Recounting the night that a young woman allegedly told a rape lie that led to an innocent cabbie's incarceration caused the cabbie, a father of three, to burst into tears in open court. A grown man, a working man, reduced to tears, because, apparently, a vicious, selfish woman knew she had the power to destroy any man if she wanted, and she did. According to the news story below: "Rosie Waggett, aged 18, is alleged to have only had 49p when she got into a cab and to have told an acquaintance that if she was made to pay the full fare she would say the taxi driver had tried to rape her."
As we previous explained here: "Male taxi drivers are among the groups frequently targeted for false rape claims.Don't want to pay your fare? If you're a woman, just cry 'rape!' and destroy a man's life to save a few dollars. Need a handy male to accuse of rape to explain some illicit sexual encounter? Your friendly cab driver will do just fine, thank you." Read that one again -- we recount a series of cab driver false rape horror stories. Looks like we'll be adding this one to the list:
Teenager 'made up assault' by cabbie
A TEENAGER is accused of making up a sexual assault which led to a taxi driver being arrested and held in custody for nine hours.
Rosie Waggett, aged 18, is alleged to have only had 49p when she got into a cab and to have told an acquaintance that if she was made to pay the full fare she would say the taxi driver had tried to rape her.
PJ Cars employee Mohammed Afsar was arrested and held in custody after Waggett made the claim to the police.
The father-of-three broke down in tears in the witness stand at Derby Crown Court when he gave evidence about the night.
Later, prosecutor Abi Joyce, while cross-examining Waggett, said: "You planned all along to make the allegation against whichever taxi driver turned up that night to avoid having to pay the fare and you were drunk."
Waggett, of Ednaston Avenue, Littleover, denies perverting the course of justice and has maintained she was telling the truth about the assault. She also denies being drunk.
A jury heard how she told the police that Mr Afsar had grabbed her leg and said: "If I don't get my money off you, I don't get sex off my wife. If I don't get sex off her then I have to get it somewhere."
Abi Joyce, prosecuting, said that Waggett had "made a false allegation".
"She told Troy Muir (an acquaintance), effectively, that she would make a false allegation – 'I will say the driver tried to rape me' – and that's exactly what she did," said Miss Joyce.
She told the jury that Waggett had given Mr Afsar 49p when he picked her up from a house in Willson Avenue, Littleover, at about 6am on January 17.
When they arrived at her Ednaston Avenue home she told him to wait while she got the rest of the fare, said Miss Joyce.
However, moments later two men came from the address and assaulted him, Miss Joyce told the jury.
Police arrived shortly after this incident and arrested Mr Afsar and held him at the police station for nine hours.
Mr Afsar told the jury how he had put his elbow on the horn and was crying and shouting for help as the men hit him.
He said that when he got home later that day his wife and children looked at his face and were "scared".
Miss Joyce said that as police were investigating the case they interviewed Mr Muir, who had been at the Willson Avenue house with Waggett before she was picked up by Mr Afsar.
Miss Joyce said: "It became apparent then that Rosie Waggett had planned to accuse the taxi driver of assault to avoid paying the fare."
Richard Thatcher, for Waggett, said Mr Muir had lied about Waggett, saying she would accuse the taxi driver of sexual assault, because she had turned him down when he had propositioned her. Mr Thatcher said to Mr Muir, who was giving evidence: "You decided to tell an untrue story because she gave you the brush-off."
Mr Muir denied he had lied.
He said: "I have no reason to lie. She is my sister's friend and I'm not going to get her into trouble for no reason.
"I'm standing here because I think it's wrong for a man to be accused of something that he didn't do."
Waggett told the jury she had given Mr Afsar £10 at the start of the journey and had expected change at the end.
She said that part-way through the drive she had climbed into the front seat after Mr Afsar had got lost. It was after this he had grabbed her thigh and threatened her, saying he wanted more money.
She said: "My body froze with shock. I was frightened."
Waggett said that when she arrived at her house she said she would get him more money and then went to the front door and was crying.
Her mum, Andrea Waggett, told the jury how she had been woken up by her daughter shouting and screaming for her, as she banged on the door.
The trial continues.
Link: http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/TEENAGER-ASSAULT-CABBIE/article-1310495-detail/article.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Not only do women lie about rape all the time, they do it for the most petty of reasons! There are plenty of woman liars out there.
That a man's life isn't worth as much as cab fare -- I mean, there are no words to describe that misandry.
Pierce Harlan just told me that I was "worse than a radical feminist!" for condemning the false rape accuser whom he wanted us to presume was innocent, so just out of curiousity -- why are we "assuming" that this rape accusation was false? Aren't you being unfair to this "young woman?"
Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this up on another thread, but Pierce locked the thread so that I couldn't respond and point out how weak and inconsistent he was being. Are you just going to delete this comment now, or are you actually going to defend your unbelievably illogical and chivalristic position?
Nope. Not going to entertain any more of this discussion with you. I've given you your opportunity to vent, and I've stated my position. Neither one of us will change the other's mind, and I don't have time for this back-and-forth. I will state my position now, once more, and if anyone doesn't like it, I'm sorry.
The standard we apply to men accused of rape should also apply to everyone else -- EVEN young women accused of false rape claims. It has to work both ways. I will not presume guilt based on a charge that was dropped without knowing the facts. I won't presume guilt based on a charge that has been dropped -- even for false rape claims -- because the police might have been mistaken. We don't know why the charge was dropped. There might have been good reason. Presuming guilt based on a charge after it was dropped is something the radical feminists do -- they still insist "something" happened in the Duke Lacrosse house. If that's something you want to debate, do it another another blog. On this blog, we don't battle injustice with more injustice.
In this cabbie case, there has been no adjudication one way or the other yet. Police believe there was a false rape claim, and the evidence cited strongly supports it. But I'm not there, so I don't know for certain, and it may result in a not guilty verdict. Just because there was an apparent false claim, it's not conclusive. And -- here's the key -- if it results in a not guilty verdict, I will respect the process and not claim she was a false rape accuser absent knowing the facts don't support it. The key is the process: juries almost always get it right about men accused of rape. (The radicals think they are inherently pro-men.) I have to respect the process absent evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you are reacting the way you are because you assume I have declared that woman "innocent." I have not. The presumption of innocence does not mean innocence in fact or actual innocence. But it's just as in the case of men accused of rape when the charges are dropped: is there a chance he committed rape? I suppose sometimes there is. But he deserves the presumption that he didn't do it.
We don't need to latch onto charges that are dropped to carry out our mission. We trivialize the seriousness of false rape claims when we sweep charges that are dropped into the false claim bin.
Seriously -- and I mean this -- I'm not going to allow this angry debate to go on. I encourage you to start your own site where your views, as peculiar as I find them, can be aired.
Pierce Harlan
But you're completely wrong. The two are not at all the same.
1- Men are routinely charged with rape, based on nothing more than a story -- which may or may not even make any sense. False rape accusers, however, are almost never charged in spite of overwhelming evidence, sometimes including multiple prior incidents, and if convicted face laughable sentences.
2- Women are almost never charged with filing a false police report unless hard evidence in the form of contradictory and/or provably false statements exists. The standard for charging for filing a false rape report is much higher than that used when charging a man with rape.
3- Charges against false accusers are routinely dismissed or not filed due to political correctness. This is not the case for innocent men who have been charged with rape.
4- "Innocent until proven guilty!" obviously has never meant that citizens aren't allowed to form opinions about cases, and men charged with rape are very often presumed guilty by the public BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. On the other hand, false rape accusers receive undeserved sympathy even when their guilt is not in question.
We don't need to know every detail about her false claim in order to condemn it. She filed a false report and now deserves to be punished.
This is just common sense, and perfectly consist with everything that has been posted on the blog up until Jennifer Stigers.
Seriously -- and I mean this -- I'm not going to allow this angry debate to go on.
So ban me then. See if I care. I hope Jennifer Stigers is willing to support you and your blog!
OK, NOW you're making good points. I just read your four point comment, and it's good. First, honestly, I share your frustration. I especially agree with this: ". . . and men charged with rape are very often presumed guilty by the public BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. On the other hand, false rape accusers receive undeserved sympathy even when their guilt is not in question." I wish we could be in the same room right now because I'd make it clear to you -- I think you're right about all that. In fact, that's why I started this blog. I share your anger. Really.
Second, you know what? I think it's a shame when people who are largely on the same page become mortal enemies because, reading your last post (not earlier insults -- of course, I ratcheted up the battle, didn't I?) I respect what you're saying. Now, I don't think I'm wrong as a matter of intellectual honesty, and I chose to make a point about the Stigers case because I really can't tell what happened, and I believe that we ought to be intellectually consistent in the false rape movement. But should I have done that? Hmm. Now you have me questioning myself. Maybe I should have just deleted the previous Stigers post and not highlighted decision to drop the charges. Maybe I'll still do that.
But I certainly won't ban you from this site -- your view is legitimate, you make good points, your passion is appreciated, and maybe the false rape movement can use dialogue like this once in a while.
There you go, son -- a first. You got Pierce Harlan questioning himself.
