This isn't a false rape case, it's the story of a classic rush to judgment that is, in many ways, typical of the cases we feature here. It holds an important lesson for the kinds of cases we normally cover here, but you have to read to the end to get to it.
The New York Times reports that a woman named Seemona Sumasar accused her ex-boyfriend of raping her, and in retaliation, he concocted "one of the most elaborate framing plots" police had ever seen that left Ms. Sumasar's life in tatters.
"One night, Ms. Sumasar was pulled over by the police. Before she could speak, detectives slapped handcuffs on her. 'You know you did it,' she said one later shouted at her. 'Just admit it.'” Sumasar was charged with carrying out a series of armed robberies, supposedly based on credible witness statements and proof that her car was the getaway vehicle. A despondent Sumasar sat in jail for seven months, helplessly watching as she lost her restaurant franchise and saw her house go into foreclosure.
Finally, the plot unraveled. It was, of course, all a lie. Prosecutors defended their actions in proceeding against her by noting "that the web of false evidence presented by [the ex-boyfriend] was so detailed they had little reason to doubt it."
Anthony Grandinette, Ms. Sumasar’s former lawyer, said law enforcement was negligent, and he posited an explanation that is instructive for this case, and others: "Why would a tiny woman with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, randomly hold up people at gunpoint at night dressed as a policewoman?” Mr. Grandinette asked.
That is a plausible explanation in Ms. Sumasar's defense, but it's also instructive for the typical false rape cases we feature here: the sort of explanation proffered by Mr. Grandinette is simply not readily available to the vast majority of men and boys featured on this blog. When an ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, or acquaintance accuses a guy of rape, we never hear this excuse: "Why would a guy with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, want to rape this woman?” The widely held, albeit markedly dubious, presumption, which is actually a shared cultural tenet, is exactly the opposite--"men will hit on/screw/f*ck anything that moves." And not just for consensual sex. Professors, legal scholars, and people taken seriously by mainstream news outlets instruct us that rape is rampant and, in fact, "normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong." (Jessica Valenti) Throw all that together and what you're left with is that the rape of any female by any male above a certain age is deemed plausible.
And that plausibility is why false rape claims are much more common than cases like Seemona Sumasar's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
In reading through the “Highlight” comments, one notices quite a few people who seem to believe that the police, prosecutors, and the judge should just “have known” that she didn’t do it. I wonder if they read the entire article, as the most damning of faked evidence against her was documented later in the story. It details a case with much greater “evidence” than what existed the majority of cases proven to be FRA’s (most of them nothing more than the accusers word).
Still, given their 20/20 hindsight, these people believe that the police should just “have known”? Perhaps if the police had taken the time to read this story in the (July 25th, 2011) NYT first, before arresting, charging, and investigating her (in May of 2010), then they too would have known everything these arm-chair quarterbacks know.[/snark]
Yes, of course they should have KNOWN that the cell phone calls where actually her, and not an accomplice making those calls to create an alibi for her. Yes they should have known that although her restraint business was floundering that she simply wasn’t eh sort of person for whom that would have been a motivation to steal. Yada, yada, yada.
Of course, Nassau County is also the jurisdiction in which Danmell Ndonye simply claimed that she was tied up and raped by five men in a dormitory restroom. Neither the police, the DA (I believe that Kathleen Rice was still DA there in May of 2010), nor judges, nor the press, nor even the public “just knew” that she was lying and framing five innocent young men – of course, in hind-sight we could argue that they “should have known”. Hell, in that case ALL there was at the time was her word – not a sting of carefully constructed, and seemingly highly inculpatory, spanning many months.
Unfortunately, with nearly 300 comments posted already, even the best of carefully crafted linking this sad story to the many similarly sad stories of the ruined lives of men falsely accused of rape are likely to go unnoticed in the sea of outrage about how the authorities “just should have known”.
Well at least all those who are outrage by this injustice can take heart that Mr. Ramrattan’s accomplices have be indicted on perjury charges – and I’m sure that a conspiracy case can be built against him. Danmell Ndonye got basically a “stern warning”.
