Before you read the news story below, here's a quiz:
Question: How do we justify handing one class of citizens the power to deprive another class of citizens of their liberty, merely on the say so of the first class?
Answer: By convincing everyone that the members of the first class don't lie about rape.
But they do. And that's the problem. Read the news story below.
Woman Recants; Ex-Firefighter Released
Woman Recants Story She Was Raped In 2006
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A former firefighter accused of rape was released from jail late Friday and court officials said the charges will likely be dropped after his accuser changed her story and said the sex was consensual.
Daniel Foote, 54, was charged after police said DNA evidence from the woman who claimed to be raped in August 2006 recently matched that of Foote.
State Attorney Angela Corey told Channel 4 late Friday that the woman has recanted her story.
Foote had lived under house arrest in his Westside home since December when he pleaded guilty to three counts of bribery in an unrelated case. As he was processed into the system on that conviction, a DNA sample was taken and entered into a state database.
When Foote's DNA matched that from the woman who claimed to be raped, he was arrested and held without bond.
On Friday, Judge Virginia Norton signed an order allowing Foote to be processed out of jail on his own recognizance. Once the case can be reviewed, the charges may be dropped.
Channel 4's Jennifer Bauer tried to talk to Foote shortly after he was released from the Duval County Jail to tell his side of the story, but he did not comment.
Link: http://www.news4jax.com/news/23248992/detail.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
It's the same situation that those falsely accused of child sex crimes face.
"Children don't lie" prevails, unless the child says it didn't happen, or tries to recant.
THEN children are perfectly capable of lying.
I guess as it goes with children, it goes with adult women.
"Women don't lie about rape", unless they later admit it didn't happen, or try to recant.
Of course, she isn't named.
Anon at 10:37: It's a point we've made here many times: The fact is, women, like men, lie about everything under the sun but, mirabile dictu, according to misandrists who claim women don't lie about rape, the subject of rape acts as a truth serum, a magic elixir that forces anyone not possessing a Y-Chromosome to speak incontrovertible truth. When it comes to rape, one gender is incapable of telling a lie while the other is incapable of telling anything but lies. EXCEPT, of course, when the woman recants her rape claim -- in that instance, she automatically reverts to being a damned liar -- double-X chromosome be damned.
When a law enforcement community gets so "perverted" that it no longer protects the innocent, the innocent in society no longer protect the law enforcement.
Break the missinformation Alliance, Break the perversion.
"EXCEPT, of course, when the woman recants her rape claim -- in that instance, she automatically reverts to being a damned liar -- double-X chromosome be damned."
After the Hofstra accuser recanted, there were all of these feminists on the internet arguing that she only recanted because she wasn't believed and supported, even though arrests were made on her word alone, and that it still was rape, even after the video proved that it wasn't (because she might have been drinking, or coerced, or there were parts that weren't recorded, etc.)
There are people who still say the same things about the Duke case.
What about that case in England where after police video proved it was an obvious and deliberate hoax, feminists still defended the perpetrator?
There is nothing, no amount of evidence, that they will accept as proof of a false rape accusation because they are completely irrational. Many of these feminists know that women lie about rape because they have done so themselves. Despite countless examples to the contrary, they still insist on clinging to the bizarre and supernatural belief that women never lie about rape. It the psychiatric definition of a delusion.
The perversion of the law enforcement community over the last 30 years that lets women and girls lie about rape, will only meet its logical end when Rape accussations fall like rain, and society no longer believes women and girls when they say they have been raped.
This perversion of the legal community has given the gender/ Raunch community much agitation propaganda for their Rapeklan Rallies, but immediate gratification always has a long term price.
Letting women and girls lie to law enforcement about rape is unchristian, it's immoral, it's a perversion of a legal system, and it's un-constitutional.
Anon at 11:26: That would make a great article -- the feminist insistence that "something" happened even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it didn't. It illustrates the extent to which ideology trumps even verifiable fact; it also underscores the degree to which they don't realize, or care, whether their insistence will be viewed as irrational by the general public.
Hysteria is irrational. Hysteria should always have a bold counterpart to keep it balanced, But American Academia is now dominated by perverts, and perverts are rarelly bold enough to stand for anything accept their own adgendas.
