Carolyn Jensen was arrested for drunken and disorderly behavior and was taken to police headquarters for processing. She called her boyfriend to come get her, and claimed that the two transporting officers had sexually assaulted her. A lengthy investigation found no evidence to support the allegation.
Jensen has been admitted to a so-called "Pre-Trial Intervention" program, and if she successfully completes it, she'll be free, with no criminal charges on her record. She was accepted to this program by Superior Court Judge Thomas Manahan, with no admission of wrongdoing. The program calls for supervised probation and 50 hours of community service. Robert Weber, Morris County Assistant Prosecutor, that that PTI was appropriate, after a psychological report noted that Jensen has a history of alcohol abuse.
Link: http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20120403/NJNEWS/304030012/Woman-who-made-false-claims-of-sexual-assault-admitted-to-PTI
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Warrant issued for woman accused of falsifying rape report
Katheryn Marie Louise Clark now has a warrant out for her arrest because she failed to appear in court for falsifying a rape report in December.
Clark missed her Tuesday appearance in Pittsburg County District Court, where she was charged with false reporting of a crime after she allegedly told authorities that she had been raped.
Deputy Jack Suter was sent to Longtown on December 16th and took Clark's report that she had been raped, according to the police affidavit. She stated that she had been dragged by the hair and forced to have sex, while she was biting him and screaming.
A rape kit was performed, and the nurse that performed the kit told authorities that "there was not any evidence of sexual assault," according to the affidavit.
A possible witness, and the person Clark identified in her statement to police, weres interviewed. It was determined that there was no evidence to support the rape claim, and that she had lied about the rape.
Link: http://mcalesternews.com/policecourts/x1560871440/Warrant-issued-for-woman-accused-of-falsifying-rape-report
Clark missed her Tuesday appearance in Pittsburg County District Court, where she was charged with false reporting of a crime after she allegedly told authorities that she had been raped.
Deputy Jack Suter was sent to Longtown on December 16th and took Clark's report that she had been raped, according to the police affidavit. She stated that she had been dragged by the hair and forced to have sex, while she was biting him and screaming.
A rape kit was performed, and the nurse that performed the kit told authorities that "there was not any evidence of sexual assault," according to the affidavit.
A possible witness, and the person Clark identified in her statement to police, weres interviewed. It was determined that there was no evidence to support the rape claim, and that she had lied about the rape.
Link: http://mcalesternews.com/policecourts/x1560871440/Warrant-issued-for-woman-accused-of-falsifying-rape-report
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Does refusing to charge for rape lie that put innocent man away for nine years undermine public confidence in the way rape claims are handled?
Cassandra Kennedy, 23, admitted that she lied about her father raping her when she was 11. Her accusation put her father behind bars for nine years.
Ms. Kennedy will not be charged with a crime because prosecutors fear it could stop others from reporting sexual assaults. Prosecutor Sue Baur said: "This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen." But she said that charging Kennedy might discourage victims from coming forward.
Kennedy admitted her lie because of a guilty conscience. "I did a horrible thing," she told detectives last January. She was allegedly bitter following her parents' divorce ten years earlier. "I wanted him to love me," Kennedy said, "and I didn't think he did at that time. I took my own vengeance."
Kennedy told police she got the idea of setting up her father from a friend whose stepfather had been sent to prison for a child sex crime. "I thought that is what I would do to make my dad go away." She told a teacher about the alleged abuse, and repeated the stories with consistency. The details seemed beyond the sexual knowledge of an 11-year-old.
Her father denied the allegation but a jury convicted him of three counts of rape of a child and he was sentenced to more than 15 years in jail.
The father was released last week and the charges against him were dismissed. He told a reporter that he did not want to comment but is simply trying to get on with his life.
The decision not to prosecute this apparent crime is troubling.
First, the prosecutor's concern that charging Ms. Kennedy might deter others from reporting their sexual assaults is speculative and unsupported by any evidence of which we are aware. Charging Ms. Kennedy would not send a signal that the prosecutor intends to charge any woman who makes a disputed rape claim that the police don't believe. The instant case caused grievous harm and is extreme. It involves an admitted rape lie that had a catastrophic effect on another person's life. Charging the author of such a lie would not likely deter anyone from reporting her own sexual assault.