Shouldn’t investigators do their job and investigate? Why isn’t law enforcement making changes to improve the system nationwide? We still have law enforcement engaging in tunnel vision, and always looking for the easy arrest. Why did it take 7 months to get their head out of there ass, in this case. I will tell you why because she wouldn’t take a plea deal.
Take the 5 years or we will give you 20 years in prison. It is amazing that this is still happening 2011, Mexico probably has a better criminal justice system.
Cops and prosecutors whom are deemed incompetent need to be fired, instead of promoted. No one is held accountable for their malfeasance.
In any other profession you can be sued or fired, but government employees have too much immunity.
One last note not all are corrupt, I just think we have a few bad apples that need to be dealt with.
Will the boyfriend face charges and get imprisoned for 7months, probably not; he will get away with his fraud. Wake up prosecutors! Someone please write to this DA.
Arod99k "We still have law enforcement engaging in tunnel vision, and always looking for the easy arrest."
I'm not saying that the police did everything right in this case, but can you point out what it is that they did wrong?
Did they not investigate and find the car that was indicated? Did they not take "witness" statements that seemed to rather conclusively implicate her? Did they not look into her financial background and find a probable motive?
I dare say that without benefit of the story written well after the fact that you were able to read, you’d have been every bit as duped as were the cops.
Did they overlook potentially exculpatory evidence? Yes, they did. They failed to recognize that her cell phone calls were actually her and not an accomplice creating a plausible alibi (I did note that although she was at a casino, that there is no notation as to whether security footage was reviewed, of if anyone checked to see if she had used a credit card while on her trip there. If there was neither footage of her at the casino at the time around the alleged robbery, and if there were no credit card receipts to demonstrate her travel, then the mere existence of a record of cell phone calls only indicated that her phone was in Atlantic City.)
And what of the roles of both the prosecutors and the judge who set bail? Well, they were both completely reliant on the evidence brought to them by the police, who were themselves well duped.
A lot of commenters are calling for the police, the DA, and the judge to be punished, and for her to be given a huge jury award. But, the case against anyone is going to be tough to make. Again, based on what police are supposed to do, what did they do that can be proven to be negligent? Not taking the word of a woman who appeared guilty of armed robberies that she didn’t do it?
We all have the benefit of reading about the real facts after the fact in so many different cases. And, we often get righteously angry about the injustices that have occurred. But, we are not feminists. We need to act intellectually and not just emotionally.
In any case of an FRA, we’d have argued that the word of a woman alone should not be substituted for real evidence. Why would we then argue that a woman’s should have been considered more highly than a large set of (seemingly) corroborating evidence in this case?
I think I know how situations such as this one, as well as many FRA’s can be avoided.
Only certified psychics with crystal balls should be employed as police investigators, prosecutors and judges.[/snark]
I think the most import take-home lesson from this story is being entirely missed here. This really isn’t a story of malfeasance by law enforcement (although there was plenty of it, in terms of their rush to judgment) an about the need to punish those in law enforcement for making the same sort of human errors that any one of us would probably have also made. Tthis is a cautionary tale about things not always being what they initially appear to be; and that final judgment needs to be held until every avenue has been investigated. It is an example of why there should not be a rush to judgment, especially by those in law enforcement.
This is true of DSK (who may well be guilty of sexual assault, despite the seeming evidence that his accuser is highly disreputable, and may have a financial angle) case. And it was true of the situation with Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia, where witnesses could place him in the restroom with his accuser (corroboration), yet it was the lack of semen or any other DNA evidence which conclusively indicated that no sexual intercourse had taken place [her first account was the truth, and her subsequent evolving narrative was not].
So too the cases of Danmell Ndonye, Crystal Gail Mangum, Biurny Peguero, and a host of others who made plausible allegations (the public and press bought them same as law enforcement, and perhaps even more so). While the injustice that ensued certainly have a large law enforcement component, the fact remains that law enforcement does not have all the true facts nicely laid out before them from the onset of any case (they SHOULD make it their goal to try to find all these facts), and are required by law, by public pressure, and even sometimes by basic common sense to act as if an alleged crime has actually occurred.
