You would have a massive revamping of admissions processes because what this statistic says is that colleges are letting in tens of thousands of violent criminals.”

While reports such as Nightline’s scream about an epidemic, Mac Donald says college rape hotlines are silent. “I mean they are so desperate to find rape that at Yale, for instance, they have thrown out the rule that the accuser has the right to confront his victim, which is a cornerstone of our Anglo-Saxon common law heritage. This is at Yale.”

Gilbert said that the desire to inflate the numbers comes down to funding. “These studies have been used to get funding for women’s centers on college campuses,” Gilbert said. “I call it advocacy research, these people mean well and have legitimate concerns. But at some point they exaggerate so much that it is no longer a problem but the norm and with studies like this they risk doing just that.”

The lies we are told about rape . . .

The following is an article published this month by Caroline May:

College campus rape rate 10 times higher than Detroit’s? Don’t believe everything the Justice Department tells you

As college students poured back into classrooms this week, ABC Nightline breathlessly reported (and other news outlets and blogs echoed): “A recent study from the Department of Justice estimated that 25 percent of college women will be victims of rape or attempted rape before they graduate within a four-year college period.”

The short statement is enough to make parents think twice before sending their daughter to college. Despite the seriousness of the claim, the hook is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations — not least of which is the actual statistic.

Indeed, nearly 50 percent of the “rape victims” referred to in the report said they had not been raped.

The document in question, “Acquaintance Rape of College Students,” by attorney Rana Sampson, is not a study but rather a report combining and relying on several studies — the largest of which remains problematic.

Sampson released her report more than four years ago and though the Justice Department provided her with some funding, she was not a Justice Department employee. “The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice,” the report disclaims.

The one-in-four statistic, according to footnotes, is derived from a study conducted in 2000 called, “The Sexual Victimization of College Women” (SVCW), by Bonnie S. Fisher, Francis T. Cullen and Michael G. Turner.

Dr. Neil Gilbert, a professor of social welfare at University California, Berkeley, told The Daily Caller that the SVCW’s numbers are severely inflated due to the study’s broad definition of rape and the manner in which subjects were questioned.

According to Gilbert, the SVCW study results found a rate of rape that was 10 times higher than when the methodology for the National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) was used. Namely, “the National Crime Victimization study had a check to make sure that the codes [or definitions of rape, force, etc.] of responses reflected the interviewees precise description. The SVCW study did not use this type of control on coding,” Gilbert explained.

In the SVCW study, researchers asked subjects to explain what happened to them and then decided, using their own definitions, what was and was not rape. The study defined rape in exceptionally wide terms: “Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”

The inclusion of the phrase “psychological coercion” as part of the definition greatly increased the number of “victims.”

In an interview with TheDC, Sampson made no distinction between violent rape and regret after seduction. “Rape is rape is rape,” she said. “I think that the kind of harm that one experiences during rape is not something we want to belittle.”

Apart from the hair-raising 25 percent figure, the SVCW study reports that when those categorized as rape victims were asked if what they described was rape, nearly 50 percent said “no.” Further, 80 percent of the subjects researchers labeled as rape victims stated that the incident resulted in neither physical or emotional injuries. Only 5 percent of those identified as victims of rape actually reported the incident. “If an attorney defending a rapist were to use this, they’d say ‘Well, what’s the big deal? 80 percent of women who are raped don’t have any adverse affects,’” Gilbert said.

“It expands the definition in a way that it includes a lot of events — you know sexual activity at that age can be confusing, there is regret after, there are break ups, all kinds of things that go on,” Gilbert said.

But, according to Sampson many women do not actually realized they have been raped. “It often doesn’t register as rape to women because it does not look like the image they have in their mind. It turns out that image is not the most common type of rape and that is why so many people are able to get away with it,” she said.

Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald put Sampson’s rape report numbers up against Detroit’s, a city with one of the highest violent crime rates of any city in the country. In that city, at the time of the report’s release, the violent crime rate was 2.4 percent, which includes crimes of rape, murder, assault and robbery.

“If 25 percent of all college women were experiencing a violent crime rate that was 10 times higher than anything experienced in the most violent areas, colleges would be transformed. They would be shut down,” Mac Donald told TheDC. “Parents would not be clamoring to get their daughters into Harvard and Yale and Brown and Wesleyan and every other college. You would have a massive revamping of admissions processes because what this statistic says is that colleges are letting in tens of thousands of violent criminals.”

