A 34-year-old woman, who, it turns out, claimed she had been raped some years earlier when she lived in Florida, alleged that on July 20, 2010, two men broke into her home, and that one put a gun to her throat and raped her. Police arrested Andrew without bothering to corroborate the alleged victim's story, or his alibi.
Listen to this litany of horrors and tell me whether you think an injustice has been done to a 17-year-old kid. And don't just rely on me: read the three-part horror show linked below.
▲The accuser claimed she would remember forever the horror of her rape -- the day it happened and the events. Yet, in her very first interview with the police, she told them she was raped one week earlier than the day it supposedly happened. Specifically, she told them she was raped on July 13, not July 20. Yep, etched into her memory forever.
▲She said she told no one about the alleged rape until July 31 — 11 days later — not even her boyfriend. What prompted her to tell was a supposed nightmare about the assault. She was yelling in her sleep and woke up screaming. Her boyfriend convinced her that it would be safe to go to the police, he said, “to protect others from this.”
▲The woman initially described her attacker as someone with “long, brown, wavy hair (surfer type or moppy),” according to a police report. When he was arrested, Andrew had short brown hair. A photo taken of him earlier that summer showed he had short hair.
▲The woman initially identified someone else as her attacker, saying she was “70 percent sure” that a friend of Andrew’s was the person who attacked her. That person had long, surfer-style hair, and he doesn’t resemble Andrew. Get that? 70 percent sure it was some other than Andrew. Shouldn't that have been the end of the case as far as Andrew was concerned? Seriously?
▲Andrew was arrested despite the fact that the woman never identified him in a photo lineup. When she did identify him, it was from at least a half-block away at 8 p.m. She saw him skateboarding outside and said, "That's the guy."
▲Andrew was nervous during a four-hour police interrogation in which a cop with a spotty record yelled and swore at him and accusing him of lying. Can't imagine why a 17-yearold boy was nervous.
▲During the interrogation, the police asked Andrew about his whereabouts on July 13, Andrew claims, the day the woman first claimed she was raped. The police claim that they didn't mention July 13, but won't release the tape of the interview. Andrew told them his whereabouts in detail for the 13th. The police checked with his mother's partner, who told them a different story. It turns out the police asked the mother's partner about Andrew's whereabouts on July 20.
▲Despite inconsistencies in the woman’s story, police did not interview potential witnesses about the inconsistencies, nor did they perform a background check on the woman, according to reports and interviews.
▲Before they arrested Andrew, police apparently did nothing to corroborate the woman's story. They never interviewed the woman’s boyfriend about the alleged assault to corroborate her story. Police also never questioned her neighbors or a friend the alleged victim said she called the night she was raped.
▲Police waited for more than a week before they bothered to check out Andrew’s alibi after he was arrested. By that point, he had already been released on $2,500 bail. Andrew corrected his initial interview and told police that on the evening of July 20 he played video games with his longtime friend, Steven Brown, who lives across the street from the woman who accused Andrew of rape. Brown, along with his brothers, Daniel and Mark Haworth, confirmed Andrew’s story to both police and the Duluth News Tribune, saying they played a video game with him. After their interviews with Steven Brown and his family about Andrew’s alibi, Superior police did no further investigating, records show.
▲The alleged victim didn’t get a rape exam until four days after she reported the assault, saying that’s when Superior police directed her to do so. That exam, performed 15 days after the alleged rape, found no evidence of an assault.
▲Though the alleged victim said two people were involved in the rape, there’s no indication that police searched for a second suspect. For people so very concerned about public safety, that seems like a major gaffe, doesn't it?
▲The woman told police and later testified to a judge that she clearly saw her attacker holding a gun. Though police found no gun in Andrew’s possession or at a search of his home, they found a skateboard wrench in his room. An officer wrote: “I believe the wrench could easily be mistaken for a small pistol.” (The fact is, cops could something that supposedly could be mistaken for a gun in any guy's home.)
▲On Oct. 7, police received the DNA report from the Wisconsin Crime Lab. Samples they had taken from the living room where the alleged victim said she was raped showed no match to Andrew. Samples taken from Andrew’s clothes and the wrench that police theorized might have been used as a weapon didn’t contain the alleged victim’s DNA. Results of the rape exam showed no evidence of a sexual assault, according to records, though the exam was taken about three weeks after the assault was alleged to have occurred.
