No mention of why police thought the allegations were false. Or if anyone was detained or arrested in conjunction with those allegations.
Michelle Holcomb charged with filing false police report
LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - Police say a Las Cruces woman has been arrested for falsely claiming that she had been sexually assaulted.
Police say 20-year-old Michelle Holcomb is charged with one count of filing a false police report. She's jailed at the Dona Ana County Detention Center on $1,000 bond.
Police say were dispatched to Holcomb's home Sunday afternoon after the woman claimed that she had been drugged and raped during a party Saturday night. She was taken to Memorial Medical Center for an examination while detectives followed up on her allegations.
Through their investigation, detectives learned that Holcomb's story was possibly fabricated. They say Holcomb later admitted she made up the story to avoid getting in trouble with her parents for staying out late Saturday night.
Link: http://www.newswest9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12146112
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Bet she wouldn't have done that if the penalty was 20 years in prison -- the same time an innocent man would have served upon conviction! They can bury her under a garbage heap as far as I'm concerned.
What Eugene Kanin said:
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pages 81-90
False Rape Allegations
Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, 1365 Winthrop E. Stone Hall, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
ABSTRACT:
With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n= 109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.
Off-topic:
Fact check please!
The site below is making some interesting claims about the US Constitution's 14th amendment.
How much of what they are saying about equal protection is true?
http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/14th.htm
Equal Protection
1. "Equal protection" never applied to any group other than slaves, both blacks and Whites, until 1961 "nearly a century after the fourteenth amendment was adopted".
2. The COURT, not the appropriate authority, then falsely claimed that the original authors intended for it to apply to ALL blacks, and to NOT apply to Whites who were slaves.
3. The court itself acknowledges that it never applied "equal protection" to women for more than a century, just as the original authors intended.
4. In 1971 in Reed v. Reed the COURT, not the appropriate authority, falsely claimed that the original authors actually intended for it to apply to women.
5. The Constitution itself *requires* a constitutional convention with three quarters agreeing to change such a foundational principle.
6. Such a constitutional convention NEVER took place.
7. It was thus the COURTS, and not the legislators nor "we the people", who undermined the "right to exclude".
8. It was the destruction of the 14th Amendment and not a war which was the real revolution.
9. The American people spoke on this issue by roundly defeating the Equal Rights Amendment which would have been the LEGAL way to give women "equal rights".
10. By the court's own rulings, the Supreme Court is repugnant to the US Constitution, all it's rulings since 1971 "null and void", and "inoperative as though it had never been passed".
11. Until this constitutional convention is held, and three quarters agree to apply "equal protection" to blacks and women, all rulings based on this misapplication of law are "null and void".
12. Those who took the oath to defend the US Constitution against foreign *and domestic* enemies are duty bound to consider the Supreme Court as this domestic enemy and an outlaw.
12. Those who took the oath to defend the US Constitution against foreign *and domestic* enemies are duty bound to consider the Supreme Court as this domestic enemy and an outlaw.
****
That's crazy talk. This is the sort of bullshit that is going to hurt the MRA movement very, very badly if we don't smack it down when we see it. The Supreme Court -- right or wrong -- is not a *domestic enemy.* This isn't 1776.
"They say Holcomb later admitted she made up the story to avoid getting in trouble with her parents for staying out late Saturday night."
Glad to see stories where the motive behind the FRA are explained. It let's the public see just how little provocation some women require to make such serious claims, and just how little regard they have for those potentially harmed due to their self-serving crime.
anonymous @6:25:00 AM
Agreed on #12. But I think the anonymous poster was asking about the specifics of the 14th amendment and its evolution.
Post a Comment