While reports such as Nightline’s scream about an epidemic, Mac Donald says college rape hotlines are silent. “I mean they are so desperate to find rape that at Yale, for instance, they have thrown out the rule that the accuser has the right to confront his victim, which is a cornerstone of our Anglo-Saxon common law heritage. This is at Yale.”

Gilbert said that the desire to inflate the numbers comes down to funding. “These studies have been used to get funding for women’s centers on college campuses,” Gilbert said. “I call it advocacy research, these people mean well and have legitimate concerns. But at some point they exaggerate so much that it is no longer a problem but the norm and with studies like this they risk doing just that.”

Once unleashed, a false rape claim often is impossible to control

Last Thursday, we ran a provocative short post here where we took Catherine Comins' infamous quotation about false rape claims -- Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them" -- and we asked if Ms. Comins meant something like this picture.

A good friend emailed me and said: "Wow.  That sent chills coursing through my whole body."  Others also "got" it.  The point was to underscore the potential brutality of a false rape claim.

But some of our readers seemed to be offended and suggested we overreached.  One said this: ". . . you tied [the Comins quote] to a picture that is clearly not the type of consequence she was referring to."

Really?  That comment has had me shaking my head ever since I saw it because, for the life of me, I can't fathom what "consequence" Ms. Comins might have been referring to that doesn't include something awful -- yes, up to and including a lynching.  The more I think about it, the more offensive that comment is.

What, pray tell, do people like Ms. Comins and the misguided person who posted that comment think happens when a man or a boy is falsely accused of rape?  Maybe they think it's like this: the police come to the man's door, take off their hats, politely ask if they can come in to ask the man a few questions.  The man gets them a cup of coffee, and they all sit down while the police courteously ask if he has raped anyone lately.  The man denies it. The police stand up, thank him, shake his hand, and leave. 

Sorry to disillusion them.  The real world doesn't play out like that.  Once unleashed, a rape lie can destroy lives with a stunning, tragic swiftness. And, no, dear readers, these stories aren't confined to the hanging trees in the Old South. They are ripped from the recent news files of FRS.

In the real world, the ordeal typically isn't over in a matter of minutes.  It usually stretches for days or weeks, even months or years. Sometimes, it never ends. 

First, the police often don't come to the door in the civilized manner of the scenario recounted above. Remember the news report of the poor guy who spent two months in jail after the mother of his daughter falsely accused him of rape?  You see, they had consensual sex, but she was angry at him, so not only did she lie to police about the rape, for good measure she told them he was armed and dangerous. So 12-15 police cars came for him. His neighbors must have thought he had been implicated in the World Trade Center attacks. (When the police discovered she was lying, what sort of police response do you suppose they gave that?)

Lots of falsely accused men are dragged out of their places of employment in full view of their bosses and colleagues, no doubt giving their false accusers that extra sexual thrill of knowing they've thoroughly stripped their prey of the last vestiges of their dignity.  Some young men are dragged from their bedrooms in their parents' homes half dressed, carted away without any explanation to their terrified parents. 

Once the innocents are hauled to the police station, the fun really begins. They are subjected to grueling questioning on and off over the course of hours or days, often by surly law enforcement personnel who couldn't care less that the men or boys they are berating are human beings.  They are looking for evidence of a conviction, and if they can convince the male to confess, that makes their jobs all that much easier. Their attitude is often to treat the presumptively innocent male as a vile rapist.

And then there's the physical examination.  If an innocent woman or girl were subjected to something akin to the following, do you suppose there'd be an outcry about it? "I was taken to a doctor's waiting room, I was told to completely strip naked. While I was naked the CID agent took pictures of every part of me. The doctor then swabbed my penis 2-3 times, then pulled hair from every part of my body."  That was from a first person account on this blog of a soldier recounting his false rape nightmare. It is typical of many stories we've run. 

Once locked up, the men or boys too often are subjected to cruel and offensive batteries and verbal assaults by jail personnel and other prisoners.