▲After receiving DNA test results that failed to tie Andrew to the crime scene, the district attorney’s office waited two months to drop charges. Two more months of hell for Andrew. Why? WHY?
▲In retrospect, the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office charged Andrew with rape based on two pieces of evidence: the woman’s eventual identification of him as the suspect (the one from a distance, after the first one where she was 70 percent sure it was another young man), and the fact that Andrew’s story of his whereabouts on the night of the alleged assault differed from his stepmother’s.
▲Before charges were dropped, the alleged victim was granted a restraining order against Andrew, claiming he repeatedly harassed her and that she feared for her safety. The restraining order is still in effect despite charges being dropped, and it will last for four years, requiring Andrew to vacate any home or building the woman is in. Andrew denies ever harassing the woman. In her request for the order, the woman wrote that she saw Andrew drive by her home on Aug. 2. Records show, however, that Andrew was in jail that day. On Sept. 30, she wrote that she saw Andrew sitting in the back of a vehicle at the Superior library parking lot. Again, a contradiction: One of Andrew's teachers signed a statement saying that he was under her direct supervision at that time. The woman said that her sexual assault advocate, who filled out the restraining order application on her behalf, probably made the mistakes. (Who is Andrew's advocate in all this?) Police records make no note of the discrepancies.
▲Former Duluth Police Lieutenant of Investigations John Hall questioned why police never worked to corroborate the alleged victim’s story by interviewing the woman’s boyfriend or neighbors. Those are “the sorts of things sex crime investigators do routinely,” he said.
▲Andrew's mother's partner, shocked about what happened, rhetorically asked a newspaper reporter: “Does that mean I can say that you came in and touched my breasts, I’m putting you in jail, dammit?” she said. “I don’t know you. But if I said you raped me … all I would have to say is you did it, and not prove anything?” Yes, ma'am. That's it. You are 100 percent correct.
▲Andrew, who works as a line cook at a Superior restaurant, said he’s forgiven the woman who accused him of rape, but he is still angry with her and with the police. Since he was arrested, Andrew said he’s dropped about 20 to 25 pounds. Andrew will probably move away. "Even if my name is wiped clean, I think this will always be an area where people see I’ve been charged,” he said. “I just hope it doesn’t give me a bad reputation wherever I go.”
▲The case, which was the only reported home invasion and sexual assault in the city in 2010 and so far in 2011, is classified as still open. And while Andrew isn’t a suspect, when charges were dropped they were done without prejudice, meaning he could be investigated again.
Links:
-http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/193114/publisher_ID/36/
-http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/193191/publisher_ID/36/
-http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/193258/publisher_ID/36/
Posts
48 comments:
Beyond disgusting.
The fact that the woman waited so long before she even reported is the first red flag. She might have been looking for attention or maybe feared she was pregnant from some illicit sex romp.
Then, the prior rape allegation is a huge red flag.
Then the identification where she said it was probably someone else.
Then his alibi witnesses, and the absence of a gun.
For these police to believe there was probable cause is beyond frightening. All they had was HER word, which was tainted by the first bad ID and the prior rape claim. Yes, women are raped. But when a woman says she was raped twice, it's like Ben Roethlisberger, you start to wonder if it's her.
OK, False Rape Society, you've ruined my morning. Again.
Sickening, and unfortunately not at all surprising.
OT- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41963513/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
The father of a five-year-old boy slain in 1975 has vowed to murder the man who did it "as aggressively and painfully as he killed my son" if he is released from prison early.
John Foreman told WPRO-AM radio that he blamed himself for accepting a plea deal that saw Michael Woodmansee convicted of the second-degree murder of his son Jason in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.
***
Okay, I may offend some of you with this (although that's not my intention) -- but isn't it disturbing that almost every man commenting on this thread supports this father murdering his son's killer? It is at least irresponsible to encourage the dad to throw his life away on a futile act of revenge.
I feel that this is chivalry in action -- and a great example of a way for MRAs to stand against it: we can raise the obvious question: if it's a good thing for a father to murder his son's killer after thirty-five years, then should the victims of false rape accusations also be allowed to take the law into their own hands?
Because these tough-talking, would-be vigilantees don't care at all about the victims of false rape accusations. We are forced to accept injustice.
