Woman denies false rape claim

A Tilehurst woman cried rape twice after agreeing to have sex on both occasions, a court heard.

Emma Blunden, 21, denies two counts of perverting the course of justice after an alleged incident in February this year, and another in July 2008.

Opening the case at Reading Crown Court on Monday, Ian Acheson, prosecuting, said Blunden had been at a party in Prospect Street in the town centre on February 4, when she had gone into the communal bathroom with three men, Shane Roberts, Craig Pilime and Colin McDonagh.

She told police that while she was in the bathroom she was raped by the men in turns and after leaving the party she called 999 from Thatcham station first to say her train fare money had been stolen and then she added that she had been gang raped.

Mr Acheson said: “From the start aspects of her behaviour caused concern. She was seemingly untroubled by what had happened. But her peculiar conduct went further than that and one officer dealing with her complaint thought she was making observations that were particularly towards him – she was very keen to get the officer’s phone number.”

The court heard police conducted inquiries with other people who had been at the house party who said Blunden had been flirting with one of the men and that when she had gone into the bathroom she was heard giggling: “Who’s going to go first then?”

Following her arrest for perverting the course of justice in May, this year, Blunden was also arrested for a second charge relating to an allegation in July 2008 when she said she had been raped by a man living in the same hostel as her in Newbury.

Mr Acheson said she had been boasting about having sex with the man after the incident and that she sent a text to him after the accusation apologising for getting him arrested. In both cases the alleged attackers were arrested but no charges were brought.

At court yesterday Melanie Goulding, who had known Blunden for eight years and was living in the same hostel, said the defendant appeared happy when she was with a man called Jamie Mabey before and after the night in question in the July incident.

She told the court she had gone into Mr Mabey’s room on the night of July 26, 2008, and saw Blunden in her pyjamas lying across him on his bed.

Miss Goulding said: “She seemed happy, she was chatting and smiling.”

She said later, during the night, she heard Blunden and a friend Charlene in the corridor outside her room laughing. She then heard them knocking on a door she took to be Mr Mabey’s.

The next day, Miss Goulding asked Blunden if she had slept with him and Blunden started laughing and said, ‘Yes’, the court was told.

She said she saw Blunden later that afternoon holding hands with Mr Mabey. Three days later, on July 30, Miss Goulding said she saw Blunden, who told her she was going to the police station.

She had a love bite and said it was from her ex which she got during sex. Blunden, of College Piece, Mortimer, denies both counts.

Link:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2083245_woman_denies_false_rape_claim

Woman denies false rape claim

A Tilehurst woman cried rape twice after agreeing to have sex on both occasions, a court heard.

Emma Blunden, 21, denies two counts of perverting the course of justice after an alleged incident in February this year, and another in July 2008.

Opening the case at Reading Crown Court on Monday, Ian Acheson, prosecuting, said Blunden had been at a party in Prospect Street in the town centre on February 4, when she had gone into the communal bathroom with three men, Shane Roberts, Craig Pilime and Colin McDonagh.

She told police that while she was in the bathroom she was raped by the men in turns and after leaving the party she called 999 from Thatcham station first to say her train fare money had been stolen and then she added that she had been gang raped.

Mr Acheson said: “From the start aspects of her behaviour caused concern. She was seemingly untroubled by what had happened. But her peculiar conduct went further than that and one officer dealing with her complaint thought she was making observations that were particularly towards him – she was very keen to get the officer’s phone number.”

The court heard police conducted inquiries with other people who had been at the house party who said Blunden had been flirting with one of the men and that when she had gone into the bathroom she was heard giggling: “Who’s going to go first then?”

Following her arrest for perverting the course of justice in May, this year, Blunden was also arrested for a second charge relating to an allegation in July 2008 when she said she had been raped by a man living in the same hostel as her in Newbury.

Mr Acheson said she had been boasting about having sex with the man after the incident and that she sent a text to him after the accusation apologising for getting him arrested. In both cases the alleged attackers were arrested but no charges were brought.