And, yes, dear readers, sometimes men and boys are wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit. The young ones, who have no experience in the prison system, are too often routinely victimized by the same crime they were wrongly convicted of. Sometimes, they serve decades in prison before they are released. The news is filled with men who've served many years before their innocence can be proven. Think how many others rot away in prison today because the evidence of their innocence was long ago destroyed.

Too often, the awful consequences of a false rape claim are even less predictable. Remember this story we wrote about at Glenn Sacks' blog?  Two young lives destroyed -- one of the boys was killed -- because of a girl's rape lie. She, of course, served no jail time.  Go read it. It will make you sick.

Or how about this story -- I'll reprint our opening paragraph: "Clifford Martin, 19, is heading to prison for accepting the word of two teenage girls that one of them had been sexually assaulted by another 19-year-old man named Cory Headen. Mr. Martin broke into Mr. Headen's home and beat him to death while he was sleeping."

Remember the serial rape liar whose lie caused one of her young victims to kill himself?  Despite that, she was allowed to falsely accuse another young men -- and he was forced to undergo a grueling trial before he was acquitted.  The liar?  She retains her anonymity, of course.

Or how about mentally unstable man who was charged with rape, then took his own life after the police delayed in telling him he had been falsely accused?

Or the innocent man who suffered months of abuse in his community after being falsely accused of being a paedophile before his heart couldn't take any more?

Or the falsely accused young men who were attacked by thirty inmates?  Or the man who was brutally attacked and suffered devastating brain injuries when he was falsely accused or rape?  Or the man who was beaten because he was mistaken for a rapist?

I wonder if the misguided person who made the comment about the Comins quote is aware of America's painful history of overreacting to rape claims?  It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address. The fact is, the public scorn from false rape claims has caused many, many 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, their spouses, 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.

So, when Catherine Comins said that men falsely accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them," it needs to be viewed as a barbaric, hateful, dehumanizing sentiment -- misandry in full bloom. It is not to be excused on the basis that she "wasn't talking about" the truly awful things that follow from false rape claims, because truly awful things typically do follow from false rape claims.  To pretend they don't is to trivialize the false rape phenomenon.

Those who would pooh-pooh that Comins' comment is years old and does not represent current mainstream thought need to have cold water splashed on their faces.  Sadly, Comins' sentiment is alive and well and it manifests itself in innumerable ways.  You see, Comins merely had the audacity to come out and say what our culture practiced then and still practices today.  The ugly fact of the matter is, ours is a culture that not only tolerates but tacitly encourages rape lies as the price of battling rape, without regard for the terrible harm to the men and boys falsely accused.  And if you don't believe that, go read "Lambs to the Slaughter: The Hofstra False Rape Case."

Once unleashed, a false rape claim often is impossible to control

Last Thursday, we ran a provocative short post here where we took Catherine Comins' infamous quotation about false rape claims -- Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them" -- and we asked if Ms. Comins meant something like this picture.

A good friend emailed me and said: "Wow.  That sent chills coursing through my whole body."  Others also "got" it.  The point was to underscore the potential brutality of a false rape claim.

But some of our readers seemed to be offended and suggested we overreached.  One said this: ". . . you tied [the Comins quote] to a picture that is clearly not the type of consequence she was referring to."

Really?  That comment has had me shaking my head ever since I saw it because, for the life of me, I can't fathom what "consequence" Ms. Comins might have been referring to that doesn't include something awful -- yes, up to and including a lynching.  The more I think about it, the more offensive that comment is.

What, pray tell, do people like Ms. Comins and the misguided person who posted that comment think happens when a man or a boy is falsely accused of rape?  Maybe they think it's like this: the police come to the man's door, take off their hats, politely ask if they can come in to ask the man a few questions.  The man gets them a cup of coffee, and they all sit down while the police courteously ask if he has raped anyone lately.  The man denies it. The police stand up, thank him, shake his hand, and leave. 

Sorry to disillusion them.  The real world doesn't play out like that.  Once unleashed, a rape lie can destroy lives with a stunning, tragic swiftness. And, no, dear readers, these stories aren't confined to the hanging trees in the Old South. They are ripped from the recent news files of FRS.

In the real world, the ordeal typically isn't over in a matter of minutes.  It usually stretches for days or weeks, even months or years. Sometimes, it never ends. 

