Rape Liar Sentenced to 18 Months
This is a follow-up to our story here.
A 32-year-old mother-of-three was jailed for 18 months today for falsely claiming she had been abducted and raped after she actually had "extensive" consensual sex with a 26-year-old man. The rape lie caused the man to be subjected to a humiliating arrest and a 12-hour custodial detention.
On the evening of July 5 last year, Nicola Osborn, who had been drinking, was walking home when she began talking to a stranger in the street. She did what all self-respecting mothers of three who've been drinking would do: she went home with him and engaged in "extensive sexual activity." When they were finished, they swapped telephone numbers and she left.
On her way home, she became upset when the potential consequences on her marriage from the illicit rendezvous suddenly dawned upon her. She was so visibly upset that passers-by contacted police. That's when she made up the rape lie -- she claimed she had been bundled in a car by a stranger and taken to a public toilet where she was forcibly raped.
Perhaps her intent was to keep the "rapist" a mystery. But, alas, once unleashed, a rape lie takes on a life of its own. A major police investigation was launched which utilized a total 548 hours of police man-hours. The police put other investigations on the back-burner as their resources were diverted to this alleged rape case.
A 26-year-old man was arrested after DNA samples taken from Osborne matched those taken from him for a previous minor criminal offence. (The DNA database can be used not only to catch rapists but to punish innocent men.) The man was arrested and detained for 12 hours.
The man's victim impact statement, which was read to the court, said: "I remember sitting in the cell and the door slamming shut. It's a horrible feeling, you feel like you are the only person in the world, I felt very frustrated as I knew I had done nothing wrong. I found it very humiliating. People like her make a mockery of women who have really been raped."
In sentencing Osborne, the judge said this: "I believe it suddenly hit you what the potential consequences were as to what you were going to be able to tell your husband about what you had been doing and a possible fear of pregnancy." He added that a custodial sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence which led to a "vast deployment of police manpower" and caused "intense anxiety" for the victim.
Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12582581 and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim-2225627.html
Posts
23 comments:
They swapped phone numbers. Yeah. Rapists do that with their victims. So, what took the police TWELVE hours to figure out? At most, they should have gone to his house and asked him a few questions. Let me guess, even though he consented, they wanted to take dick pictures. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what they do with all these dick pictures they take? Pervs probably take them home and masturbate to them.
This is beyond disgusting, but the judge did the right thing to her. Maybe women who lie about rape will start to do the math: "hmm, 12 hours in jail for him, versus 18 months for me. Maybe I'd better not lie about rape."
During my Police interview, the rape specialist (a woman) detective played a video (from my computers, which were seizes) of my accuser on her knees blowing me.
This whole clip was played, several minutes, and it was abundantly clear that the ex was very much acting of her own free will. The Police officer clearly enjoyed watching it, titillation.
My accuser also chose to have a child (I wasn't consulted or given a choice, I had been told she was still using contraception) with me 2 years after the date she alleged I raped her.
BRAINS doesn't fucking come in to it mate, they are looking for "anything that can be used against you"
Emphasis on ANYTHING and AGAINST YOU.
Frankly I'd have LOVED to have faced the bitches in a criminal court, it would have been laughed out of court and stern words from the Judge to the CPS.
Didn't stop the family court from using it all against me....
There is no Justice, Just Us...
Posted a comment about this on the previous thread, not knowing that it was going to be featured here; but since recycling is really “hip” anymore…
Another married women, out drinking sans husband, hooks up with some random guy, then regrets it. So, she does what women have done for countless centuries when faced with possible consequence for their infidelities - she cried rape.
This is really getting to be a old tired story line. But, that what happens when women think they have an easy "out" for their debauchery
And, as is also commonly the case, she simply chose to throw her lover under the bus rather than come clean. The guy gets arrested, but, fortunately, her story unravels, and she gets 18 month in jail.
Her husband is left to pick up the pieces and care for their 3 children.
It seems as though it gotten to the point where women have become so debase and so selfish that it seems that it would be wise on the part of police to automatically assume that any women who goes out without her husband/boyfriend/partner, drinks, an then claims a stranger rape has a probable cause to be lying about it.