At court yesterday Melanie Goulding, who had known Blunden for eight years and was living in the same hostel, said the defendant appeared happy when she was with a man called Jamie Mabey before and after the night in question in the July incident.

She told the court she had gone into Mr Mabey’s room on the night of July 26, 2008, and saw Blunden in her pyjamas lying across him on his bed.

Miss Goulding said: “She seemed happy, she was chatting and smiling.”

She said later, during the night, she heard Blunden and a friend Charlene in the corridor outside her room laughing. She then heard them knocking on a door she took to be Mr Mabey’s.

The next day, Miss Goulding asked Blunden if she had slept with him and Blunden started laughing and said, ‘Yes’, the court was told.

She said she saw Blunden later that afternoon holding hands with Mr Mabey. Three days later, on July 30, Miss Goulding said she saw Blunden, who told her she was going to the police station.

She had a love bite and said it was from her ex which she got during sex. Blunden, of College Piece, Mortimer, denies both counts.

Link:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2083245_woman_denies_false_rape_claim

Presumed innocence be damned: Why a university fired a big-time football coach over a domestic violence accusation

Go and read it: http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/26840-the-lessons-of-michael-haywood-vol-1

h/t Noah S.

Presumed innocence be damned: Why a university fired a big-time football coach over a domestic violence accusation

Go and read it: http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/26840-the-lessons-of-michael-haywood-vol-1

h/t Noah S.

September assault report allegedly false

A University of South Dakota freshman could face jail time after filing a false report of sexual assault in North Complex Sept. 12.

Emily Yosten was indicted on a charge of false reporting, a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, by a Clay County grand jury Nov. 4.

After Yosten, 18, made the report in September, a campus alert was sent out to students informing them of a possible sexual assault and urging them to be cautious of situations that could end in sexual assault.

Yosten could not be reached for comment.

Teddi Gertsma, Clay County state's attorney, and Art Mabry, Vermillion chief of police, both declined to comment.

Yosten's initial court appearance is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Dec. 14 at the Clay County Courthouse.

Link: http://www.volanteonline.com/news/september-assault-report-allegedly-false-erroneous-1.2415081

September assault report allegedly false

A University of South Dakota freshman could face jail time after filing a false report of sexual assault in North Complex Sept. 12.

Emily Yosten was indicted on a charge of false reporting, a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, by a Clay County grand jury Nov. 4.

After Yosten, 18, made the report in September, a campus alert was sent out to students informing them of a possible sexual assault and urging them to be cautious of situations that could end in sexual assault.

Yosten could not be reached for comment.

Teddi Gertsma, Clay County state's attorney, and Art Mabry, Vermillion chief of police, both declined to comment.

Yosten's initial court appearance is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Dec. 14 at the Clay County Courthouse.

Link: http://www.volanteonline.com/news/september-assault-report-allegedly-false-erroneous-1.2415081

University of Pittsburgh fires head football coach after he is accused of domestic battery

Mike Haywood was fired today, just weeks after being named head football coach of the University of Pittsburgh, shortly after he was released from an Indiana jail after being charged with domestic battery. The University issued a statement that is problematic: 

"After careful consideration of recent events, the University of Pittsburgh has dismissed Michael Haywood as its head football coach, effective immediately. He was advised of that action this afternoon.

"To be clear, the University's decision is not tied to any expectation with respect to the terms on which the legal proceeding now pending in Indiana might ultimately be concluded. Instead, it reflects a strong belief that moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances.

"This is a matter of real regret for the many people at Pitt who had looked forward to working with him. However, head coaches are among the University's most visible representatives and are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."

It is understandable that "moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances."  An accusation of this nature will be a major distraction for Haywood, and there is a possibility he will be incarcerated for this charge. 

The problematic aspect of the statement is this: ". . . head coaches . . . are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."