And I agree with those who say that violence is wrong, but why do these chivalrist men apply double standards? It's insane.
Lot of parallels to my case in so far as taking the alleged victims word and then refusing to do any further investigation with neighbours / relatives etc... all of which would, like this case, have instantly shown it to be the travesty of lies it was.
It is a perversion of a law enforcement that lets women lie to law enforcement with little to no consequences, but does not men men and boys lie to law enforcement with little to no consequences.
I have come to the conclusion that law enforcement in more "Gender-Raunch" dominant areas of the country; are more perverted than law enforcement in the southern states. It could be the southern states have no interest in an "Empowered" gender-raunch community.
Many innocent men have much worse stoires than this.
Wish they had an open comments section.
ummmm...thank God the cops did their duty and investigated this so well.....
Just so you all know what type of idiotic white-knights are still putting on the police uniform and going about shilling for woman, take a look at this protrait of a moron.
He is Superior, WI Police chief Floyd Peters, who had this to say about the case in question:
”Superior Police Chief Floyd Peters said he believes his department acted appropriately. Any missteps by police were minor, he said, and didn’t change the outcome of the case.
“In this case, the system worked,” he said.”
I’d have to think that Superior residents must be deeply embarrassed to have this “putz” as their police chief. I think he’d be an embarrassment as a mall guard.
This is the inevitable result of a feminist/chivalrist society that undervalues the rights of men.
Reminded me of Patrick Waring's case:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/innocent-boys-jail-nightmare/story-e6frg12c-1111113259916
here is a documentary made on this case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKeTt0wFkD8
Why is this woman's name being covered up when she obviously wasn't a rape victim.
Because we wouldn't want to discourage more false rape accusers from coming forward! Especially not on International Woman's Day.
Looks like Blogger is still "eating" any posts in which I try to insert links.
Anyway, it's unfortunate that the Duluth Tribune doesn’t allow comments. The Superior, WI police force, and especially it’s chief, need to be called out for particular ridicule on this one.
I had tried to post this quote for the Chief, including a link back to the article, but since that post got eaten, I’ll repost his quote on the case in question:
”Superior Police Chief Floyd Peters said he believes his department acted appropriately. Any missteps by police were minor, he said, and didn’t change the outcome of the case.
“In this case, the system worked,” he said.” (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/193114/)
[It pretty much speaks for it's self. No one's happy. Not the innocent guy, and not even the alleged victim - but, "the system worked"????]
I also had posted a link to Police Chief Clancy Wiggum, er, I meant, Floyd Peters, just so there be no question in anyone’s mind that the guy is a complete “putz” (http://www.ci.superior.wi.us/index.aspx?nid=174) [if you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clancy_Wiggum, you’ll see why I got the two mixed up]
This guy, and his incompetent detectives need to be made an example of.
Speaking of some cops who need to be made examples of (as say this as "that guy" who keeps sticking up for LE), here's another one to et your blood boiling:
http://angrydad.blogspot.com/2011/03/crooked-cops-fueling-nasty-divorces.html
(sorry, you'll have to cut-n-paste the link if you wish to read it, as Blogger is an absolutely horrid product - and I say that as a Google customer.)
Everyone knows that the police and prosecutors have to keep their Rape numbers high, to get more funding for next year. Cops and prosecutors’ are notorious for selecting easy targets to jack up there conviction rates. It’s called Prosecutorial Misconduct.
End the Prison Industrial Complex!
God only knows how many innocent men and boys are in prison do to the Rape Lie. (John 8:44)
(John 8:44) 44 YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie].
Arod99k - "Everyone knows that the police and prosecutors have to keep their Rape numbers high, to get more funding for next year. Cops and prosecutors’ are notorious for selecting easy targets to jack up there conviction rates. It’s called Prosecutorial Misconduct."
Oh please, not this crap again. Yes, there are too many "rogue" cops and DA's out there, not they are not the norm. And funding is NOT based on the number of rape cases. If that were even close to the truth, then they all get little funding - as rape is but a small percentage of the over-all crime.
And, as I’ve explained to you in some detail before, prosecutors do not like rape cases, since most of them are of the rather ambiguous “he said/she said” variety, which are very difficult to prove to a jury. Such cases are anything BUT “easy targets”. Just look at RAINN’s web site, and you’ll see them whining about how few rape cases are taken to trial, and how few result in convictions.