First, the police often don't come to the door in the civilized manner of the scenario recounted above. Remember the news report of the poor guy who spent two months in jail after the mother of his daughter falsely accused him of rape?  You see, they had consensual sex, but she was angry at him, so not only did she lie to police about the rape, for good measure she told them he was armed and dangerous. So 12-15 police cars came for him. His neighbors must have thought he had been implicated in the World Trade Center attacks. (When the police discovered she was lying, what sort of police response do you suppose they gave that?)

Lots of falsely accused men are dragged out of their places of employment in full view of their bosses and colleagues, no doubt giving their false accusers that extra sexual thrill of knowing they've thoroughly stripped their prey of the last vestiges of their dignity.  Some young men are dragged from their bedrooms in their parents' homes half dressed, carted away without any explanation to their terrified parents. 

Once the innocents are hauled to the police station, the fun really begins. They are subjected to grueling questioning on and off over the course of hours or days, often by surly law enforcement personnel who couldn't care less that the men or boys they are berating are human beings.  They are looking for evidence of a conviction, and if they can convince the male to confess, that makes their jobs all that much easier. Their attitude is often to treat the presumptively innocent male as a vile rapist.

And then there's the physical examination.  If an innocent woman or girl were subjected to something akin to the following, do you suppose there'd be an outcry about it? "I was taken to a doctor's waiting room, I was told to completely strip naked. While I was naked the CID agent took pictures of every part of me. The doctor then swabbed my penis 2-3 times, then pulled hair from every part of my body."  That was from a first person account on this blog of a soldier recounting his false rape nightmare. It is typical of many stories we've run. 

Once locked up, the men or boys too often are subjected to cruel and offensive batteries and verbal assaults by jail personnel and other prisoners.

And, yes, dear readers, sometimes men and boys are wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit. The young ones, who have no experience in the prison system, are too often routinely victimized by the same crime they were wrongly convicted of. Sometimes, they serve decades in prison before they are released. The news is filled with men who've served many years before their innocence can be proven. Think how many others rot away in prison today because the evidence of their innocence was long ago destroyed.

Too often, the awful consequences of a false rape claim are even less predictable. Remember this story we wrote about at Glenn Sacks' blog?  Two young lives destroyed -- one of the boys was killed -- because of a girl's rape lie. She, of course, served no jail time.  Go read it. It will make you sick.

Or how about this story -- I'll reprint our opening paragraph: "Clifford Martin, 19, is heading to prison for accepting the word of two teenage girls that one of them had been sexually assaulted by another 19-year-old man named Cory Headen. Mr. Martin broke into Mr. Headen's home and beat him to death while he was sleeping."

Remember the serial rape liar whose lie caused one of her young victims to kill himself?  Despite that, she was allowed to falsely accuse another young men -- and he was forced to undergo a grueling trial before he was acquitted.  The liar?  She retains her anonymity, of course.

Or how about mentally unstable man who was charged with rape, then took his own life after the police delayed in telling him he had been falsely accused?

Or the innocent man who suffered months of abuse in his community after being falsely accused of being a paedophile before his heart couldn't take any more?

Or the falsely accused young men who were attacked by thirty inmates?  Or the man who was brutally attacked and suffered devastating brain injuries when he was falsely accused or rape?  Or the man who was beaten because he was mistaken for a rapist?

I wonder if the misguided person who made the comment about the Comins quote is aware of America's painful history of overreacting to rape claims?  It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address. The fact is, the public scorn from false rape claims has caused many, many 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, their spouses, 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.

So, when Catherine Comins said that men falsely accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them," it needs to be viewed as a barbaric, hateful, dehumanizing sentiment -- misandry in full bloom. It is not to be excused on the basis that she "wasn't talking about" the truly awful things that follow from false rape claims, because truly awful things typically do follow from false rape claims.  To pretend they don't is to trivialize the false rape phenomenon.

Those who would pooh-pooh that Comins' comment is years old and does not represent current mainstream thought need to have cold water splashed on their faces.  Sadly, Comins' sentiment is alive and well and it manifests itself in innumerable ways.  You see, Comins merely had the audacity to come out and say what our culture practiced then and still practices today.  The ugly fact of the matter is, ours is a culture that not only tolerates but tacitly encourages rape lies as the price of battling rape, without regard for the terrible harm to the men and boys falsely accused.  And if you don't believe that, go read "Lambs to the Slaughter: The Hofstra False Rape Case."

