At the time Koch suduced Parker, Koch was employed as a domestic servant in the Manhattan home of Parker's father, where James Parker also resided.
Shortly thereafter, Francis and Simon Rider visited James Parker and advised him that Ms. Koch planned to report that Parker had raped her unless Parker paid them money. Parker refused, and Ms. Koch then filed a false rape report which led to Parker's arrest.
An acquaintance of the three conspirators came forward and provided sworn testimony exposing the plot to blackmail Parker with a false rape claim. Parker was released from custody.
___________________
Typical, right?
Would it surprise you that this story actually appeared in the New York Times on September 16, 1854? We've rewritten it to give it a modern journalistic sensibility.
How little things change.
Posts
10 comments:
"Would it surprise you that this story actually appeared in the New York Times on September 16, 1854?"
Yes, I was surprised. I thought the FRA-for-extortion schemes were only a relatively recent development.
Yet, there it is - from 1854. Just goes to show you that women have been making FRA's as they believed it suited them for as long as societies, or even tribes of people have held rape and rapists in the highest contempt.
While the past 4 decades have seen an increased complicity of police, press, politicians, and (gender) political organizations leading to a presumably worsened situation, it is quite obvious that women have never needed, and will never need an officially endorsed environment that is conducive to FRAs in order to still chose to make them.
I've long wondered just how many innocent men died throughout history due to a woman's lie about having been raped, and how many well-meaning "white-knights" have died believing that they were defending the "honor" of woman who, in fact, had none.
It seems "rape hysteria" in western democracies is a cyclical thing.
For example history shows "Rape hysteria" reached a climax a few generations ago, with the case of the "Scottsborro boys".After the case of "The Scottsborro boys" society could no longer think that "Women and girls NEVER LIE ABOUT RAPE", and society went through a golden era of no longer Rape lynching the black man for false rape accusations.
Now "Gender-feminism" is taking the steering wheel of missinformation, and perversion, and "Rape hysteria" is back; and now they have perverted law enforcement to hide all the false rape accusations, so gender-feminists can keep there "Rape hysteria Empowerment"
S - "they have perverted law enforcement to hide all the false rape accusations"
???
In case it has still failed to sink in... the vast majority of of known false rape allegations are those that have been exposed and report by law enforcement. The police aren't in collusion with feminist in the SGI to hide false rape allegations. They are, in fact, constantly being attacked by the SGI for their supposed lack of effort in ensuring that every man named as a suspect is subsequently convicted (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates).
Even in 1854 the police were exposing attempts at FRA's (again, as I have mentioned many times to you, it would help if you could read the articles). Let me help you with the math - it was 157 years ago, and 157 is greater than the 40 years you cite as the time frame for this supposed perversion that has magically "allowed" women to start to make FRA's.
It should be fairly obvious that women have been going the "cry rape" route, for various reasons, long before their were any legal changes which would make it easier for them to do so. Their motivations have always been internal, not external.
So, the real problem, and the real perversion is, as it has always been, women seeking to utilize (highjack) men's violent revulsion to the act to rape in order to effect their personal gains (be it an alibi for their own wrong-doings, revenge against a man, or some form of financial gain).
It is the fact that men Do, in fact, react so strongly to the though of a woman being raped that has always allowed for the effectiveness of a rape claim (real or falsified), with or without police intervention.
It's also why this idea of your's that if police (and the whole of the criminal justice system) could somehow be made into “mind-readers”, who would know not to “allow” women to make false allegations, is never-the-less doomed to fail. If they don’t believe that they can turn to law enforcement, they will simply turn to other men who are not part of law enforcement.
Indeed, a significant number of the FRA’s we’ve learned about were either NOT made to police, or were made with no intention of ever involving the police (Ndonye, Peguero, (how many times do I have to rattle them off?). They chose to make FRAs irrespective of police policy, protocols, and protections. It a good bet that many false rape claimants know little or nothing of the legal changes of the past 40 years – they need only know that the utterance of the word "RAPE" is the F’ing biggest “gamer changer” of all time.
Is it truly too difficult for you to grasp?
MR Werner, you are wrong. Rape hysteria is a cyclical thing. After the case of the "scottsborro boys" a few generations ago, society woke up to the fact that women and girls lie about rape.