Assuming your interested in the truth, one way to check out the performance of an entity (police and prosecutors) would be to see what the “other-side” is saying bout them. It’s as Dr. Eugene Kanin stated – the police are always going to be seen as “adversaries” by the SGI.
We’d do much better by selecting out the known bad-actors, and contrasting their misdeeds against the many examples in which LE has been getting it right. Just making blanket assertions, which can be easily disproved with very little effort, could just as easily be used to make the FRS look bad.
We (collectively) are very well intelligent enough to be able to make simple distinctions between those who get it right, and those who don’t. Failing to do something so simple, well…
Prosecutors may "hate" she said/she said rape cases, but they utterly ADORE child accusation cases.
Any accuser over aged twelve usually has to have some modicrum of evidence. Under that age limit - lights out.
It a slam dunk win, and you git to be a he-ro to boot.
Anyone can easily back that assertion up with fact, even though "victim" advocates also claim not enough are convicted.
Prosecutors love both kinds of cases; and yes, the majority of prosecutors are willing participants in an utterly corrupt and evil system.
Anonymous Mar 8, 2011 10:12:00 AM
"why do these chivalrist men apply double standards? It's insane."
It's not only what feminists STILL DEMAND, it is also what the feminists-programmed STILL demand.
Their logic and reasoning are terminally infescted with insanity.
Anonymous - ”but they utterly ADORE child accusation cases”
This isn’t true either.
A significant portion of child abuse/child molestation cases against men arise out of divorce/separation/custody situations, and this is well known by prosecutors. What most people here would be surprised to learn is just how many such cases they decline to prosecute. I’ve seem actual video-taped interviews of children done by a child advocacy center, which were used as the basis to drop cases, in which the children either indicated that there fathers had not harmed them, and/or that their mothers had told them what they should say. I know of one in which not only did the girl being interviewed exonerate her father, but she actually “corrected” the interviewer that it had been her uncle (mothers younger brother), and not her father, who had done (to her) the things she was be asked about.
While I cannot speak to every child advocacy organization, it seems that most would not want to be responsible for another “McMartin Preschool”.
People with little knowledge about the subject do often tend to believe that LE agencies “cash in” on these cases, that there are (unexplained) large pools of money provided to underwrite the expenses of such cases, and that prosecutors are celebrated as hero’s for winning such cases (off the top of your head, can you name one prosecutor who’s won a child molestation case? You had to look it up, didn’t you? No one remembers them. But, I bet you remember Lindsey Lohan’s ex-girlfriends name).
Also, what tend to be lost in the paranoia about this issue is that a significant portion of child abuse cases are brought against women. There are more physical abuse and neglect cases involving women perps than there are involving men. (forgot about that little “nugget” that most anyone who’s been around the Manosphere for any time knows about?)
Is the system entirely corrupt when it prosecutes women, or just when it’s prosecuting men? What about when men are prosecuted for crimes against other men – still corrupt?
I certainly hope that we are better than those man-hating gender-feminists and their reflexive, un-considered/un-investigated beliefs and oft-repeated lies. There’s enough reality to deal with without the need to don tin-foil hats. Clear heads, and keen minds can focus on the actual problematic individual actors with out having to rely on blanket assertions against entire classes or organizations.
Remember that those who blindly accept that “all men are rapists, and that’s all they are” are all A-holes, and that’s all they are.
Aim higher.
Is the system entirely corrupt when it prosecutes women, or just when it’s prosecuting men? What about when men are prosecuted for crimes against other men – still corrupt?
***
Yes, it is. The American criminal justice system is a horrible, corrupt system that presumes guilt, enables liars and denies that right to a fair trial that all Americans are entitled to.
Prosecutors know this. But if you ask them, they'll often deny that innocent people EVER get convicted by our glorious system! As a class, they are utterly full of themselves.
Michael Nifong was punished not for railroading innocent men, but for doing so incompetently. Prosecutors in general are not held accountable for their immoral actions.
slwerner,
I just published the post for you.
Anonymous - "Yes, it is. The American criminal justice system is a horrible, corrupt system that presumes guilt, enables liars and denies that right to a fair trial that all Americans are entitled to."