Pierce Harlan
OK, here's what I did. I deleted the most recent Stigers post, and I updated the story from May to show that the charges were dropped. We don't know why they were dropped, and I think it was only factual to do that. But I am swayed by Anonymous' post -- the point that really swayed was that there is a different standard for charging rape and false rape claims. The latter are hardly ever charged. That is absolute fact. To treat this exactly as we would treat a rape claim where the charges are dropped does a disservice the men and boys falsely accused.
Anonymous, from 4-point response to Pierce Harlan:
"1- Men are routinely charged with rape, based on nothing more than a story...
2- Women are almost never charged with filing a false police report unless hard evidence...
3- Charges against false accusers are routinely dismissed or not filed due to political correctness...
4- "Innocent until proven guilty!" obviously has never meant that citizens aren't allowed to form opinions about cases...'
Very solid points, indeed, yet, they speak to a need to reform inadequacies in the current system - NOT to a need that (we too) disregard the presumption of innocence (as a legal position - as citizens, we can form our opinions, of course, as you mentioned).
A presumption of innocence does not prevent charging for the crime, investigating the (possible) crime, nor trying the alleged perpetrator of such a crime.
But, failing to stake out the higher moral ground allows for a point of easy counter attack by hate-feminists. I'm sure you saw the efforts of a recent troll to try to find "inconsistencies" to probe as a means of invalidating the larger and more important arguments.
If advocates for men against false rape allegations argue for, on the one hand, a (more adequately enforced) presumption of innocence for men; but, on the other hand, not so for women accused of false claims; then the appearance of such obvious hypocrisy leaves open the potential that opponents of truth and justice (aka rape-mongering feminists) need not address the bigger issue of the presumption FOR men, but can simply seek to invalidate the entire point by demonstrating the expressed hypocrisy. [like it or not, throughout the entire realm of Men’s Rights Advocacy, men ARE going to be held to a higher standard than women will ever be. Women/feminists can get a way with lies and hypocrisy without any fear that their arguments will be invalidated (overall) by the use of such underhanded tactics – men have never enjoyed such a luxury, and never will]
At least, this is how I see the need to extend the same presumption to women that we would like to see extended to men playing out in the public sphere.
Pierce Harlan - "But I am swayed by Anonymous' post -- the point that really swayed was that there is a different standard for charging rape and false rape claims."
Changing the standards towards better uniformity needed impede on the need for that "presumption of innocence".
Investigations, charges, and trials are routinely based on a certain level of probability that the "presumed innocent" may have actually committed the crime.
The real problem (as I see it, anyhow) is that men accused of rape (unlike those accused of other crimes) ARE NOT given the benefit of that presumption - and this inconsistency with the precepts of justice are what need to be changed.
If that presumption were to be properly applied, authorities would then be forced to question of themselves whether or not they had sound evidence before proceeding with arrests, incarcerations, investigations (sic - since they are routinely out of the correct chronological order), and prosecutions.
What I believe that you originally intended, that there should also be no rush to judgment by authorities WRT women's potentially false claims, would simply mean that authorities would likewise have to question the evidence before moving forward at each juncture.
"uniformity needed impede"
needed?
Make that "need not", and the sentence just might make some sense.
Pierce: I apologize. This is a really frustrating issue for me and I got angry. You're here putting all of this out there, providing an essential service, and it is appreciated.
Regarding some of the other points: obviously I do support a legal presumption of innocence for women charged with making false accusations, and I generally agree with the idea that once charges have been dropped, the former suspect should be allowed to go on with his or her life, not made a pariah due to an accusation alone.
BUT... the problem is that we have a situation in which an entire class of criminal is being given a free lunch by the system -- so I don't see how we can just say, "Oh well, they dropped the charges, she must have been innocent." (That's not exactly what Pierce was saying, of course.)
And here's another problem: just because we support a societal as well as legal presumption of innocence for accused women and men doesn't mean that the feminists and tabloidist are suddenly going to do the same! And obviously we don't want to handcuff ourselves by taking so much moral highground that we leave feminists and others with a free hand to screw over innocent men while guilty women are able to thrive under a blanket of presumed innocence.
Of course, if we ever do get to the point where rape claims are treated with the skepticism they deserve, and false accusers are also routinely held accountable for their actions, it will make much more sense to say of dismissed cases, "let's give her the benefit of the doubt."
Still -- good, legitimate points all around. And unlike some feminist website where anyone rocking the boat gets banned, we have a vigorous discussion and then return to focusing on the causes that mean so much to us.
Thanks, Anon. I think this has turned into an incredibly good discussion. And when slwerner jumps in, he always ratchets up the quality.
"Changing the standards towards better uniformity need not impede on the need for that 'presumption of innocence.'"
And they don't.
The problem here is one of approach.