We again live in an age that has forgotten "Women and girls lie about Rape", so we are back in the midst of "Rape hysteria", and we will stay there as long as gender-feminists keep a tight leash on law enforcement, and what law enforcement can and cannot pervert for information.
s.
Mr Werner, you can call me ignorant, or whatever you want, But that still does not change the reality that law enforcement is paid to "protect the innocent".
when American law enforcement pervert their protocols, and engage in semantics games that prove to "persecute the innocent" which is exactly the polar opposite of "protect the innocent"......well that means "Houston, we've got a serious problem"!!
S - ”MR Werner, you are wrong.”
Wrong about what, exactly?
Wrong that women chose to make FRAs irrespective of the protocols that law enforcement will be following? Wrong that woman didn’t make FRA’s long before the current feminist-demanded “swing” towards strong laws and the expansion of what constitutes rape? Wrong that women have been making FRA’s as it suited them throughout history?
Please point to one contention I’ve made, and prove me wrong (or at least argue some case that I am).
S - ”Rape hysteria is a cyclical thing. After the case of the "scottsborro boys" a few generations ago, society woke up to the fact that women and girls lie about rape.”
Two problems with this theory.
First, there is no evidence of any “great awakening” in society to the reality that women lie about rape with any frequency. There was much more an awakening to the fact that black people were suffering great injustice (not limited to lynchings based on rape allegations). There was the whole “Civil Rights” movement which had a much larger effect in both curbing anti-black mobs, and in procuring equal legal rights for blacks accused of crimes.
But, where is the evidence that people in general were somehow more aware that women frequently make FRA’s? Where are the scholarly discussions?
The end of the Jim Crow Era and the implementation of Civil Rights Act did not see an end to rape accusations against black men. In fact the overall rate of rape allegations increased afterwards, including allegations against black men (some percentage of which were likely false). In fact, prior to DNA evidence, black men were still being wrongly convicted of rapes, as we well know thanks to the Innocent Project. I’d bet that if the stats could be found, we see that increasing numbers of black men were accused and convicted of rape charges.
All that ended were the mob lynchings of accused black men. Not exactly evidence that society “woke up” WRT women making FRA’s.
Secondly, even if it were valid to try to use mob lynchings as a proxy for the number of FRAs being made, it still does show some historical cyclical activity. For all you know, it was nothing more than a temporary slowdown in what was an increasing rate. To demonstrate a cyclical pattern, you’d have to show that there had been previous instance of increased rates, followed by decreased rates.
Problem is, there isn’t any recorded statistical history to use.
In fact, the real problem is that the systematic uncovering of FRAs is a very recent phenomena altogether. We have NO historical evidence by which to evaluate the rate of FRAs. We cannot even assess the possible rate at any time prior to Kanin’s studies.
What we can assess it the fact that innocent me WERE still falsely accused and convicted of rape (DNA evidence having finally proven some of them innocent). We really don’t know just how many innocent men suffered due to FRAs between 1960 and some time in the 80’s because DNA evidence which might have cleared them was never collected and preserved. You make the mistake of assuming that no proven false convictions during that period of time meant that no women were making FRAs (because society was “on to them”, or something).
A better guess would be that if the rate of FRAs has increased, it has been due to the sexual revolution, which caused women to have a “need” for alibi’s more often (with more women cheating) and more desire for revenge and/or exculpation (more one-night stands and hooks leading to more regrets and hurt feelings).
Women who were (sexually) better behaved prior to the rise of Feminism simply had fewer motivations to lie about rape.
S - ” Mr Werner, you can call me ignorant, or whatever you want, But that still does not change the reality that law enforcement is paid to "protect the innocent".
when American law enforcement pervert their protocols, and engage in semantics games that prove to "persecute the innocent" which is exactly the polar opposite of "protect the innocent"”
By protect the innocent, I would presume that doing so would necessarily include women who are raped? And, would it not also include those who are murdered, robbed, assaulted, car-jacked, killed by drunk drivers, etc., etc.?
Well, it’s painfully obvious that all crimes cannot be prevented. Even harsh penalties (including the death penalty) do not thwart all criminals. How, exactly, are the police supposed to prevent FRA’s if they can’t even prevent murders or drunk drivers?