And you would replace it with what? Mob rule?
Innocent men used to just be hanged (if they survived all the way to the nearest tree, that is) when they were accused of rape. That must have been so much better for innocent men - to have an angry mob mete out justice. Who could possibly NOT prefer that?
Take away the flawed criminal justice system we now have, and that's what you'll be left with. Then, when a woman fears she's about to get caught in her infidelity (for instance), she can just cry rape, and her husband, family, friends, and even passers-by can all join in to "dispose" of her little "problem" for her. A dead lover isn't any risk of giving her up, and she can have all the advantages of vicitmhood, as well. Now, that's a solid plan. [/snark]
If we cannot have a *perfect* system, let's just have none at all, eh?
Shallow thinkers are sometimes just amazing to me.
Can I ask a favor please. Not that the back and forth over LE going after rape cases more isn't entertaining, but if that is the case, can someone provide a link that shows the sheer imbalance of prosecutions for rape over say..... burglary, or fraud?
Thanks, Steve.
If I might make a suggestion to our readers.
The problem isn't law enforcement.
The problem isn't even feminism (heresy, I know).
The problem is a culture of overreaction to rape that was forged in chivalry but probably dates back to pre-history.
Feminism has benefitted from that culture, and law enforcement too often reflects it. But the root problem goes deeper than feminism or law enforcement.
We need to change people's attitudes about rape. The best way to do that is to educate people about what happens when we allow innocent men and boys to be the targets of our overreaction.
Archivist - "We need to change people's attitudes about rape. The best way to do that is to educate people about what happens when we allow innocent men and boys to be the targets of our overreaction."
Indeed - and my apologies for my part in the degradation of the discussion.
In the story highlighted above, we have a known victim, Andrew Lawrence, who continues to (and will likely have to for years to come) struggle with the fallout from having been "named" (so she was what, 30% certain it was him - as near as she could tell from a block away) as a rape suspect, and we should focus in on what happened to him, and why.
This particular case is actually somewhat different than many we see here, in that it’s obviously a case of a misidentification (although the rape allegation itself remains dubious). In that regard, this one is primarily on the police.
Whether of not she was raped, in this particular case, not only was her identification highly suspect, but his alibi evidence was quite solid. The police simply did a POS job on this one [and, again, I’m the one who normally sticks up for LE]. The prosecutor also deserves to be knocked a bit for the delay in the dismissal, but this could have come about via the police asking for more time to “develop” new evidence. But, I see this primarily as matter of incompetence on the PD, start-to-finish, on this one.
That’s why I’d like to see the Chief named-and-shamed (and linked, for added effect), and his department held up to well deserved ridicule – so as to make an example of a case in which THEY clearly got it wrong.
E. Steven Berkimer - "can someone provide a link..."
You might as well has asked for the Holy Grail, it seems. Sure a lot of whining about how few rape cases get prosecuted, but no one is putting up hard numbers.
Off-topic, and I was reluctant to post it (now) as it would seem to be fanning the flames of disagreement, but...
I found, in a (Google) book When the Victim Is a Child
By Debra Whitcomb, that there was a study of 576 child sexual assault cases by th e Denver Department of Social Services that found 47 percent of those claims to be "unfounded".
What a familiar looking number!?!?
And, as I mentioned earlier, the role of adults "coaching" children in custody (etc) situations is specifically cited.
If only the the actual prosecution/declination rates were so easy to find...
Slwerner's is right about LE doing the errors on this one...the woman may have made a claim about a rape that is or is not true but the LEO in this case were really bad at doing their jobs.
To blame her (who may have actually been raped) for their bad actions is unfair.
And you would replace it with what? Mob rule?
Innocent men used to just be hanged (if they survived all the way to the nearest tree, that is) when they were accused of rape. That must have been so much better for innocent men - to have an angry mob mete out justice. Who could possibly NOT prefer that?
***
Uhhh, you're accusing me of shallow thinking? Really?
What would I replace it with? Try the legal system of any other industrialized country (okay, not Italy or Sweden, but...). Anything would be preferable to the Frankenstein's Monster that is the American legal system.
Your false dilemma -- suggesting that the only alternative to the nuttiest, most harsh, most feminist-informed legal system on the planet is anarchy -- is like Gaddafy or Mubarak insisting that they and only they can maintain order. It's conceited and irrational.