Second, Ms. Baur's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy sends a message that can only hurt the wrongly accused. The absence of any punishment for an apparent crime that caused a man to forfeit his liberty for almost a decade can only encourage similarly motivated persons to make false accusations. According to Dr. Valerie Wright, research analyst at The Sentencing Project: "People who perceive that sanctions are more certain tend to be less likely to engage in criminal activity."And: "Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits." If crimes such as this one are not deterred, society invites more abuse of the criminal justice system at the expense of the innocent.
Third, Ms. Bauer's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy undermines public confidence in the way rape claims are handled. The prosecutor should want the public to regard rape as a serious crime deserving of serious penalties. Indeed, juries want to punish rapists but are loathe to risk punishing the innocent. Juries will be all the more wary of convicting men of rape, even those who deserve to be convicted, if they believe that prosecutors cavalierly allow accusers to tell rape lies with impunity.
Fourth, the victim should have a say in whether the false accuser is prosecuted. The victim in this case did not publicly express an opinion on the subject, and we are wondering if anyone bothered to ask him.
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124170/Cassandra-Kennedy-Father-freed-decade-jail-daughter-admits-lied-raping-11.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.tbd.com/blogs/amanda-hess/2010/09/uninvestigated-rapes-live-blogging-senate-hearing-on-rape-in-the-u-s--1734.html
Ms. Kennedy will not be charged with a crime because prosecutors fear it could stop others from reporting sexual assaults. Prosecutor Sue Baur said: "This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen." But she said that charging Kennedy might discourage victims from coming forward.
Kennedy admitted her lie because of a guilty conscience. "I did a horrible thing," she told detectives last January. She was allegedly bitter following her parents' divorce ten years earlier. "I wanted him to love me," Kennedy said, "and I didn't think he did at that time. I took my own vengeance."
Kennedy told police she got the idea of setting up her father from a friend whose stepfather had been sent to prison for a child sex crime. "I thought that is what I would do to make my dad go away." She told a teacher about the alleged abuse, and repeated the stories with consistency. The details seemed beyond the sexual knowledge of an 11-year-old.
Her father denied the allegation but a jury convicted him of three counts of rape of a child and he was sentenced to more than 15 years in jail.
The father was released last week and the charges against him were dismissed. He told a reporter that he did not want to comment but is simply trying to get on with his life.
The decision not to prosecute this apparent crime is troubling.
First, the prosecutor's concern that charging Ms. Kennedy might deter others from reporting their sexual assaults is speculative and unsupported by any evidence of which we are aware. Charging Ms. Kennedy would not send a signal that the prosecutor intends to charge any woman who makes a disputed rape claim that the police don't believe. The instant case caused grievous harm and is extreme. It involves an admitted rape lie that had a catastrophic effect on another person's life. Charging the author of such a lie would not likely deter anyone from reporting her own sexual assault.
Second, Ms. Baur's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy sends a message that can only hurt the wrongly accused. The absence of any punishment for an apparent crime that caused a man to forfeit his liberty for almost a decade can only encourage similarly motivated persons to make false accusations. According to Dr. Valerie Wright, research analyst at The Sentencing Project: "People who perceive that sanctions are more certain tend to be less likely to engage in criminal activity."And: "Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits." If crimes such as this one are not deterred, society invites more abuse of the criminal justice system at the expense of the innocent.
Third, Ms. Bauer's rationale for not prosecuting Ms. Kennedy undermines public confidence in the way rape claims are handled. The prosecutor should want the public to regard rape as a serious crime deserving of serious penalties. Indeed, juries want to punish rapists but are loathe to risk punishing the innocent. Juries will be all the more wary of convicting men of rape, even those who deserve to be convicted, if they believe that prosecutors cavalierly allow accusers to tell rape lies with impunity.
Fourth, the victim should have a say in whether the false accuser is prosecuted. The victim in this case did not publicly express an opinion on the subject, and we are wondering if anyone bothered to ask him.
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124170/Cassandra-Kennedy-Father-freed-decade-jail-daughter-admits-lied-raping-11.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.tbd.com/blogs/amanda-hess/2010/09/uninvestigated-rapes-live-blogging-senate-hearing-on-rape-in-the-u-s--1734.html
Monday, April 2, 2012
Supreme Court says presumptively innocent can be strip searched even for minor offenses
Under one guise or another, the presumptively innocent are increasingly treated like convicted felons: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches--even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story.html?tid=pm_pop
According to the Washington Post: "The case [before the Supreme Court] was brought by Albert Florence, a New Jersey man who said he was subjected to two invasive inspections in 2005 after being mistakenly arrested for not paying a fine.