If law enforcement started charging false rape accussers, it would quickly take the faulty and inflamatory, blind irrational ignorance factor out of their Rapeklan rallies which give them all their power.
The gender/Raunch community as a whole, have ridden the Rapeklan rallies to power..to the degree hetero-sexual males feel a bit unwanted on college campusses. Look at the numbers.
Someone should start a web site naming women who make false accusations. List everything about them: name, address, employer, parents, etc.
What are the legalities relating to naming rape victims?
What are the legalities relating to naming false rape accusers?
Based on my quick read of Wikipedia's "Rape Shield Law" entry:
1) When challenged in court, they were routinely struck down as unconsititutional.
2) Regarding newspapers & broadcast media, "as a matter of courtesy, most media in the US do not disclose the alleged victim's name". If it is a matter of "courtesy", then to me, it isn't illegal to publish them.
I am sure that a lot of feminists do realize that false rape allegations are more common than they claim. But they believe that men in general are such vile and undeserving creatures who already have too much and are responsible for all society's ills, so all is fair, and men always have it coming.
Even if the accused man did not actually rape anyone, the chances are he has probably done something else bad in his life to deserve such treatment. He might have looked at a naughty picture once. Or made a sexist joke. Or not bent over backwards to please the women in his life.
Based on some of the comments we get from feminists here, it often becomes clear that most of them support false allegations. It is not even that they don't care about false allegations. They actually love false allegations.
To most feminists, men are not their fellow human beings entitled to basic rights of freedom, dignity, due process and the presumption-of-innocence. Men are subhuman, an enemy army to be crushed and subjugated.
American liberal arts colleges and universities are infested with liberal groupthink -- to be a member of the "club" you must buy into certain belief systems, including the belief that the Democratic Party is inherently superior to, and more tolerant than, the greedy, war-mongering GOP; that global warming is a reality and a serious threat to the planet; that the patriarchy is a destructive force and that boys need to be reprogrammed to disrupt the cultural poison of masculinity; that anyone who opposes or wants to limit abortion rights is a misogynist and a hater; and that men's rights groups are comprised of angry deadbeat dads who want to rape women. You see, these so-called enlightened people trade in stereotypes, like Obama's "guns and religion" stereotype, and the reason it's so difficult to get through to them is that they've internalized the correctness of their beliefs to the point that these self-evident truths are part of their identities. Most are secularists who loathe religion. For all their "tolerance," they have a very dim view of middle America: they ridicule people who go to church, people who hunt, people who watch Nascar, people who shop at Wal-Mart, and people who eat at Olive Garden. They are simply superior beings who speak in sentences that that are purposefully complext and unclear because that marks them as a member of the "club."
Oh, they don't leave comments at sites like this because they've convinced themselves we are misogynists. The real reason is that they can't respond to us, and it would destroy their fragile egos if they suspected we've gotten the better of them in an argument.
Anon at 12:16: At one time I thought that was a good idea but now I realize it would actually be counter-productive. So very few are actually exposed that it would wrongly suggest that there are few false accuses.
Nick: rape feminists have convinced themselves that FRA problem is minimal compared to the rape problem.
"They are simply superior beings who speak in sentences that that are purposefully complext and unclear because that marks them as a member of the "club." "
One of my favorite sayings is "an intellectual is a person who has been educated beyond their intellectual capacity".
It seems to be a common tactic among much of the academic left to wrap their arguments up in overly turgid, arcane theory and language in order to disguise the underlying fallacies of what they are arguing. It is a form of the well-known 'baffle them with bullshit' syndrome. Indeed, from the work I have done tutoring undergraduates and marking papers they often pick up the trick early.
It is sometimes referred to as the KICS principle (Keep it Complicated Stupid!).
Pierce, the most consistent characteristic of people who simply go along with politically correct views on these things is that they are weak, insecure people who lack the intellectual or moral courage to really look at things objectively and draw their own conclusions. They need to feel the security of being part of the wonderful groupthink.
People who are actually able to think for themselves are a minority of the population. Most people have a fairly narrow set of prejudices and ideas that are programmed into them from a young age, and which they find difficult to get past.
"What are the legalities relating to naming rape victims?
What are the legalities relating to naming false rape accusers?"
It's perfectly legal as long as there is a regard for the truth.
