A teenage girl ended up in court after admitting making a false rape claim.
Manchester magistrates handed the youngster, who cannot be named for legal reasons, a 12-month referral order after she admitted one count of perverting the course of justice.
The girl told staff at her school she had been raped in Alexandra Park, Moss Side, in October.
Police officers who specialises in sex assault cases interviewed the girl, who claimed she had been grabbed from behind by a man with a knife.
She said she had been raped a number of times by the man.
Officers cordoned off a 'crime scene' and closed the park as they embarked on a major investigation.
Scenes-of-crime officers carried out a thorough forensic examination with the help of officers from the Tactical Aid Unit, who searched the area by fingertip.
The search was so detailed officers had to guard the scene overnight.
Detectives also spent hours trawling through CCTV cameras in the area.
The girl was video-interviewed by more specially-trained officers and offered help by St Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre.
But her story began to unravel as police uncovered a number of inaccuracies in her account.
When pressed further, the girl admitted that she had lied.
After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Dominic Scally said: “This false report not only wasted countless police hours but ultimately spread fear and concern throughout the community.
“These concerns, even though wholly unfounded, were very difficult to allay and we spent a lot of time and effort trying to reassure residents.
“The scope of our investigation in this incident proves how thoroughly we investigate all reports of rape and I hope this girl's inexcusable actions in no way deter genuine victims from coming forward.
“Today's sentence should also act as a warning that we will take action on anyone foolish enough to make up such an offence.”
Link:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1404733_sentenced_teenage_girl_who_lied_about_alexandra_park_rape
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
"The conviction is ‘spent’ once the contract has been successfully completed. This means that in most circumstances the offense will not have to be disclosed by the young person when applying for work."
Just like it never happened.
I gotta say you guys are making headway,the sheer repetition and continuous cases make it impossible to believe that women never lie about rape.
It's also making commenting harder,but keep at it!
“These concerns, even though wholly unfounded..."
Wow, when was the last time the police admitted that the rape hysteria itself was unnecessary?
Have you seen this? http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/virtual-rape-man-used-facebook-to-hack-womens-emails-send-naked-photos-of-them-to-entire-address-book-20110117-19st4.html
They're calling it "virtual rape"
"The scope of our investigation in this incident proves how thoroughly we investigate all reports of rape and I hope this girl's inexcusable actions in no way deter genuine victims from coming forward."
While the police keep saying this, is there any evidence that false rape accusations deter genuine victims, or that genuine victims not coming forward is actually a significant problem?
Regardless, publicizing false rape accusations would make no difference as the the police are already quite aware of them first hand. If genuine victims are deterred by false accusations, then it is the false accusers, not those who recognize them, who are to blame. Besides it's the feminists who insist on repeating -- again without evidence -- that rape victims will not be believed and supported.
From the comment that Sonja Newcombe made about another article:
"He will have to register as a sex offender because of his guilty plea."
And then my wife wonders why I dismiss as pointless scrap paper, those SO Fliers we get in the mail. Some retard puts up nude photos online and now I have to be notified by a government agency? Tell me about the ones who violently abduct and actually force themselves on women. Oh, that's right; that's rare and can be avoided with common scense, and does not justify more government employees.
(I know it's off topic for the post just needed to rant)
They're calling it "virtual rape"
Just you wait; a man will be charged with "imagined rape" by looking at a woman too long...it's coming.
Jan 17, 2011 12:37:00 PM
Feminists call it the "male gaze".
"The relevance of visual harassment in understanding the male gaze cannot be overstated."
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/gaze.htm
"He sees her as a creature of his domain, under his gaze of possession -- simultaneously admiring and pejorative, but always as an object of his desire in his domain."
http://legacy.lclark.edu/~soan370/glossary/gaze1.html
As some of you may know, i have serious concerns about the new "shelving of rape kits" phenomena that has been happening over the last 10 years.
As you know, its been cell phone videos, bank atm videos, and similar happenings that have cleared innocent young men from false rape charges over the last few years. But what if a girl can have sex, swab the semen out of her vagina, AND SHELVE YER SPERM FOR YEARS, AND YEARS, AND YEARS, only to spring the false rape accusation way after any cell videos, or bank teller videos may prove she is lying.
This is a very real concern, as i believe the constitution of the United states says you have a constitutional right to confront yer accuser in a timely enough fashion to protect adequately yer-self.