"A state trooper pulled over Florence’s BMW in 2005 as he and his family were on the way to his mother-in-law’s to celebrate the purchase of their new home. He was handcuffed and arrested in front of his distraught, pregnant wife and young son.
"He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glove box because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars.
"Florence was jailed in Burlington County and then Essex County, before a magistrate ordered him released. At Burlington, he said he was forced to disrobe in front of an officer and told to lift his genitals. At Essex, he was strip-searched again, and said he was made to squat and cough in front of others, a maneuver meant to expel anything hidden in a body cavity."
We agree with Justice Stephen G. Breyer's dissenting opinion. Corrections officials should have reasonable suspicion that the person arrested poses a danger before subjecting them to a strip search that is “inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading.”
According to the Washington Post: "The case [before the Supreme Court] was brought by Albert Florence, a New Jersey man who said he was subjected to two invasive inspections in 2005 after being mistakenly arrested for not paying a fine.
"A state trooper pulled over Florence’s BMW in 2005 as he and his family were on the way to his mother-in-law’s to celebrate the purchase of their new home. He was handcuffed and arrested in front of his distraught, pregnant wife and young son.
"He spent seven days in jail because of a warrant that said, mistakenly, he was wanted for not paying a court fine. In fact, he had proof that the fine had been paid years earlier; he said he carried it in his glove box because he believed that police were suspicious of black men who drove nice cars.
"Florence was jailed in Burlington County and then Essex County, before a magistrate ordered him released. At Burlington, he said he was forced to disrobe in front of an officer and told to lift his genitals. At Essex, he was strip-searched again, and said he was made to squat and cough in front of others, a maneuver meant to expel anything hidden in a body cavity."
We agree with Justice Stephen G. Breyer's dissenting opinion. Corrections officials should have reasonable suspicion that the person arrested poses a danger before subjecting them to a strip search that is “inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading.”
The man and woman in infamous Belvedere ad did not consent to use their images
Ms. Packard's suit is commendable. It publicizes, in an appropriate way, the fact that Ms. Packard didn't consent to be part of an ad so completely lacking in taste, morals, and good judgment. Moreover, it sends a message to Moet Hennessy and any other company that has an urge to make light of rape that they do so at their peril. Perhaps Mr. Strickland will file his own suit, which could be consolidated with Ms. Packard's.
Extreme sexual harassment case was like a war, judge finds that the accuser lied
Vivienne Dye, a former Commonwealth Bank employee, sued her ex-company for sexual harassment and discrimination, but a judge has issued a scathing opinion dismissing her claims. Much of the evidence given by Ms Dye was "knowingly false," and she had added and omitted events in a "bewildering fashion," the judge said. Ms Dye's account of the alleged incidents had over the years been "progressively altered, re-recorded, edited, polished, embellished and even substantially changed as though it was a novel," the judge found.
Ms. Dye singled out two of her superiors, Michael Blomfield and Angus Patterson, and claimed they sexually harassed her and that Mr Patterson raped her in her apartment. The judge ruled that "all of the allegations against the men were false and should not have been pursued."
In fact, it was Ms. Dye who made advances on Mr. Blomfield, hoping for a ''close and intimate relationship'' with him. Mr. Blomfield rebuffed her, so Ms, Dye then ''turned from seeking his attention to a desire to be revenged on him."
Mr Patterson testified that in 2007, Ms Dye told him she was filing a sexual harassment case against Mr Blomfield: ''I'm going to get that c---, and I'm going to f---ing destroy him and his family.'' But Mr. Patterson, who had been Ms. Dye's good friend, confidant, "constant and probably uncritical supporter," declined to assist in her vendetta against Mr Blomfield, so Ms Dye turned on him, too, claiming that he violently raped her in her apartment in June 2006, and that a few days later he attempted to sexually assault her. (This, despite the fact that Mr. Patterson visited her apartment three days after the "rape" to watch a soccer match.)
Ms. Dye also claimed Mr Patterson made a number of unwelcome sexual advances. Among them were this one: "Have you ever been to Tuscany?" That, according to Ms. Dye, was a proposition for sex. The judge did not agree.