"If it is a matter of "courtesy", then to me, it isn't illegal to publish them."
It isn't, and their names are public record. Although I notice that even sites like the Smoking Gun still black out information. Didn't they do that with the name of Roethlisberger's recent accuser?
"So very few are actually exposed that it would wrongly suggest that there are few false accuses."
I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I know, you can obtain the names of the false accusers you post here through the Freedom of Information Act. Knowing their names might be published might be some deterrent.
Another thing we could do, is take men's word for it. Let the falsely accused submit the names of their accusers.
1:25: the vast majority of false rape accusations are disposed of very early in a criminal investigation, before it becomes a formal report and long before it becomes a news story. What we see here is the tip of the iceberg. Providing even a comprehensive list of all we know about would only be a drop in the ocean of false rape claims. Tracking down names of women the news outlets won't name would be cost-prohibitive would require more time than we could possibly devote to it.
In theory it's a good idea, I just don't see it ever happening in an effective way because of the way FRAs are reported and treated.
As for inviting men to name their false accusers, there are legal and philosphic problems with that. Putting aside the legalities -- exposure to possible libel suits -- I personally find it distasteful to provide a public forum for people to accuse others of serious criminality without due process of law. Yes, the news outlets improperly do it to men with rape stories, and I have a major problem with how those are covered, as our readers know. This is also what the feminists sometimes have done with their Clothesline projects. Remember when some encouraged women to write the name of their "rapist" on shirts? I screamed bloody loud about that, and I can't condone the same tactic for FRAs.
Off-topic:
MSNBC recently presented a Sean Penn production: "Witch Hunt" about several couples in California who were sent to prison on false charges of sexual abuse of children (including their own children).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29993322/
It will re-air on April 26th 3PM EST on MSNBC.
http://janalerner.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/08/2652879-sean-penns-witch-hunt-leave-questions-for-the-producers-and-people-featured-in-the-program
We may want to use the link above to contact the producers of this program and see if they would be willing to do another film similar to it concerning false rape claims. Perhaps it is a job for the false claims strike team.
"false claims strike team"
Oh man ... we've been around for one entire day and everyone STILL screws up our name! ;)
It's not really what FRSF exists for ... the purpose of FRSF may become more clear in time. As it stands, I think that there have been far more private discussions between its writers, as to its purpose, than we have made clear to everyone. We're getting round to that part, just give it a little time. I have a big piece planned which should spell it out.
As for this, I would defer to the Archivists.
As for inviting men to name their false accusers, there are legal and philosphic problems with that. Putting aside the legalities -- exposure to possible libel suits -- I personally find it distasteful to provide a public forum for people to accuse others of serious criminality without due process of law.
***
What about the false accusers who have already been convicted of a crime, but didn't serve an appropriate sentence?
The government justifies convicting men without evidence on the grounds that women are helpless, and therefore entitled to special treatment. This translates directly into "we can't prosecute your liar because so many women are scared to come forward to report being raped." A less capable victim group (largely imaginary) is being posited as an excuse for depriving the falsely accused of their right to justice.
I do not agree with the sex offender registry but as long as it exists false accusers should be on it.
I work for people and I would like to know if the woman I'm working for has filed false rape claims before.
Considering my entire life can be destroyed by her. I would be forced to live under a bridge and the whole world would know about me if I peed in public.
So I agree the women and men who falsely accuse people if not listed in the sex offender registry a list should be made by someone to keep men safe. They are a far greater risk to guys than probably 95% of the guys on the sex offender registry are to women.
The downside to a false accuser database is that some of the victims might be put at risk.
That wouldn't be the case if the legal system was anything but a sick joke, but as we all know these false accusers are almost always believed, often even if they already have a long history of making false accusations. Put these liars on a database and they will respond the same way they do to all of life's misfortunes: by making even more false accusations against innocent people.
The other risk is that they will enjoy the attention they get as a result, and that many people will react sympathetically to the liars.
Am I reading these comments on here right?
That some of the posters think false accusers should remain anonymous????
Speaking for the UK/EU...
A firm's HR department, and subsequently, Legal department, and of late starting to live in fear of this whole scenario.
If you are falsely accused at work by another employee in a work related situation... start thinking annual salary x 20 years compo...