Woman Charged With Filing False Sexual Assault Report In Spartanburg Co.

Early Tuesday morning, Kristina Marie Wilcox said a bearded man tried to sexually assault her, attacking her with what she believed was a box cutter, slicing her chest before she could escape.

On Thursday, however, the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office said she made it up.

Wilcox was attacked, deputies said, but not by a bearded stranger, but by her boyfriend, Jaime Christopher O’Neill, at their home at 569 Shiloh Church Road.

Wilcox is now charged with filing a false police report of a felony violation and O’Neill is charged with criminal domestic violence.


Link:

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010/aug/26/woman-charged-filing-false-sexual-assault-report-s-ar-754312/

Woman Charged With Filing False Sexual Assault Report In Spartanburg Co.

Early Tuesday morning, Kristina Marie Wilcox said a bearded man tried to sexually assault her, attacking her with what she believed was a box cutter, slicing her chest before she could escape.

On Thursday, however, the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office said she made it up.

Wilcox was attacked, deputies said, but not by a bearded stranger, but by her boyfriend, Jaime Christopher O’Neill, at their home at 569 Shiloh Church Road.

Wilcox is now charged with filing a false police report of a felony violation and O’Neill is charged with criminal domestic violence.


Link:

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010/aug/26/woman-charged-filing-false-sexual-assault-report-s-ar-754312/

Friday, September 24, 2010

Rape Culture 101 -- Haunting, maybe, but was it rape?

by Connie Chastain*

Earlier this month, Salon.com ran a "human interest" story in its "Life Stories" section titled "Haunted by the Morning After." A first-person narrative by Elizabeth Kennedy (which is a pseudonym), the piece tells the story of a high school party at which Ms. Kennedy may or may not have been raped. She doesn't really know for sure; she was too drunk to remember.

What happened, in a nutshell, is that Ms.Kennedy went to a party with friends, drank too much and hit on a guy. They traipsed into the woods together and made out. After sending the boy mixed messages about having sex, she passed out. When she awakened to the sound of her friends calling her, she was half undressed and the boy, naked, was passed out beside her.

She couldn't remember what happened, but it must've been bad because she was a basket case the next day, a state that lasted on into her freshman year of college. She saw a therapist for her depression; the therapist concluded that she had been raped. There was some comfort in the diagnosis, but Ms. Kennedy wasn't sure that was truly what happened. In any case, through her early twenties she engaged in boozy, highly unsatisfying hookups until at age 26 she'd had enough and quit drinking.

On the surface, Ms. Kennedy's experience is a cautionary tale with an uplifting ending -- wayward girl faces some unpleasant truths and takes responsibility for herself, her actions, her life. But that's only part of the story.

I was fascinated and appalled when I first read it. Part of it is generational, I'm sure. In my high school days, nobody "did it" just for fun. Sometimes girls with long-term steady boyfriends would give in, in a moment of weakness, but they didn't write human interest stories about it, and only their closest confidants knew.

But since those days, feminism and the sexual revolution have worked their evil spells, and "hook ups" are common even in high school. Our whole culture has become sexualized, starting with preschool girls in makeup and sexy costumes strutting on a pageant stage, to sex-ed in the schools, and from there moving into every aspect of the popular culture, particularly movies, television, and now the Internet.

Women, so feminism says, should be in charge of their own sexuality. In the days of second wave feminism, that meant taking control of a woman's sexuality from men, mainly her husband, so that she decided when and if to have sex, permit pregnancy, and have children.

Somehow, now, it has come to mean that women should be able to be as promiscuous as men -- at least, to the extent they believe men are promiscuous -- without harm to their reputation and, significantly, to their chances at marriage, when they're ready.

But evidently there is enough of a stigma left, in some circles (Ms. Kennedy is from a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools) that women can feel morning-after regret. Sometimes this regret morphs into accusations of rape. By now, readers of this blog are familiar with how and why that happens.

In Ms. Kennedy's case, it didn't end in a rape accusation, but it easily could have.