I could have left up the most Stigers post and patted myself on the back for being so very even-handed. But the problem with that is this: in the real world, it is incredibly difficult to obtain a prosecution for false rape claim, much more difficult than it should be, and much more difficult than it is to obtain a prosecution for rape based on a similar quantum of evidence. Women are not even arrested for such crimes whereas men are put through hell for rape claims that readily turn out to be false. Of that I have no doubt.
So, you see, it is not NEWS deserving of its own post on THIS site to report that prosecutors have decided not to pursue the false rape charges in the Stigers case. Rather, it is business-as-usual. Now, I need to make clear that the decision not to charge Ms. Stigers might have been entirely appropriate, we don't know what went on and I won't presume she's a liar. But I don't think it's appropriate to treat THAT decision the same as a decision not to charge a man for rape.
So, yes, I can pound my chest and tell everyone how even-handed I am; OR I can say, yes, we need to honor the presumption of innocence even for women who make false rape claims -- while recognizing the reality some people receive the presumption of innocence far more readily than others. I think the latter approach is more in keeping with our mission here.
Enabling false rape accusers is a piggish perversion of the modern American law enforcement / gender feminist Alliance!!
" we need to honor the presumption of innocence even for women who make false rape claims --"
How can you do that without encroaching on the presumption that the man is innocent?
What anon has requested is a little bit ridiculous. A rough analogy would be if he/she was suggesting that we 'assume' eyewitnesses to crimes aren't lying, thus opening the door (even wider) for people to go around saying, "I saw so-and-so assault someone". It effectively encourages lying.
I'm also suspicious as to why this line of argument has never come up until rape is the crime being discussed?
"If that presumption [of innocence] were to be properly applied, authorities would then be forced to question of themselves whether or not they had sound evidence before proceeding with arrests, incarcerations, investigations."
Are you saying that there should be no investigation into an alleged rape without sound evidence? I think you've got it backwards!
btw, what does the law consider to be sound evidence, particularly when a man claims the encounter was consensual?
Anon-Thurs
The authorities can investigate all they want. But to arrest without strong evidence is wrong.
This is very simple. For each case, you ask one question: can this whole thing be explained by supposing that she just made it up?
If the answer is "yes" then obviously you do not arrest, and a further investigation into the woman's background to determine if she has a history of making up lies is also appropriate.
Anonymous - "Are you saying that there should be no investigation into an alleged rape without sound evidence? I think you've got it backwards!"
I'm not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote.
I was referring to the question of whether or not to proceed on at each juncture of the investigation.
What happens now is that what is "backwards" is that authorities too often arrest, then begin to investigate.
If, as I suggest, they first stopped to question whether or not there was a reason that a man would need to be arrested first, they would likely wait until their investigation produced evidence that they needed to proceed to that step.
They should be looking towards where the evidence IS taking them (which, of course, could well be to the conclusion that the claim is false), not reconsidering what they might have done wrong, in retrospect.
The Growing Problem Of Wrongful Conviction
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/independent_review.htm
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/blackstone/blackstone.htm
http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm
Texas DNA exonerees find prosperity after prison
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_exoneree_millionaires
Texas DNA exonerees find prosperity after prison
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_exoneree_millionaires
In ALL cases where anyone, man or woman claims to be or have been the victim of a crime, they are equally deserving of the presumption of innocence. IMHO, sometimes the police,investigators, the DA, prosecutors, the media and, the public cannot tell who the real criminal is when one is accused of a crime. This is because sometimes all of the evidence points ( or seems to point) to the accused. Is it sometimes possible that the letter of the law or, the definition of a crime impedes or doesn't allow questioning the word of the victim or, any witnesses who claim to have witnessed the crime. One thing I do want to point out, just as there are false accusers out there, there are false witnesses. Sometimes, IMHO, evidence can be arranged or manufactured as to implicate someone. Just a few thoughts of mine.
The real problem is that innocent men are presumed guilty even when there is absolutely no evidence against him. Some woman has told a story, and the police and prosecution have put their stamp of approval on the story, and the media has concealed her identity, thus implying guilt.
But there is no more true evidence than her story, which is often a complete lie. To equate this with a case which involves solid evidence is ridiculous.
False rape accusations -- no matter how ridiculous -- get rubberstamped by the cops, by the prosecutor, by the bogus court proceeding that always declares it credible enough to go to trial, by the media, and by "abuse experts."
That's a lot of institutional power backing up a cheap con artist. Meanwhile the public has no idea how many times she's committed rape fraud or how inconsistent her statements are.
The general public has lost perspective when it comes to rapes versus false rape accusations. It has lost all perspective because it has been fed faulty and inflammatory misinformation for the last 25 years.
BREAK THE ALLIANCE!!!
Post a Comment