And, what of law enforcement protocols? Those protocols call for them to investigate and develop evidence of crimes. What, exactly is wrong with that?
What they’ve often done wrong is that they FAIL to follow their own protocols, and instead jump to conclusions – leading them to arrest innocent men without any evidence (save for a woman’s claims). What we often call for is, in fact, that police stick to their protocols.
Now, if you wish to take issue with what constitutes a “sexual assault” (semantic games), well that’s not up to LE to decide – law makers and judges have done that for them.
Frankly, the fact that we are seeing both fewer rape allegations being made (URC) and more FRAs being exposed would seem to better argue that the performance of LE is on an upswing. They are both (as you like to imagine/mischaracterize it) “manufacturing” fewer of those statistics while also protecting more innocent men.
Hum? Imagine that…
Mr Werner, Historically the best way to deter criminal activity is to "punish the transgressors", and when law enforcement do not punish transgressors, basically there is no deterrent. Its a simple dynamic really, it's been used for centuries in many cultures and many civilizations.
And Mr Werner, you are mistaken, as Rape lynchings of the black man plummeted after the "Scottsborro boys case" woke people up to the fact that women and girls do in fact lie about rape.
But as you said, and i agree, law enforcement are getting better at returning law and order to the matriarchy.
S - ”And Mr Werner, you are mistaken, as Rape lynchings of the black man plummeted after the "Scottsborro boys case" woke people up to the fact that women and girls do in fact lie about rape.”
You thoroughly misunderstand the significance of the lynching of black men for allegations of crime including, but certainly not limited to, rape. It wasn’t that there was some “rape hysteria” going on – there was, instead, a “negro hysteria” at play, and the fear of black men raping white women was only just a part of that overall hysteria regarding the “mixing” of the races in the Jim Crow south.
The only people who took any real note of the meaning of the Scottborro Boys case were lawyers and legal scholars. People in general took it as a “one off”, an aberration; and most white people in the south continued to believe that they were guilty anyway. So, no, there was no wide-spread awakening among the masses. And, claims of rape continued to be leveled against black men, and in increasing numbers. And they continued to be sent to prison (thanks to DNA evidence, we know without a doubt that some were innocent).
How does this inconvenient reality “square” with your latest theory of an “awakening”?
And, if there were, in fact, this “great awakening” as you imagine, why weren’t steps taken to enact punishments against the women (that people were suddenly aware were making FRAs)? That didn’t happen because the vast majority of people never did catch on to the prevalence of FRAs.
You really should take the time to read Pierce’s next essay, and also take not of what Nick S had added in the comments.
It deals with what I alluded to earlier here – women used to have less need for FRAs because they were less promiscuous prior to the feminist-inspired sexual revolution (of women). So, the likelihood id that if there were fewer FRAs being made prior to 40 years ago, it is more likely than not due to women not sleeping around as much.
The increasing perception of a “need” to make FRAs is a much sounder, and easier to argue, theory than is this nonsense about a “great awakening” or your other theories about FRAs being due to the police colluding with the feminists of the SGI to enrich themselves, empower feminists, and be in obedience to their “gay masters” (yeah, that's right, I remember when you used to spout that nonsense, and I have saved copies of it BTW. So no point in trying to deny that it was also one of your theories about FRAs)
slwerner-
You need to learn to understand that there are a LOT of brand new visitors to this site, so you might well have to repeat your opinions ad infinitum if you're so determined to make your ideas gospel here.
Also- you need to wake up to the fact that MANY MANY police officers(being only human) mis-use , misunderstand and simply wrongly interpret the statutes regarding rape and/or sexual assualt.
It would seem to me that you are at least fully of adult age and therefore you MUST understand that LEOs are just as likely to be guilty in this mess as are lawmakers, gender-feminists and everyone else.
Although i see that you try to avoid letting the discussion drift into cop-hating you most often become a censor rather than a moderator(if, in fact, you even ARE a mod here. Idk if you even are).
You act like this is your personal pissing ground and that no dissenting views will be tolerated. You constantly flood comment threads and make them nearly unreadable. Who else acts like that? The Gender/raunch addicts maybe? Are you a kind of Manchurian Candidate for MRA, here to clutter discussions and break trains of discussion?
Back off, son, and let the men talk.
Post a Comment