One thing that stands out about her tale is that it is liberally sprinkled with her attempts to give herself the benefit of the doubt -- to present her inexperience and naiveté, which are evidently supposed to absolve her of responsibility for her part in her predicament.

In fact, she begins the piece with a bid for sympathy, putting forth the possibility that she'd been raped in the very first sentence and describing her bouts of suicidal depression that presumably resulted from it. Excuses and pre-emptive explanations continue throughout her narrative -- she got so drunk the night of the party because she was "selectively bulimic in those days" (bulimia being a female malady) and drank on an empty stomach at the party. She gives some backstory about never having had "the talk" with her mother, about her fascination with her friends' tales of their sexcapades.

The self-absolvement continues in her recounting of the encounter with "Tony," who may or may not have raped her.

I must admit I was surprised at the comments following the story at Salon. Some took a practical, level-headed view of her predicament, declared it was not rape, and put the responsibility for her problem squarely where it lay. Nevertheless, there were many poor-little-thing sentiments that raveled my patience.

Whatever she was trying to accomplish by writing the story and having it published, here's the bottom line for me: She got herself drunk. She initially hit on the guy. She asked him for sex once. She answered in the affirmative when he asked her if she still wanted to.

Read that one again. He. Asked. Her. And. She. Said. Yes. That is consent. Consensual sex is not rape.

It is a rather depressing story, and I have to wonder how many other young women in our permissive society have similarly ruined their lives. About the only good thing to come out of this one, to me, is that she didn't report the boy to the police and get him thrown in prison for thirty years.

*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/

Rape Culture 101 -- Haunting, maybe, but was it rape?

by Connie Chastain*

Earlier this month, Salon.com ran a "human interest" story in its "Life Stories" section titled "Haunted by the Morning After." A first-person narrative by Elizabeth Kennedy (which is a pseudonym), the piece tells the story of a high school party at which Ms. Kennedy may or may not have been raped. She doesn't really know for sure; she was too drunk to remember.

What happened, in a nutshell, is that Ms.Kennedy went to a party with friends, drank too much and hit on a guy. They traipsed into the woods together and made out. After sending the boy mixed messages about having sex, she passed out. When she awakened to the sound of her friends calling her, she was half undressed and the boy, naked, was passed out beside her.

She couldn't remember what happened, but it must've been bad because she was a basket case the next day, a state that lasted on into her freshman year of college. She saw a therapist for her depression; the therapist concluded that she had been raped. There was some comfort in the diagnosis, but Ms. Kennedy wasn't sure that was truly what happened. In any case, through her early twenties she engaged in boozy, highly unsatisfying hookups until at age 26 she'd had enough and quit drinking.

On the surface, Ms. Kennedy's experience is a cautionary tale with an uplifting ending -- wayward girl faces some unpleasant truths and takes responsibility for herself, her actions, her life. But that's only part of the story.

I was fascinated and appalled when I first read it. Part of it is generational, I'm sure. In my high school days, nobody "did it" just for fun. Sometimes girls with long-term steady boyfriends would give in, in a moment of weakness, but they didn't write human interest stories about it, and only their closest confidants knew.

But since those days, feminism and the sexual revolution have worked their evil spells, and "hook ups" are common even in high school. Our whole culture has become sexualized, starting with preschool girls in makeup and sexy costumes strutting on a pageant stage, to sex-ed in the schools, and from there moving into every aspect of the popular culture, particularly movies, television, and now the Internet.

Women, so feminism says, should be in charge of their own sexuality. In the days of second wave feminism, that meant taking control of a woman's sexuality from men, mainly her husband, so that she decided when and if to have sex, permit pregnancy, and have children.

Somehow, now, it has come to mean that women should be able to be as promiscuous as men -- at least, to the extent they believe men are promiscuous -- without harm to their reputation and, significantly, to their chances at marriage, when they're ready.

But evidently there is enough of a stigma left, in some circles (Ms. Kennedy is from a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools) that women can feel morning-after regret. Sometimes this regret morphs into accusations of rape. By now, readers of this blog are familiar with how and why that happens.

In Ms. Kennedy's case, it didn't end in a rape accusation, but it easily could have.

One thing that stands out about her tale is that it is liberally sprinkled with her attempts to give herself the benefit of the doubt -- to present her inexperience and naiveté, which are evidently supposed to absolve her of responsibility for her part in her predicament.