Rape hysteria is a dangerous phenomena. The Klu-Klux-Klan rose to power using Rape hysteria, and very few folks dared to try and stop them.
Rape hyseria is a dangerous phenomena. The gender/Raunch feminists on college campusses also seem to be exploiting "Rape hysteria" to further their adgenda, and very few folks dare to stand up against them.
As someone who was falselly accussed of a rape that simply never happenned, and watching first hand the perversion of the legal system that handled my case, I'm gratefull for this web site. Thank you!!
Face of a rape liar
Sunday, 25 April 2010
"This is the drunken liar whose false rape claim almost wrecked the life of a grammar school pupil.
Lying Lindsay Gorman, known as Linzi, sparked a huge manhunt when she told police she had been sexually assaulted late at night in Belfast's Botanic Gardens in April 2008."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/face-of-a-rape-liar-14780946.html
That some of the posters think false accusers should remain anonymous????
****
Hell no. Reporting the name of the victim of a false accusation while concealing the name of the liar is discriminatory and shouldn't even be legal.
Pierce, just to clarify a couple of things. I am sure that most of the rape feminists genuinely believe that false rape allegations are less common than they actually are. However, I am sure enough of them realize by now that the figure must be higher than the 2% canard they keep trotting out.
My point is that there is an element of deliberate dishonesty, in addition to a fair amount of delusionism, in all this.
As for the point about approving of false rape allegations, it has become increasingly clear from a lot of the comments posted here from feminists and hyper-chivalrists that they approve of or justify false rape allegations to a large degree in order to keep men in their place. Anyone who is a regular here must have noticed it as well. The problem with making such a claim is that it can appear to some people as ad hominem hyperbole, a bit like the opposite claim that we are all rape apologists. Therefore, I don't make such claims without a solid foundation. But as I say, based on a lot of the comments we get here the shoe clearly fits.
Nick, all due respect to you and anyone else who doesn't accept this, I believe it is exactly the opposite: rape feminists are intent on not having anyone know about false rape claims. They don't want them publicized. They complain that newspapers give them far too much prominence. They think that if they keep insisting false rape claims are a myth, they will marginalize those of us who work to prove they aren't.
Remember the incredible anger for Duke and Hofstra and others on the part of rape feminists? The die-hards kept insisting that "something" happened in both cases -- they couldn't bear to admit they were lies.
False rape claims are something the rape feminists would like to see disappear. They are a major stumbling block standing in their way. They always have been, and that's why feminist legal scholars had to invent the two percent canard out of whole cloth.
Sorry, this is one time I can't agree with you.
Backing up to the first post - my point was not about women and girls lying about rape.
Women and girls, men and boys have all lied about rape.
My point was - it's the RAPE ACCUSATION and subsequent CONVICTION that is protected at all costs - no matter where it came from.
To accuse is to be granted 'victim' sainthood, it does not matter what gender is accusing.
Accusations open career doors, they offer opportunities for 'saviors' to come forward and save - accusations generally speaking are some hero's bread and butter IF the story holds together enough for a 'win'.
After the case has gone forward enough to be winnable, or to the point of conviction, to recant or admit it was a lie is against the rules.
Accusations and convictions MUST be protected and preserved at all costs.
There have been countless numbers of cases where DNA testing has been denied or the evidence produced still does not gain exoneration.
Females certainly DO enjoy 'special treatment' in the legal system - until they commit the sin of telling the truth and exposing the injustice system.
""false claims strike team"
Oh man ... we've been around for one entire day and everyone STILL screws up our name! ;)"
Choose whatever collective name you want:
http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/kennel/collectives.htm. It may eventually grow to be bigger than a 'force' though. ;)
Thanks for the clarification on the purpose of the FRSF.
Pierce, there have been a number of studies done that show I am only ever wrong no more than 2% of the time. I am not saying it never happens that I am wrong. But it is rare. My pronouncements are almost infallible, and as a general rule should always be believed :-)
"My point is that there is an element of deliberate dishonesty, in addition to a fair amount of delusionism, in all this."
I agree. There are those that are lying and know that they are lying, and those that are either so ignorant or irrational they can believe what they are saying.
Nick, I am wrong at much, much higher levels, so I certainly could be wrong about this, too! And, trust me when I tell you that your insights are always respected here.