I can hardly believe that you're pimping this BS on a blog dedicated to the victims of false rape accusations. You really expect us to believe that the prosecutorial profession is loaded with noble souls and just a few bad apples? Our bitter experience teaches us otherwise.
If prosecutors in general are so wonderful then why aren't they screaming from every rooftop about these terrible injustices that we discuss here every day?
To recap (since I'm afraid this point will be forgotten), no, the alternative to our insane system isn't mob rule.
You might as well has asked for the Holy Grail, it seems. Sure a lot of whining about how few rape cases get prosecuted, but no one is putting up hard numbers.
***
Concerning that, does any other country on the planet prosecute more rapes per capita than the United States? Our system is unbelievably harsh, not that you'd know it judging by prevailing attitudes.
SL - Janet Reno for starters. The evil bitch in Idaho prosecuting the David Sutt case.
and my son's prosecutor, who I fear naming, but is named as a "hero" in an Ann Rule novel.
...the novice and uninformed person speaking here is Y-O-U.
btw, SLW - we've had this discussion before.
I have no idea who Lindsay Lohan's cousin's horse's name is - but I spend a GREAT deal of time studying child abuse injustice cases.
Just because it hasn't happened to YOU, yet, doesn't mean it won't.
For those wondering about women being prosecuted in these cases, just check out some of the social services sites. Therer is no discrimination there - single mothers are next in line with no man around to blame.
From the IPT journal, Ralph Underwager:
In order to understand the way we now deal with accusations of child sexual abuse, the role and behaviors of lawyers are crucial. Child abuse and specifically, child sexual abuse, has become a targeted prosecution. The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), a nonprofit subsidiary of the National District Attorneys Association, sponsored a symposium on child abuse in May of 1985. From that meeting came the concept of a national center. By November of 1985, six months later, the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention granted funds for APRI to set up the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse (APRI, 1987).
There have never been any other National Centers for the targeted prosecution of any other crime. There are other targeted prosecutions (Finn, 1988), but only child abuse has elicited the response of funding a National Center to build, organize, lead, and support a nationwide unitary and aggressive drive to prosecute child abusers. The mere existence of the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse indicates that a targeted prosecution effort is directed against suspected child abusers. This should alert us to be cautious about the problems sure to come whenever there is a targeted prosecution effort.
To go from conceptualization to funding in six months is incredible speed for any federal bureaucracy. The idea clearly fit a need that was judged important by people with enough power to get the job done expeditiously. This development has meant that lawyers have become the most crucial and powerful figures in America in determining the way child abuse accusations are handled. Therefore, to grasp what is going on in America about child abuse the place to start is with lawyers.
And there is no National Center for the Prevention of False Accusations, obviously. Because the other side of the equation isn't nearly as tear-jerking.
Easy to see how this table ended up slanted!
I'm a little late to the party here, but it's not like me to miss a good LE-bashing story like this. I have a system that sends a message to my pager each time a story like this comes up.
Reading through the comedy of errors in how this case was handled by the police, it reminds me somewhat of Inspector Clouseau or Leslie Nielsen in the Naked Gun series. It is a shame that Nielsen is no longer with us, as we could just about write the script for the Naked Gun 44 out of many of these cases.
As for finding the wrench and concluding it could be mistaken for a pistol, come on! ROFL! I had better get rid of some of the water pistols in my house in case I get raided.
Nick, You may remember the case of a kid being shot by police for carrying an aluminum foil wrapped sub sandwich - because they thought it was a gun.
Those of you who believe the false rape culture got it's start by targeting college guys in He said/she said cases need to put down the beer bong and study history a little closer.
As with the Nazi party's social climbing, False Rape Culture has it's roots the "child protection" moral panic.
Have you never noticed whenever the subject of false child accusations is raised here some "Christopher" type suddenly pops up, handing out WHITE FEATHERS to everyone to shame them away from even considering the possibility that child abuse claims are the #1 weapon on the war against males?
Those on the Front Line, the falsely accused, have been trying to sound the alarm for almost 3 decades now, only to be shamed and derided into keeping silent?
Until now it's on YOUR doorstep.