The judge also found that Ms Dye lied when she claimed Mr Blomfield "exposed a dirty big tattoo" on his backside, because Mr Blomfield did not have any such tattoo. On another occasion, Bureau of Meteorology records were produced to prove it wasn't raining on a night Ms. Dye said she shared an umbrella with Mr Blomfield.
On and on it went. In all, four years, a mind-numbing 94 days of oral hearings, 600 documentary exhibits and nearly 8000 pages of transcript. The judge's opinion was a whopping 239 pages in length.
So, yes, the bank "won." But its legal fees (which the judge ordered Ms. Dye to pay) likely will never be collected in full. The two employees singled out by Ms. Dye have left the bank. The judge said that despite his judgment vindicating the men, the ''stain'' on their reputation would be impossible to remove.
Andrew Bolt, writing in the Herald Sun, wrote: "The laws and courts which feed our culture of complaint now make the process the punishment. . . . . Worse, the process is so ghastly for the accused that it's usually easier even for the innocent to pay up, rather than fight. . . ."
Susie O'Brien, writing in the same newspaper, had a different take: "It is important that people, such as Dye, who make false claims of sexual harassment and rape, are harshly dealt with. Such claims, if vexatious, have the power to ruin reputations, careers, marriages, and even end lives. They also generate considerable ill-will towards sexual assault victims, thus discouraging others from coming forward. So I agree with commentators, including the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt, in their condemnation of Dye. But I do not believe this one example of a vengeful vixen is evidence of a rampant 'culture of complaint'. The truth is in fact the exact opposite. Although the destruction wrought by false accusations can be enormous, more widespread is the underreporting of legitimate cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Too many women - and yes, about 85 per cent of victims are women, so I'm not merely being sexist - put up with too much for too long. Further, many of those who do complain are ignored, or punished as a result, and many end up dropping their case before it goes anywhere. There is no culture of complaint when it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault."
A personal observation. I have successfully litigated sexual harassment claims on behalf of employers, and based on my own experience, the scope of the Dye litigation was extreme and atypical. Any civil trial can be an ordeal, and even small cases can sometimes turn into runaway litigation for all sorts of reasons, but sexual harassment cases generally are no more complex (and, in my experience, they are generally less so) than garden variety disputes involving allegations of breach of contract between two companies. I agree that ours is a "culture of complaint" -- but about everything, not just sexual harassment. Sexual harassment cases differ from other commercial disputes in that the harm, either to the accuser or the accused, tends to be more personal, affecting more than just a company's bottom line (an abused employee can suffer greatly, and a wrongly accused supervisor has a very difficult time shaking the stigma). Thankfully, such claims, in my experience, are not rampant, but they can be abused (sometimes, an employer will be hit with a string of claims over time from several terminated employees filed by the same attorney -- much of the problem is that the courts do not adequately punish attorneys for filing frivolous claims). For those who claim women abuse these laws, it is well to remember that EEOC claims by men are skyrocketing.
The employer in this case is to be commended for fighting on despite the fact that it almost certainly could have settled for less than the cost to defend this action. If companies want to reduce the costs of litigating sexual harassment claims, they need to do this: when a claim is made, they need to immediately and fairly investigate it, and if there is merit to it, they need to redress the problem internally so that other employees can see that it takes such claims seriously. Then the employer needs to try to settle that claim. For claims that are clearly false or frivolous, the employer needs to fight those vigorously to send a message to other employees and to attorneys who would abuse the process by filing frivolous claims. In my experience, other employees who work with the accuser generally know what is going on inside the company and have a good sense when a claim by a co-worker is legitimate or nonsense. When a company vigorously defends against a frivolous claim, that does nothing to discourage other claimants who have legitimate claims from coming forward. Companies need to stand by their wrongly accused employees as a price of doing business.
Sources:
Man cleared of rape attack
The man in the following story doesn't appear to be anything remotely resembling a saint, but the woman who accused him of rape admitted that all of the sex involved was consensual, and that she lied about it. She didn't admit it until after video footage he captured on his phone was played in court. The news report is located HERE.
Jay Dyce has been unanimously acquitted of rape and false imprisonment. He is still likely to be convicted and jailed as he has admitted to tasing and beating the accuser.
Jay Dyce has been unanimously acquitted of rape and false imprisonment. He is still likely to be convicted and jailed as he has admitted to tasing and beating the accuser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
