Read it, but you won't be surprised.
Judge sentences three people in staged assault case
A federal judge on Friday sentenced three people who concocted a bizarre scheme to stage a sexual assault in Waldo to boost the payoff on a civil lawsuit.
Agreeing that the scheme was “harebrained” and “ridiculous,” U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith sentenced Gordon F. Reabe, 52, Julie R. Bernet, 40, and Lindsey D. Crawford, 24, to a year and a day, 10 months and probation, respectively.
Smith also ordered each defendant to reimburse the Kansas City Police Department $5,259.37 for the costs of investigating the choreographed assault.
“The three of you attempted to pervert justice by injecting false facts into a civil case,” Smith said during Reabe’s hearing. “That could have resulted in an injustice. (Judges) take that quite seriously.”
Last fall, Crawford and Bernet were pursuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against an auto dealership where they formerly worked. They recruited Reabe to help stage an attack in hopes they could make it appear it was retaliation for their suit and help them obtain a bigger settlement.
On the night of Nov. 25, 2008, Reabe met the women in Crawford’s garage in Waldo. He duct-taped both women and struck them with a metal tool and a beer bottle. He also used a bottle, a “metal object” and a rose stem to sexually assault Crawford, according to court documents.
Leaving the garage, Reabe started the car and left it running to make it appear as if an attempted murder had taken place.
Bernet later told police that two masked men attacked them, and both women told investigators they thought the assault was related to their pending suit.
A few weeks later, when it appeared that the staged assault wasn’t persuading the auto dealer to settle, Bernet and Reabe arranged for another man to make a call to Bernet’s phone from a courtesy phone at the dealership.
Bernet then reported to police that she had received a threatening call from a man who said “next time you won’t be so lucky.”
But the man had used his own cell phone to make the call instead of the dealer phone, as Reabe had instructed, so police traced the call to him, unraveling the scheme.
A Jackson County judge dismissed the civil suit last month.
Smith recommended that Bernet serve five months of her sentence in a half-way house and five months in home confinement.
Crawford cooperated with investigators and thus received the lightest sentence, though she must serve six months of home confinement.
Link: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1584110.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
The man gets the harshest punishment?
Bombshell!
Doubly ironic, given that false rape claims are crimes that women have a near monopoly on.
Practice SAW - Safety Around Women.
- Never be alone in a room with a woman, always be in the company of other people.
- Use a small video camera and recorder in situations when you have to be alone with a woman.
- Practice the 3 foot rule, always maintain at least 3 feet between you and the woman.
- Never touch the woman in any way, always keep your hands to yourself.
- Watch your eyes, look directly when conversing with a woman, do not glance around her body.
- Watch your words, never discuss topics such as religion, feminism or human sexuality.
Fight back! Practice the steps above at all times.
RM
- Never be alone in a room with a woman, always be in the company of other people.
no, start "lifecamming" (google it)
- Use a small video camera and recorder in situations when you have to be alone with a woman.
no, all the time, not just when alone with a woman
- Practice the 3 foot rule, always maintain at least 3 feet between you and the woman.
yes, makes sure the cam has her in focal range
- Never touch the woman in any way, always keep your hands to yourself.
no problem, the camera captures consent, and lack of, and the events leading up to it.
- Watch your eyes, look directly when conversing with a woman, do not glance around her body.
no, if her cleavage or other body parts are on show, stare at them directly.
- Watch your words, never discuss topics such as religion, feminism or human sexuality.
no, always address them as "slut", talk about "my bitch", "my ex bitch", "poontang", "beaver" etc...
discuss, as much as possible, "feminazi", "mangina", and refuse to use any terms such as feminism, equality, rights, etc
Discuss, as much as possible, being able to piss standing up, not suffering from periods, not knowing what a glass ceiling is, etc etc.
When this is over, I'm going to be Borat the Misogynist on lifecam.
AfOR
Break the "gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance".
Using state and federal dollars to manufacture and disseminate faulty and inflammatory misinformation is not only a perversion of our legal system..it is un-constitutional.
Brothers, protect yourself. It's your responsibility. No one else will look out for you.
The desk is stacked against you.
It's hard to see what crime the man actually committed (other than not turning these two women in).
The two women asked him to tie them up and sexually assault them so that they could manufacture evidence to assist them in extortion. Clearly, if they asked him, they gave him consent. No assault occurred.
Since it was the two women who approached him, his role is that of an accessory to a crime, not a principal actor. He's not like a hitman, hired to commit a crime like murder - he committed no particular crime at all. No crime occurred at all until his actions were misrepresented to police as a sexual attack - and it was the women alone who did that.
It is scarcely believable that this man should get the most severe sentence, when both women were clearly the principal felons. I can't think of a clearer example of how the courts discriminate against men.
It's total BS except a friend of mine from KC told me that the guy had a few priors that was mentiond on one of the local channels.
Of course that is second hand as I don't live close enough to get local KC news nor watch TV.
One of the reasons men generally get longer sentneces overall is that they have priors, and that is taken into account during sentencing. But that can't account for the entire female sentencing discount. In this case, it might just be the reason. We don't know.
Giving the man in a multiple-offender crime a harsher sentence is SOP for most judges. Giving the woman a plea deal to rat out her male partner is SOP for most DAs.
I wonder what the actual charges were for each defendant. That's important, because that "year and a day" sentence indicates felony in most jurisdictions, while sentences under a year usually indicate misdemeanors.
Randian, good point. The felony conviction generally means "prison" as opposed to "county jail" in the U.S. "Prison" is a much more brutal existence in most places.
"Agreeing that the scheme was “harebrained” and “ridiculous,” U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith sentenced Gordon F. Reabe, 52, Julie R. Bernet, 40, and Lindsey D. Crawford, 24, to a year and a day, 10 months and probation, respectively."
This is how the judge managed to pass the blame onto the man. By agreeing that the scheme was 'hare-brained' and 'ridiculous', he down-plays the attempted extortion as something not very serious. While it's clear the crime is the brain-child of the women, and wouldn't have happened without their initiating it, they escape serious consequence because the crime itself is almost dismissed as laughable.
By creating this distinction, other factors such as prior convictions are elevated in importance, and the sentencing disparity can be applied with no great cognitive dissonance. The judge gets to practice his bias without any great challenge to his conscience.
Always be wary of women in any situation where police are involved. White knighting fools of men are desperate to cling on to their illusions, and the nearest man will do. If there's any suggestion that the nearest man is justifiably culpable of anything, he will end up wearing the principal blame for everything.
Anonymous said...
"Agreeing that the scheme was “harebrained” and “ridiculous,” U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith sentenced Gordon F. Reabe, 52, Julie R. Bernet, 40, and Lindsey D. Crawford, 24, to a year and a day, 10 months and probation, respectively."
This is how the judge managed to pass the blame onto the man. By agreeing that the scheme was 'hare-brained' and 'ridiculous', he down-plays the attempted extortion as something not very serious. While it's clear the crime is the brain-child of the women, and wouldn't have happened without their initiating it, they escape serious consequence because the crime itself is almost dismissed as laughable.
By creating this distinction, other factors such as prior convictions are elevated in importance, and the sentencing disparity can be applied with no great cognitive dissonance. The judge gets to practice his bias without any great challenge to his conscience.
Always be wary of women in any situation where police are involved. White knighting fools of men are desperate to cling on to their illusions, and the nearest man will do. If there's any suggestion that the nearest man is justifiably culpable of anything, he will end up wearing the principal blame for everything.
Nov 22, 2009 11:24:00 PM
Very well put.
I look forward to the day when the grand illusions will all disappear.
Post a Comment