In fact, she begins the piece with a bid for sympathy, putting forth the possibility that she'd been raped in the very first sentence and describing her bouts of suicidal depression that presumably resulted from it. Excuses and pre-emptive explanations continue throughout her narrative -- she got so drunk the night of the party because she was "selectively bulimic in those days" (bulimia being a female malady) and drank on an empty stomach at the party. She gives some backstory about never having had "the talk" with her mother, about her fascination with her friends' tales of their sexcapades.

The self-absolvement continues in her recounting of the encounter with "Tony," who may or may not have raped her.

I must admit I was surprised at the comments following the story at Salon. Some took a practical, level-headed view of her predicament, declared it was not rape, and put the responsibility for her problem squarely where it lay. Nevertheless, there were many poor-little-thing sentiments that raveled my patience.

Whatever she was trying to accomplish by writing the story and having it published, here's the bottom line for me: She got herself drunk. She initially hit on the guy. She asked him for sex once. She answered in the affirmative when he asked her if she still wanted to.

Read that one again. He. Asked. Her. And. She. Said. Yes. That is consent. Consensual sex is not rape.

It is a rather depressing story, and I have to wonder how many other young women in our permissive society have similarly ruined their lives. About the only good thing to come out of this one, to me, is that she didn't report the boy to the police and get him thrown in prison for thirty years.

*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/

Sex Assault Claims False

Two claims of sexual assault in Worcester in the space of 24 hours - both turned out to be false.

The first suspected attack happened on Quay Street at around 10 o'clock. Then, between 1 and 2am, another woman claimed she'd been attacked in a field just off Red Hill Lane.

A youth, who was arrested over one of the alleged assaults, has now been released.

34 officers were used to investigate the incidents and both areas were cordoned off yesterday while forensic teams carried out searches.

West Mercia Police say they're taking no further action over the alleged assaults as the claims turned out to be false. They also say there's no evidence to suggest the two are connected.

A Police Spokesman said:

“The circumstances surrounding both investigations convince us that no further action is necessary or appropriate.”

“South Worcestershire remains an extremely safe place in which to live and work. Genuine sexual assaults are rare in the Division – and it is even rarer to have two reports within hours of each other. We are pleased to confirm that neither reported victim was assaulted in any way.”

Police have also told Wyvern no-one will be charged for wasting their time - and they don't want anyone to be put off from reporting these serious crime to them.


Link:

http://www.wyvernfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=1931440

Sex Assault Claims False

Two claims of sexual assault in Worcester in the space of 24 hours - both turned out to be false.

The first suspected attack happened on Quay Street at around 10 o'clock. Then, between 1 and 2am, another woman claimed she'd been attacked in a field just off Red Hill Lane.

A youth, who was arrested over one of the alleged assaults, has now been released.

34 officers were used to investigate the incidents and both areas were cordoned off yesterday while forensic teams carried out searches.

West Mercia Police say they're taking no further action over the alleged assaults as the claims turned out to be false. They also say there's no evidence to suggest the two are connected.

A Police Spokesman said:

“The circumstances surrounding both investigations convince us that no further action is necessary or appropriate.”

“South Worcestershire remains an extremely safe place in which to live and work. Genuine sexual assaults are rare in the Division – and it is even rarer to have two reports within hours of each other. We are pleased to confirm that neither reported victim was assaulted in any way.”

Police have also told Wyvern no-one will be charged for wasting their time - and they don't want anyone to be put off from reporting these serious crime to them.


Link:

http://www.wyvernfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=1931440

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The pain of a false rape claim 'is not a pain I would necessarily have spared' innocent men


Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them." Catherine Comins

You mean, like this, Ms. Comins?

The pain of a false rape claim 'is not a pain I would necessarily have spared' innocent men


Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them." Catherine Comins

You mean, like this, Ms. Comins?