This is, of course, not to excuse the comparable debauchery of man – but men don’t typically claim they were raped, and leave their lovers facing serious prison time as they try to cover up their infidelities. ( I believe there was one story, not that long ago, in which a man did try to claim he’d been raped – but by another man)
Of course, any man who’d been out drinking without his wife or girlfriend, who then cried rape to cover up his illicit activities, would automatically be suspect. It’s high time we had a little gender equality with regards to the way police view allegations. As I recall, that guy who tried to claim he was raped didn’t get much sympathy nor belief from the police.
@ slwerner
It's high time Police assumed that any women not lying in Intensive Care is lying in her rape accusation.
I do....
AfOR - ” It's high time Police assumed that any women not lying in Intensive Care is lying in her rape accusation.”
Interesting thought. Sounds down-right misogynistic on it’s surface, but when you take the time to think about it, it really does have substantial merit.
Although this blog isn’t intended to be about rape (real rape, or as Whoppi Goldberg would say, “rape rape”), we might consider some things which have emerged as trends regarding real stranger-rape.
One thing that is easily apparent to anyone who bothers to look into it, is that actual rapists tend to take care, often great care, to prevent leaving any evidence – especially DNA-containing evidence that could be used to catch them. Three guys out looking to grab a woman, toss her in their car, and drive her somewhere to rape her are more likely than not to have planned to prevent or remove such evidence. The woman who was the victim of such would not be found to have copious amounts of semen in/on her during a SANE exam.
A second thing that is typical of real stranger-rapes is that there is often (usually) evidence of violent struggle. Three guys grabbing a woman, tossing her in a car, dragging her into a restroom, and violently raping her would have undoubtedly left discernible injuries – outside of those indicative of penetrative sexual activity/rape. Women who have been the victim of a stranger rapes, are routinely beaten (even when they don’t struggle) as a show of force to make them more “cooperative” as well as to make them feel “unsafe” in reporting the attack. They aren’t usually found sitting forlorn on a sidewalk, but rather bruised, bloodied, disrobed, unconscious – or, dead.
This is what AfOR is getting at. Woman who are violently raped by strangers are quite often found in pretty bad shape.
It might seem a bit cold-hearted to “expect” that woman who’ve been raped will present with obvious injuries, but without forensic evidence to be found; but, I’d note that it’s really no more cold-blooded than to let a man who a woman has hooked-up with be at risk of serious prison time due to her reporting the consensual encounter as a violent stranger rape.
18 months is actually a bit of an outrage.
How long would the man have gotten if convicted?
That is how long she should go to jail for...
As well as being forced to take chemicals to kill her libido.
ScareCrow - ” As well as being forced to take chemicals to kill her libido.”
Another very interesting thought.
Seeing as how male rapists are subject to “chemical castration” since they are unable to contain their sexual desires, it would seem to be reasonable to argue that women who are likewise unable to contain their sexuality, and end-up making FRA’s as a result should be subject to equal treatment.
Same goes for all those older women raping under-aged boys. A stint in prison didn’t stop Mary Kay Letourneau from re-offending (nor, in a local story, did the threat thereof prevent Carrie McCandless, who’d been caught once from likewise re-offending). These sexual predators also seem to need to be taking something to get their “raping” under control.
Interesting thought. Sounds down-right misogynistic on it’s surface, but when you take the time to think about it, it really does have substantial merit. […]
do you even hear yourself? perverse hogwash. it has less than no merit; it's fallacious and evil. that there are many false rape accusations gives no leeway to belittle rape. one may as well make the same absurd pronouncement regarding mugging, robbery, etc.
In America -- world capital of victim feminism -- this criminal wouldn't have done time at all. Our system is 100% pro-liar.
I'm going to interject an agreement with Saltypig here by saying unless YOU have been in that circumstance you really can't say what you would or wouldn't do.
Maybe you'd fight back, maybe you'd freeze.
The ones who can really say are those who have walked the walk.
I agree with pig - stick with what you know best, which is false rape accusations, and leave the speculations where they belong.