And, even though injustices such as that in the story of Ms. Sumasar result in significant financial loss, unless members of law enforcement actually did something that was in violation of their written procedures, then the ultimate responsibility for everything else that transpires falls back onto the person(s) who chose to create the lie(s) that set the whole process in motion.
A rush to judgment on the part of law enforcement is just plain wrong, and can be very destructive, but the lie that start it is far, far worse.
Mr. Ramratten and his accomplices knew the truth, even before the first police report was made, and any one of them could have chosen to do the right thing and expose the conspiracy (it seems that one of them eventually did just that). So, instead of imagining the problem to have been that LE “should have known”, it should be recognized that the bottom-line is that the perps “did know”.
We have Nancy Grace, the magical know-it-all to tell us who is innocent and who is guilty.
Just proclaim her queen ofthe world and run every case by her, and let HER devine who is innocent and who is guilty.
Look at all the "should have known" cases that could have been solved or prevented.
Teachers/police/"somebody" should have known the Columbine High killers were going to blow.
"Somebody" paid for that crime, dearly, and it wasn't the killers.
"Somebody" should have known the Ft. Hood shooter was going to blow. He was a muslim behaving badly, after all.
"Somebody" shouldn't require evidence or investigation.
They should just already KNOW!
"Somebody" was willing to believe a group of wealthy, popular and handsome college guys with wonderful futures awaiting were willing to throw it away for lifetime prison sentences to rape a prostitute.
...of course, "somebody" called in sick the next day after it turned out she was wrong....
Since the subject of A**holes has come up (well, Nancy Grace, anyway), it seems that the original 2% liar, Susan Brownmiller, has decided that she should respond to Roy Blacks recent piece on Salon.com:
Accused rapists don't need more protections
Why would a tiny woman with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, randomly hold up people at gunpoint at night dressed as a policewoman?
That hints at the larger problem. That lawyer likely wouldn't have even bothered with the argument if the defendant were male. This case is noteworthy because the usual presumption of innocence a woman gets was violated. Men, on the other hand, get a presumption of guilt. I guarantee dozens of men get railroaded like that for every woman like the one in this case.
Guys,
I'm going to say what everyone else is thinking: it's nice to see a guy get EVEN with the bitch who falsely accused him! Miss Sumasar got a little taste of the medicine she dished out to her old BF.
MarkyMark
MarkyMark - "I'm going to say what everyone else is thinking: it's nice to see a guy get EVEN with the bitch who falsely accused him!"
That's one part that has been largely left out - especially in the NYT piece.
Ramratten continues to deny that he rape Sumasar in the first place.
We are given nothing by which to make a well considered judgment, but supposing that he did tape her mouth and rape her (that's kidnapping on top of a violent forcible rape), so there should have been much more to relate than the "one day it happened" sentence in the article. Why not mention if there was corroborating evidence of that alleged crime. Not providing any such detail can easily be seen as possibly little more than a "he said/she said", which is still lingering because there is no evidence that it was anything more than a claim intended to get him out of her life. Another "cold case", going nowhere fast (2 1/2 years now, and still no trial date?), but continuing to hang over Ramratten's head.
And, how did he pay what must have been a very high bond for such an alleged crime (I would figure in the $1 million range)? And, how did he get three other women to go to such extraordinary lengths on his behalf.
One might reasonably suspect that a man with the resources to meet a high bail, and the ability to get women to do his bidding was a man with "options".
It would be nice to also have a story detailing his side of the story.
I wouldn't go so far as to label it a certain FRA, but it would make a certain amount of sense that Ramratten would do what he did in response to what he knew to be an injustice against him (much more than as revenge for an actual crime, which seems to have been quietly "going away", as happens with many unprovable "he said/she said" cases).
Just my own personal $0.02, in no way reflective of the views of the False Rape Society.
Post a Comment