You see the problem. Unless the university knows something the rest of us don't know, what if the accuser lied?  What if the now ex-coach did maintain high standards of conduct? And what if he couldn't avoid this situation?

You see, that's the problem.

University of Pittsburgh fires head football coach after he is accused of domestic battery

Mike Haywood was fired today, just weeks after being named head football coach of the University of Pittsburgh, shortly after he was released from an Indiana jail after being charged with domestic battery. The University issued a statement that is problematic: 

"After careful consideration of recent events, the University of Pittsburgh has dismissed Michael Haywood as its head football coach, effective immediately. He was advised of that action this afternoon.

"To be clear, the University's decision is not tied to any expectation with respect to the terms on which the legal proceeding now pending in Indiana might ultimately be concluded. Instead, it reflects a strong belief that moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances.

"This is a matter of real regret for the many people at Pitt who had looked forward to working with him. However, head coaches are among the University's most visible representatives and are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."

It is understandable that "moving forward with Mr. Haywood as our head coach is not possible under the existing circumstances."  An accusation of this nature will be a major distraction for Haywood, and there is a possibility he will be incarcerated for this charge. 

The problematic aspect of the statement is this: ". . . head coaches . . . are expected to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to avoid situations that might reflect negatively on the University. . . . ."

You see the problem. Unless the university knows something the rest of us don't know, what if the accuser lied?  What if the now ex-coach did maintain high standards of conduct? And what if he couldn't avoid this situation?

You see, that's the problem.

Naomi Wolf: Scrap anonymity for rape accusers because it treats them like children

Happy New Year.

Many of her facts are flat-out wrong (about the prevalence of false rape claims, for example), but feminist icon Naomi Wolf says anonymity for rape accusers should be scrapped. Excerpts: 

Why is rape different?

As Swedish prosecutors’ sex-crime allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange play out in the international media, one convention of the coverage merits serious scrutiny. We know Assange by name. But his accusers – the two Swedish women who have brought the complaints against him – are consistently identified only as “Miss A” and “Miss W,” and their images are blurred.

News organizations argue that the policy is motivated by respect for the alleged victims. But the same organizations would never report charges of, say, fraud – or, indeed, non-sexual assault – against a suspect who has been named on the basis on anonymous accusations. In fact, despite its good intentions, providing anonymity in sex-crime cases is extremely harmful to women.

The convention of not naming rape accusers is a relic of the Victorian period, when rape and other sex crimes were being codified and reported in ways that prefigure our own era. Rape was seen as “the fate worse than death,” rendering women – who were supposed to be virgins until marriage – “damaged goods.”
. . . .
Indeed, one of the rights for which suffragists fought was the right to be convicted of one’s own crimes. Nonetheless, even after women gained legal rights – and even as other assumptions about women have gone the way of smelling salts and whalebone stays – the condescending Victorian convention of not identifying women who make sex-crime charges remains with us.

That convention not only is an insult to women, but also makes rape prosecutions far more difficult. Overwhelmingly, anonymity serves institutions that do not want to prosecute rapists or sexual harassers.
. . . .
The lesson is clear: when charges are made anonymously, no one takes them as seriously as charges brought in public, resulting in institutionalized impunity for sexual predators.
. . . .
Feminists have long argued that rape must be treated like any other crime. But in no other crime are accusers kept behind a wall of anonymity. Treating rape so differently serves only to maintain its mischaracterization as a “different” kind of crime, loaded with cultural baggage and projections.

Finally, there is a profound moral issue at stake. Though children’s identities should, of course, be shielded in sex-crime allegations, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must wish to be treated – and one must treat oneself – as a moral adult.

That is why justice systems – at least in democracies – typically demand that the accused be able to face his or her accuser. Why, for example, in a case that is so dependent on public opinion – and on which so much depends – must Assange face allegations that may have grave consequences for him, while his accusers remain hidden?