Police Beat - Tarrytown: Woman goes to Jail for False Rape Accusation

Scroll down to the August 25th entry at 5.04


Officers responded to Howard Street in Sleepy Hollow to investigate a possible rape that had occurred in Tarrytown. One female reported that she got off the train at the Tarrytown station, was pulled into a red car and was raped by three male Hispanics. Officers noted that the female was being uncooperative, and they couldn't tell if the rape had occurred in Tarrytown or Sleepy Hollow. The woman was taken to Phelps Hospital for examination, while officers canvassed the area searching for the red car that was reportedly involved. The woman was treated and evaluated at Phelps Hospital. She consented to some medical tests, which were not specified. She was then transported back to Tarrytown headquarters for further investigation. Later that afternoon, police charged the woman with falsely reporting an incident. She was fingerprinted and arraigned. She had bail set, but couldn' post bail and was sent off to Westchester County Jail.

Link:
http://tarrytown.patch.com/articles/police-beat-tarrytown-woman-goes-to-jail-for-false-rape-accusation-2-year-old-runs-across-rt-119

Police Beat - Tarrytown: Woman goes to Jail for False Rape Accusation

Scroll down to the August 25th entry at 5.04


Officers responded to Howard Street in Sleepy Hollow to investigate a possible rape that had occurred in Tarrytown. One female reported that she got off the train at the Tarrytown station, was pulled into a red car and was raped by three male Hispanics. Officers noted that the female was being uncooperative, and they couldn't tell if the rape had occurred in Tarrytown or Sleepy Hollow. The woman was taken to Phelps Hospital for examination, while officers canvassed the area searching for the red car that was reportedly involved. The woman was treated and evaluated at Phelps Hospital. She consented to some medical tests, which were not specified. She was then transported back to Tarrytown headquarters for further investigation. Later that afternoon, police charged the woman with falsely reporting an incident. She was fingerprinted and arraigned. She had bail set, but couldn' post bail and was sent off to Westchester County Jail.

Link:
http://tarrytown.patch.com/articles/police-beat-tarrytown-woman-goes-to-jail-for-false-rape-accusation-2-year-old-runs-across-rt-119

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Double-standard: Males who allege they were victims of sexual coercion named by news outlets

This is a tale about a double-standard in an area teeming with them. 

Two men, now 20 and 21, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in DeKalb County, Goergia Court against prominent black Bishop Eddie Long alleging sexual coercion. 

The Associated Press isn't naming the accusers: "The Associated Press generally does not identify people who say they were victims of sexual impropriety."  See here

And isn't that consistent with the policy of virtually every U.S. news outlet of not naming alleged victims of sex crimes?  Of course it is.

We've written much about anonymity policies in connection with purported sex crimes -- about the double-standard of naming the accused but not his accuser, and about calling accusers "victims."  This post isn't about any of that. This post is about a double-standard within a double-standard.

In the Eddie Long case, while the AP adheres to its policy of not naming the accusers because of the nature of the alleged crimes, other news outlets seem to have been blinded by the gender of the accusers and have forgotten the policy.

The New York Daily News, for instance, doesn't name the accusers, but not because of the nature of the alleged crimes. It doesn't name them "because they were minors at the time of the alleged incidents." See here

Excuse me? If these accusers had been adult males at the time of the alleged incidents, the Daily News would name them?

Hmm.  But wait. It gets worse.  Other major news outlets are naming them, and without explanation. Some examples:

CNN named them: See here.  This, despite its alleged policy: "CNN does not identify alleged sexual assault victims." See here.

ABC named them: See here. This, despite its alleged policy: "ABC News does not typically identify alleged victims of sexual assault . . .. "

The Atlanta Journal Constitution named them: See here. This, despite its alleged policy:  "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution does not identify victims of sexual assault." See here.

None of these news outlets explain why they named the young men.  Did they have permission?  Did they name them because some other news outlets named them? (The latter doesn't happen when the "victim" is female.)

Did these news outlets name Ben Roethlisberger's two accusers?  The identity of the first accuser was largely withheld by news outlets everywhere even though the only claims filed were civil, not criminal.  The identity of the second accuser was almost universally withheld even after the district attorney opted not to bring criminal charges.

So what's the deal?

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that if these accusers were female, no major news outlet would name them.  Or if they had named them, they would have gone to great lengths to "explain" why they are naming them. (Something like this: "The Rollings News Institute generally does not name the victims of sexual assault, but in this case the victims gave their consent, so we very reluctantly -- yes, apologetically -- mention the victims' names quickly, and only in passing, even though we harbor enormous liberal guilt about naming the victims.") 

Just a wild guess.