There are women supporters of FRS who are actual rape victims that condemn false accusers - just as you do. You're telling them that they too are false accusers if they didn't take a beating by getting into a physical match with their rapist.
Show a little respect.
Please.
Anonymous - "You're telling them that they too are false accusers if they didn't take a beating by getting into a physical match with their rapist."
It was certainly not my intent to suggest that an allegation must somehow include (serious) injuries. Nor did I, in any way mean to be insulting toward actual victims. I hoped my comments would be seen as an objective, dis-passionate consideration of known realities.
I apologize for any offense I've caused.
What I, perhaps inarticulately, was trying to say was not that lack of injury and/or presence of physical evidence (semen) should be, in and of it's self, evidence that the allegation was false; but rather, that considered as part of the overall scenario, things that are not usually seen (or not) ought to at least raise the question.
I was thinking in terms of the lead story above, in which a married woman was out, without her husband, hooked-up drunk, then made a "regret" FRA.
In that she present with no injuries suggestive of a struggle with three men forcing her into a car, into a restroom, then restraining her while raping her, as well as semen left behind a supposed rapist; it would seem reasonable to consider that this isn't consistent with what is usually observed with attacks of such a nature.
This is not to say that there must always be injuries, that there would never be semen, but that it is unusual.
Put together with the facts that she was a woman in a relationship, out with her partner, and claiming a stranger abduction-rape (which, should also raise a "red-flag"), such additional fact should certainly be weighed.
I don't believe this would be disrespectful towards real victims, but simply a prudent practice. There are seldom "perfect" ways to handle possible crimes. I've noted many times, that even when men are innocent, it is entirely reasonable that police will (initially) consider them to be suspects - especially if named by the accuser. In the story above, when his DNA was matched, the police were not out of line to get a warrant for his arrest. Who would argue that, if it had been a legitimate case of rape, that he should not have been arrested?
A woman's claims being scrutinized due to "unusual" circumstances does not seem to be any worse that an innocent man being thrown behinds bars, interrogated, having the threat of prison hung over him.
Again, my apologies if I've seemed to be thoughtless towards the real victims rapes.
To whomever prattled about "no leeway to belittle rape?" Feminists belittle the falsely accused all the time.
Remember Wendy Murphy comparing the Duke victims to Hitler? Practice what you preach, fembots.
It is a very serious perversion of A law enforcement system that uses protocol perversions, manufactured missinformation; and semantics games to foster and nurture a now "Culture of false rape accusations".
When are we gonna return integrity to the rape accusation???
Will law enforcement return integrity to the rape accusation when society gets so sick that only 1 out of every 100 rape accusations are true??
Who benefits from a culture of false rape accusations??? Does American law enforcement get to "Bloat their budgets" from enabling and fostering a "culture of false accusations"?? Is this perversion of American law enforcement, where lies under oath are now ubiquitous and normal; is this institutionalized perversion Even constitutional??
SL Werner - You've kept me from going overboard a time or two. No apology necessary.
1:57: your insipid ravings detract from the quality of this blog. Thank you for that!
To whomever prattled about "no leeway to belittle rape?" Feminists belittle the falsely accused all the time. […]
probably somewhere there's an idiot "feminist" pissing on the falsely accused because "masculists belittle the raped all the time."
your point? none. try the truth next time; shorter walk. at least learn to deal theoretically with arguments where the parties number > 2. lord above.
But you won't lecture the idiot feminists! Only us.
Many years ago, when I first read about Sharia Law's requirements to prove a man guilty of rape I found them unfair and biased in favor of us men. Nowadays, I understand. BTW, I'm not Muslim.
But you won't lecture the idiot feminists! Only us.
given that my site, easily found by clicking my handle, has pages and pages of me lecturing "feminists", i again advise a sophist to try truth. at least try to not assume, if truth is too difficult.
I've read your insipid blog, where you childishly insist that "anyone who denies that rape is worse than murder is an asshole!"
No supporting arguments; you just and your glands hanging out. So basically, fuck you.
"anyone who denies that rape is worse than murder is an asshole!"
good thing i didn't write that. quote marks: learn them. know them. live them.
again i plea, try truth.
Post a Comment