So-called “rape shield” laws should be used to protect alleged victims. It is no one’s business whom a victim has slept with previously, or what she was wearing when she was attacked. But preventing an accuser’s sexual history from entering into an investigation or prosecution is not the same as providing anonymity.

Nor should it be. After all, motive and context are legitimate questions in any serious criminal allegation. Hill, for example, knew that she would have to explain why she waited years to accuse Thomas, her former employer. Likewise, adult accusers of Church-protected sex criminals knew that they would have to answer fundamental questions (notably, many of them have identified themselves, which has helped get real prosecutions).

It is wrong – and sexist – to treat female sex-crime accusers as if they were children, and it is wrong to try anyone, male or female, in the court of public opinion on the basis of anonymous accusations. Anonymity for rape accusers is long overdue for retirement.

Naomi Wolf: Scrap anonymity for rape accusers because it treats them like children

Happy New Year.

Many of her facts are flat-out wrong (about the prevalence of false rape claims, for example), but feminist icon Naomi Wolf says anonymity for rape accusers should be scrapped. Excerpts: 

Why is rape different?

As Swedish prosecutors’ sex-crime allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange play out in the international media, one convention of the coverage merits serious scrutiny. We know Assange by name. But his accusers – the two Swedish women who have brought the complaints against him – are consistently identified only as “Miss A” and “Miss W,” and their images are blurred.

News organizations argue that the policy is motivated by respect for the alleged victims. But the same organizations would never report charges of, say, fraud – or, indeed, non-sexual assault – against a suspect who has been named on the basis on anonymous accusations. In fact, despite its good intentions, providing anonymity in sex-crime cases is extremely harmful to women.

The convention of not naming rape accusers is a relic of the Victorian period, when rape and other sex crimes were being codified and reported in ways that prefigure our own era. Rape was seen as “the fate worse than death,” rendering women – who were supposed to be virgins until marriage – “damaged goods.”
. . . .
Indeed, one of the rights for which suffragists fought was the right to be convicted of one’s own crimes. Nonetheless, even after women gained legal rights – and even as other assumptions about women have gone the way of smelling salts and whalebone stays – the condescending Victorian convention of not identifying women who make sex-crime charges remains with us.

That convention not only is an insult to women, but also makes rape prosecutions far more difficult. Overwhelmingly, anonymity serves institutions that do not want to prosecute rapists or sexual harassers.
. . . .
The lesson is clear: when charges are made anonymously, no one takes them as seriously as charges brought in public, resulting in institutionalized impunity for sexual predators.
. . . .
Feminists have long argued that rape must be treated like any other crime. But in no other crime are accusers kept behind a wall of anonymity. Treating rape so differently serves only to maintain its mischaracterization as a “different” kind of crime, loaded with cultural baggage and projections.

Finally, there is a profound moral issue at stake. Though children’s identities should, of course, be shielded in sex-crime allegations, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must wish to be treated – and one must treat oneself – as a moral adult.

That is why justice systems – at least in democracies – typically demand that the accused be able to face his or her accuser. Why, for example, in a case that is so dependent on public opinion – and on which so much depends – must Assange face allegations that may have grave consequences for him, while his accusers remain hidden?

So-called “rape shield” laws should be used to protect alleged victims. It is no one’s business whom a victim has slept with previously, or what she was wearing when she was attacked. But preventing an accuser’s sexual history from entering into an investigation or prosecution is not the same as providing anonymity.

Nor should it be. After all, motive and context are legitimate questions in any serious criminal allegation. Hill, for example, knew that she would have to explain why she waited years to accuse Thomas, her former employer. Likewise, adult accusers of Church-protected sex criminals knew that they would have to answer fundamental questions (notably, many of them have identified themselves, which has helped get real prosecutions).

It is wrong – and sexist – to treat female sex-crime accusers as if they were children, and it is wrong to try anyone, male or female, in the court of public opinion on the basis of anonymous accusations. Anonymity for rape accusers is long overdue for retirement.