Amassing rape kits with yer sperm in them, and not telling you about, does not meet the constitutional requirement of a man being able to properly defend himself.
"As some of you may know, i have serious concerns about the new "shelving of rape kits" phenomena"
As far as I can tell, the accumulation of untested rape kits is largely due to two things: budget constraints, and cases that didn't go anywhere.
Regardless, posting the same concerns over and over again without contributing anything new on the subject isn't helpful. If women have had kits done in order to report a crime years later, then perhaps you should post some examples of specific cases.
Anonymous - "Regardless, publicizing false rape accusations would make no difference as the the police are already quite aware of them first hand. If genuine victims are deterred by false accusations, then it is the false accusers, not those who recognize them, who are to blame. Besides it's the feminists who insist on repeating -- again without evidence -- that rape victims will not be believed and supported."
Exceptionally well put!
fuck you dude, my concern over the accumulation of sperm deposits, to later accuse of rape is very real. It is only the complete perversion of a legal system (that goes against the American constitution) that enables this perversion of justice.
it is a PERVERSION of a law enforcement community that allows young women to collect sperm deposits, only to 10 years later accuse of rape, when the guy no longer has a defense.
New American gender-raunch are fully behind this perversion of our legal system. A man or boy has a constitutional right to confront his accuser, if his sperm is swabbed into a rape kit..and none of you ignorant perverts are gonna convince me any different.
No, "fuck you dude" isn't evidence. Neither is redundancy. That's what the feminists do. They keep repeating the same tiresome ipse dixits ad nauseum. If what you keep saying is very real, then you need to back it up with actual examples.
Anonymous - "But what if a girl can have sex, swab the semen out of her vagina, AND SHELVE YER SPERM FOR YEARS, AND YEARS, AND YEARS, only to spring the false rape accusation way after any cell videos, or bank teller videos may prove she is lying."
Although feminists had been agitating for DIY home rape kits for women, they haven't happened because, not only does proper collection require some training (most woman could not be counted on to do it correctly), but also, id woman did the collection themselves, at home, by themselves, there would be no witness to verify the time, data and situation of the collection, but (and perhaps most importantly) no chain of custody established which would allow for such kits (and the results thereof) to be entered into evidence.
As it stands, rape kits are collected by SANE nurses during rape examines. The nurse serves as witness to the time, date and circumstances of the collection, and acts as the chain of custody agent for the transfer of the "evidence" to police custody.
This process does not serve as a convenient way for woman to collect and warehouse any number of DNA specimens for possible later use in rape claims.
This topic came up last year, and at the time I did some checking into the reasons for the "warehousing" of so many rape kits. While there was mention of budgetary constraints limiting to the processing of those kits, what seemed to be the consistent underlying reason was the fact that the women who had initial made a claim (and gotten the kit collected) had declined to have the case move forward, often refusing to cooperate.
There may some reasons why a woman would decline to have a legit case proceed, or, as I previously speculated, woman who were making FRA’s-for-alibis would not always like it revealed who they had had sex with (for example, a woman who claims the standard “big scary black man” but knows that the results would lead back to her lover who looks noting the sort).
I wouldn’t expend to much concern that woman are warehousing DNA for later use, since it’s more likely that the woman from who most of those untested rape kits were collected actually have reasons wish those kits never be tested.
"While there was mention of budgetary constraints limiting to the processing of those kits, what seemed to be the consistent underlying reason was the fact that the women who had initial made a claim (and gotten the kit collected) had declined to have the case move forward, often refusing to cooperate."
That is true. A third, more complicated reason (which you, but not all commenters here, should be able to understand) involves cases of stranger rape. CODIS, the FBI's DNA database, has only been largely implemented since 2006. Prior to that, if the police didn't have an identified suspect, it wasn't worth the money to test a kit. To some people that might sound like the police could have done more of an investigation, but if you think about it, testing the kit wouldn't have made any difference without other DNA to compare the results.
What doesn't make any sense is this conspiracy theory that law enforcement is out collecting semen based on unreported crimes.
If American gender-raunch continue their social, societal, institutional, "Empowerment", then all these warehoused sperm deposits will be a serious problem for innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape.
Is there some reason why this comment keeps getting deleted? It doesn't have any links. I've posted it three times already, in two different places.
"While there was mention of budgetary constraints limiting to the processing of those kits, what seemed to be the consistent underlying reason was the fact that the women who had initial made a claim (and gotten the kit collected) had declined to have the case move forward, often refusing to cooperate."