Pierce, thank you for your kind words. I don't actually think you are wrong on this. It is more likely that I didn't explain my point adequately.
I agree that the rape feminists wish to suppress all evidence of false allegations. They cannot be seen to be openly encouraging false allegations, as this would give the whole game away.
However, if you read between the lines, there is a lot of covert sympathy for false accusers among the feminists and chivalrists. It is like the poster who said that although Roethlisberger was perhaps not guilty of rape, he was guilty of being creepy and did not deserve our support. There is an implication that falsely accused men always have it coming. It is a kind of dog-whistling to encourage false accusers.
Much of the campaign by rape feminists, and related issues like draconian sexual harassment policies and the like, has less to do with stopping real crime than it is simply a general campaign against male heterosexuality. In a sense, the fact that some men are actually guilty of sexual offences is merely a useful tool in the broader campaign. The rape feminists are, if anything, less concerned with stopping actual rape or other crime than they are with simply criminalizing male sexuality more generally. Campaigning against rape, sexual harassment, pedophilia or anything else is simply a useful legitimate front for their true agenda.
I know you are already aware of all this. I just want to illustrate how it ties in with the other points I was making.
Nick, beautifully stated, and I couldn't agree more. Yes, you and I are on the same page, and I am sure I didn't read your prior explanation with as much care as it deserved.
from posted article - "Daniel Foote, 54, was charged after police said DNA evidence from the woman who claimed to be raped in August 2006 recently matched that of Foote.
State Attorney Angela Corey told Channel 4 late Friday that the woman has recanted her story."
Sadly, the reporter here either did not do a very good job of reporting, or did not bother to get more, and more telling information about the details of the case.
While some here are quick to "jump" on the police for some imagined misconduct here, let's take a more sober look at what transpired:
In Aug, 2006 a woman went to police to report a rape after having had consensual sex, and a DNA sample was obtained, and a case open based on her report.
[My speculation - women's boyfriend or husband detected that she'd had sex with someone, and she played the "drug into the bushes and violently raped by a stranger" card, with a follow-up to police to try to prove her veracity.
Shew also likely gave police a deliberate mis-match description of her "attacker" so as to throw them off her lover, thinking nothing more would ever come of it]
Now, I would ask our anonymous "police enable FRA's" grenade-tosser to explain what the police should have done with her initial report instead of treating it as a possible case of rape? I'd argue they simply did the job they are charged with doing.
Now, jumping ahead three and a half years, her lover gets himself into some other unrelated legal mess, and has to give up a DNA specimen. He was never a suspect before (like due to not matching the description she'd given). But now, the most tell-tale evidence suggests he's the long-sought rapist.
Given the way things work in the legal justice system, he has only one hope - that she'll confess that it was consensual sex.
But, what might compel her to admit to this. Consider that the detective who picked up the case after DNA match finger the lover likely reviewed the old case file and noted that he looked nothing like her original description. Consider that this would likely trigger his suspicions about her story, or at least be a detail that would need to be resolved if the case where to now go to trial.
Now, also consider that it was quite likely the questions posed to her by that detective that unraveled her lie, and lead to her confession.
If my speculation is correct, then what can be our quarrel with LE on this case?
And even supposing it was just her conscience that compelled her to see her lover exonerated (assuming that women have consciouses capable of overcoming their desire for self preservation, unlike one Biurney Peguero Gonzalaez), what is it that the police can be held accountable for?
My problem withe those repeated incendiary boilerplate posts largely comes down to the fact that, like the poor examples of journalism we so often see devoted to FRA cases failing to give pertinent details which might explain things, those posts FAIL to explain how they are at all meaningful to a given story.
"My point is that there is an element of deliberate dishonesty, in addition to a fair amount of delusionism, in all this."
I agree. There are those that are lying and know that they are lying, and those that are either so ignorant or irrational they can believe what they are saying.
***
False rape accusers are like vampires.
On one hand, they are tormented by a deep need to manipulate and deceive, causing grievous harm to innocent and making a mockery of those who are foolish enough to want to help them.
And on the other, they freely choose their crimes.
To say that 'false rape accusers can't help it' is just like saying, 'that rapist was really, really horny, so he shouldn't be held accountable.'
Post a Comment