The same tactics and legal manuverings that have so successfully put legions of innocent men in prison as kiddie molesters "because it's SOOOOOOO difficult to prosecute unless we change the rules" is now invading college campuses..."too difficult to prosecute" translates: innocent until proven guilty no longer exists.
Voting rights, social contact sites such as Facebook, and internet use is denied those who were "too difficult to prosecute" by due process.
The right to live a free man after serving their sentence is not denied to terrorists or murderers, gang bangers, drunk drivers, or heroin dealers - just men convicted of "too difficult to prosecute" accusations.
Public libraries, parks, schools, college, jobs and representation are denied and all off limits to those so convicted - even though such restrictions have not been shown to protect children or "the Public" one iota.
It just FEELS good.
...and it's all coming to a college campus near you.
"...and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up...."
"As with the Nazi party's social climbing, False Rape Culture has it's roots the 'child protection' moral panic."
I would suggest that false rape culture is part of an age-old problem of men, especially, overreacting to rape. It wasn't feminists who struck accused men up to trees in the Deep South. It wasn't feminists who sentenced males to death for rape until relatively recently. It isn't feminists who beat accused rapists to death with baseball bats or shoot them through peepholes. It isn't feminists who set bail for men and boys -- especially young blacks -- so high they can't get out before trial.
None of this is to excuse the false accusers. And certainly feminism is no friend of the falsely accused. But feminism only has taken advantage of the pre-existing and natural overreaction to rape on the part of chivalrous men.
It wasn't feminists who rounded up gay MEN and other "deviants" to be gassed, castrated and sent to work camps in the name of protecting the women/children folk, either.
The Nazis didn't start out persecuting Jews - they started out persecuting "sex offenders".
As I've always contended - it's MEN who are behind the feminist movement.
I agree, Archivist. It's MEN who gladly murdered, beat, jailed and castrated other men at the whim or encouragement of a false accuser.
And certainly no apologies afterward - not then and not now.
It's MEN (John Walsh, the "hero" vigilante father who's son was NOT kidnapped and murdered by a sex offender) leading the charge to publicly register children(vast majority being male) as young as 10 years old on public sex offender registries for the rest of their lives, and exhorting mothers to never leave their children alone with males. Ed Smart, celebrity victim Dad promoting useless ankle monitoring systems(having invested in the company that manufactures them) and Mark Lunsford, who's own son would be on a sex offender registry if not for his father. Not to mention Republican lawmaker Mark Foley, who's Adam Walsh Act passed in secret, later "outted" when sending sexually explicit emails to young male White House pages.
"Feminism" is a front. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain....
Feminism is not just a front. It's a quasi-religion in which "victims" and their pet knights are glorified at the expense of potentially innocent men.
But without the cooperation of these Uncle Toms the game would soon be over, so you do have a point.
The foot soldiers doing the dirty work may be Uncle Toms - but it the slave masters running the show that are manipulating the players - male or female.
Look to the big guys. That's where it's all begun, and that's where it all ends.
Prosecutor Defends Child Pornography Charge While Admitting It Is Unjust
« on: Today at 04:44:53 PM »QuoteProsecutor Defends Child Pornography Charge While Admitting It Is Unjust and Inappropriate
http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/09/prosecutor-defends-child-porno
The New York Times reports that Muskegon County, Michigan, Prosecutor Tony Tague is ready to cut a deal with Evan Emory, the 21-year-old prankster he charged with producing child pornography based on a video edited to make it seem like Emory performed a sexually explicit song for a classroom full of first-graders. Tague's willingness to drop the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, is not surprising, since it made no sense in the first place—not just as a matter of justice but as a matter of law. The statute that Tague accused Emory of violating makes it a felony to produce "child sexually abusive material," defined as "any depiction...wh ich is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act" (emphasis added). A "listed sexual act" is defined as "sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochisti c abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity." So even if Emory had actually sung his dirty ditty to a bunch of 6-year-olds, he would not be guilty of this crime.
Carissa B. Hessick, an Arizona State law professor specializing in child pornography, is too kind when she wonders, in an interview with the Times about Emory's case, "whether they've overcharged him." It looks like Tague brought a legally bogus charge simply to appease angry parents and impress upon Emory the insensivity of his ill-considered prank by threatening to ruin his life with two decades in prison followed by 25 years as a registered sex offender. Having abused the law in this way, Tague acts as if deciding to follow the statute is a magnanimous act of mercy:
Mr. Tague defends his original charge but says he wants to resolve the case in a way "that will send a message that this is wrong but will not ruin the young man's life."