That is true. A third, more complicated reason (which you, but not all commenters here, should be able to understand) involves cases of stranger rape. CODIS, the FBI's DNA database, has only been largely implemented since 2006. Prior to that, if the police didn't have an identified suspect, it wasn't worth the money to test a kit. To some people that might sound like the police could have done more of an investigation, but if you think about it, testing the kit wouldn't have made any difference without other DNA to compare the results.
What doesn't make any sense is this conspiracy theory that law enforcement is out collecting semen based on unreported crimes.
"“Today's sentence should also act as a warning that we will take action on anyone foolish enough to make up such an offence.”"
Sounds like the Brits are starting to get pissed about all the rape lies.Hey, mates, PULL THE GODDAMNED INCENTIVE MONEY.
On second thought, if you're a British man,don't. Put up some of your OWN money,make that money pool as large as humanly possible,with promises of a HUGE "rape jackpot" and carefully document each and every one of the millions of false reports that come in to be used the next time your British feminists are claiming "women don't lie about rape".
MRA's in Great Britain, get cracking!
Salutations to our brothers across the pond.
Anonymous - "What doesn't make any sense is this conspiracy theory that law enforcement is out collecting semen based on unreported crimes."
No, of course not. Not only would it be a terribly inefficient way to either gather DNA (of unknown origin) for inclusion into CODIS, it is also not a practical way for a woman to “hedge her bets” for some nefarious future use (long-term freezer storage comes at a not insignificant cost, and, with cold storage, DNA specimens will degrade over time).
There are, however legitimate concerns for men (especially) about increased efforts to come up with more reasons to get court-ordered DNA specimens for CODIS inclusion. But, that’s yet another lengthy discussion.
Getting back to Gender/Raunch/The-sky-is-falling guy’s concerns, for a woman to even bother with trying to store a semen specimen in order to at some later date file a rape claim, she would presumably have to have some rational motivation for doing so. Perhaps if such a woman could see into the future and know that at some point a given paramour would become wealthy, then it might start to make sense. She wouldn’t want him to be indicted before he became rich, so that she could go after his wealth later.
Still, in order to get that sample collected, she will have to claim a sexual assault, and will have to answer questions form police to have her rape kit stored. She’ll have to provide false details which would not lead back, prematurely, to her lover. But, then, later, when she does chose to spring the “rape” claim she’s so cleverly plotted, she’ll have to explain how she suddenly remembers that it was the now wealthy man.
It’s just not going to be as easy for a woman to pull-off and S, the “Gender-Raunch Guy” fears. [when he first broached the subject, it seemed clear that he believed women could collect the specimens themselves, and then turn them in, perhaps after years of home-storage]
Plus, the simple reality is that woman make FRA’s for some immediate gain, not for possibly future gains. It seems to me that woman making FRA’s for attention, for alibi, for revenge, or for financial consideration (victims assistance money) could care less about their rape kits being tested. They already gotten what they were seeking. And, as we saw in a case presented here last year, if a rape kit from such an FRA is processed, it can come back to haunt her when her lover ends up being caught due to involvement of subsequent criminal activity which gets his DNA into the database.
In their concern over the stock-piles of untested rape kits, both the gender-feminists of the SGI and S are largely misguided.
"In their concern over the stock-piles of untested rape kits, both the gender-feminists of the SGI and S are largely misguided."
Yes, I agree, and I'm glad you finally saw my response. Still no idea why it kept vanishing...
And frankly, this "gender-raunch" maniac and the liberal feminists are of the same ilk.
Eric J Schlegel - ”Just you wait; a man will be charged with "imagined rape" by looking at a woman too long...it's coming.”
No need to wait for it…
The term “Visual Rape” has been floating around for years. With a simple search, I found one “Academic” treatment dating back to 1993:
Cheney, Deborah (1993) Visual Rape. Law and Critique, 4 (2). pp. 189-206. ISSN 0957-8536. (http://kar.kent.ac.uk/1978/)
It doesn’t seem to have caught on, likely due to it’s inherently preposterous nature. Yet, just as with the “all men are rapists, and that’s all they are” extremism, there has been utility in gender-feminists making such over-the-top outlandish statements, since, by push the “extreme” even further “out there”, it opens up the possibility of back-filling with less obviously preposterous views that can be seen as “moderate” in comparison.
Post a Comment