One path under discussion, Mr. Nolan [Emory's lawyer] said, would be for Mr. Emory to plead to a lesser charge, receiving some jail time, probation and community service. He would not have to register as a sex offender. But any deal would need approval from a judge. A hearing is set for next Monday.
Meanwhile, a father of one of the first-graders who appeared in Emory's video tells the Times:
Does 20 years fit the crime? No....Would I care if he got 20 years? No.
Even coming from an understandably angry parent, this attitude does not make much sense: If you consider a punishment unjust, doesn't that mean it troubles you, by definition? But as a public official charged with enforcing the law, Tague is not supposed to act on emotion, whether his or anyone else's. He is supposed to follow the law and pursue justice, which he clearly failed to do in this case.
Radley Balko noted Emory's legal troubles last month.
National Center for the Prevention of False Accusations.
I love this idea.
I wish that Wikileaks would go after false rape accusers. You'd think they would, considering what they're doing to Julian.
They could call it 'Liarleaks,' providing info on false rape accusers and evidence of their unpunished crimes and those who enable them.
Someone should start a false accuser registry. Every time a woman falsely accuses a man, her name should be put on a website online or a database LISTING the girls who point the finger at them...
Just list the ones who have a history of falsely accusing other people. No need to risk putting a bona fide rape victim on the False Accuser Database when there so many obvious mangums and todds in need of a good dose of community-based justice.
("Community-based justice" does not, of course, mean violence!)
I know that it has been forever that this has happened, but i wanted to know more about this story. I went to school with Andrew and he was in my graduating class, I've known him for a few years, and I know that he would never have done this. He has always been polite and kind to everyone that he has met, even if they were a complete ass. Sorry that my comment has been put in so late, I wanted to see what other people had felt when they herd of this story. If I were to ever meet this lady, I would probably punch her in the face for pretty much ruining someone's senior year. I can't even imagine what it was like for him, and again, I do apologize for how late my comment is, I didn't even know that this was even up until today.
On Friday, January 11, 2012, A man was convicted for not registering as a Megan’s Law Offender, after being homeless for over a year, sleeping in his car, and wherever he and his family can find to stay warm. My question is, who does Megan’s Law protect? His original case which caused him to be a registered offender? At the age of 17 he and another man had consensual intercourse with a 16 year old girl. Afterward she wanted a relationship with him, but he did not want the same so she accused them of rape. Dr. reports showed no signs of force, trauma, or any injuries or bruising which would evident in any case of a struggle or resistance, so he was then convicted of Indecent Sexual Assault because she was “coerced into staying”. Basically she said she wanted to go home and he told her he was not ready to leave. And Criminal Conspiracy, because he had witnessed her having intercourse with the other man, who was in his 30's. I thought Megan’s law was created to protect our innocent children from being hurt. I did not realize it was created to help jilted lovers get revenge. The older man took a plea bargain and received 10 years registry. The 17 year old received lifetime registry after taking his case to trial. One witness was convinced not to testify unless she was willing to be charged for furnishing minors, and losing her son due to the fact that it was her apartment, and she was in the bedroom while they were “partying” These are facts that can be read in the police statement. He took a polygraph and passed. The juvenile was convicted as an adult and spent the next 5 years in jail. This was in 1999. With now a record and little life skills, he is unable to find stable employment which is what led to his homelessness. Which is the only reason he was unable to hire an attorney and take it back to trial, lack of money. My question is, with the new conviction, are the laws not written “if a person knowingly and intentionally commits a crime”? Prior to February 2012 Megan law forms stated you must register when you move to a new residence. This man was charged in 2010. If it takes 3 people with years of legal experience to scrutinize a legal form over and over again and question it in any way, how is it expected for a man who's only legal experience has been behind bars, to knowingly and intentionally commit a crime that did not exist or spelled out at the time. For anyone who has teenage or pre-teen sons, you should make them aware of this story and many others like this. One night of a casual encounter can result in a lifetime of pain and suffering. Meanwhile, he has his 2 ½ year old crying daily wanting to know where his daddy is. I guess Megan's law did not protect him from being hurt.
Post a Comment