Saturday, April 30, 2011

Rape liar can't keep story straight: first says her 'rapist' was white, then changes it to black

At two o'clock last Monday morning, Natalie Nicholas, a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania woman, went to Abington Memorial Hospital and reported that she had been raped and robbed.  She claimed she had been beaten to unconsciousness and when she awoke, the supposed offender was sexually assaulting her.

The only problem is, her story didn't add up. It had inconsistencies. "At one point during the investigation, Nicholas changed the description of the offender from being a white male to being a black male."

By 4:45, less than three hours after she had arrived at the hospital, detectives could definitively say that Nicholas had lied about her attack. Nicholas admitted to lying, and has been charged with making a false report to police. She will also be billed for the costs associated with the investigation.

Sources: and

Friday, April 29, 2011

Gender 101: Father Love

By Connie Chastain*

By now, news of the devastating, late-April storm system that strafed the southeast United States with over 100 tornadoes has reached around the globe. As of this writing, the death toll has risen to 280.

Professional and amateur videos of funnel clouds whirling with debris have been uploaded to YouTube and garnered hundreds of thousands of views. The monster tornado, more than a mile wide, that tore through Tuscaloosa and Birmingham, Alabama like a giant chainsaw, is chilling to watch, even on a small computer screen from the safety of home well outside Tornado Alley.

Inevitably, after such disasters occur, they are followed by stories of incredible heroism, and the deadly tornadoes of April 2011 are no exception. Very likely, most of the stories, and the heroes, will remain unknown to the public. But some of them simply had to be told.

Following the tornado coverage comes the report from Covington, Louisiana of Police Lt. Wade Sharp, whose heroism saved his young daughter's life, but at the cost of his own.

They were camping in Mississippi, north of Jackson, when the tornadoes ripped through the campsite. Sharp threw himself over his daughter to protect her moments berfore a tree fell on their campsite, hitting his head and killing him instantly. The New Orleans Times-Picayune's website,, carried the full story here: Covington police lieutenant killed saving daughter in Mississippi storm

Mothers, too, are moved to feats of heroism, sometimes fatal to themselves, to save or protect their children. Less than two months before the April tornadoes, on March 5, Jalisa Granger sheltered her 15-month-old son with her own body when a tornado leveled their home in Rayne, Louisiana. Granger was killed by a falling tree, but her son survived. CBS News told her story here: Mom sheltering child dies in La. tornado.

Stories of fathers saving their children abound on the Internet. Google "father saves daughter" and see what I mean. Fortunately, not all these fathers were killed in the process of saving their daughters or sons from danger. Moreover, men will jump in to save strangers in peril, often heedless of the danger to themselves. Lt. Sharp's history included saving a man from a burning structure, and suffering smoke inhalation. He was a good, honorable and heroic man, risking his life for others, on a cop's salary.

This is not surprising, though it is awe-inspiring, to people who live in the real world, outside the feminist bubble where demonizing men as the oppressors of women and children is the order of the day. I bring it up because I know feminists read this blog, and I like the idea of waving the reality of male nobility and heroism before their jaundiced eyes and hardened hearts.

Covington police lieutenant killed saving daughter in Mississippi storm:

Mom sheltering child dies in La. tornado:

*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is

US Ambassador: Gaddafi Distributes Viagra to Troops So They Will Rape Civilians in Rebel-Friendly Areas of Libya

In an effort to rally support among nations growing increasingly skeptical about NATO-led attacks on Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya -- especially India, Russia and China -- US ambassador Susan Rice announced in a closed door meeting at the United Nations Security Council that Gaddafi's forces were issuing Viagra, the drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, to soldiers "so that they go out and rape" civilians in areas that support the rebels.

Rice did not provide any supporting evidence for her allegation. She made the comment as part of a debate with another envoy to highlight that "the Coalition is confronting an adversary doing reprehensible things."

Sources: here and here.

Rice's offhand, and frankly bizarre, remark should be investigated with the utmost seriousness and objectivity before it is permitted to influence NATO policy regarding Libya. Rape allegations are lobbed too often and too easily for no reason other to achieve an emotional, knee jerk reaction, and to unfairly convict the accused in the court of public opinion.

The stakes in this instance, for the world community, are too high to allow a false rape claim to stand, and that's true even if we think the military action against Gaddafi is justified.

As an African American woman, Ms. Rice should be sensitive to her own nation's tragic history of overreacting to false cries of rape, and to the devastating impact such overreaction has had on the black community.  It is, of course, hoped that her allegation was not concocted out of whole cloth in an effort to engender rape hysteria and to paint the opposition as evil. If it was, Rice should be summarily dismissed from her post. 

The power to cry "rape" should be reserved for those times when it actually occurs, and that's true whether the speaker is a rape victim or a UN ambassador purporting to report on a war atrocity.

Thanks to Aharon

Why isn't the men's rights blogging community making a big deal out of the most important false rape issue in recent times?

I refer, of course, to the Department of Education's April 4 directive and the related proposed SaVE Act now under consideration in the United States Senate. But outside of FRS, Paul Elam's A Voice for Men, and The Spearhead, few bloggers have even mentioned it.  Why?

I feel like the lighthouse described by the old American Indian:

Lighthouse, him no good for fog.
Lighthouse, him whistle,
him blow,
him ring bell,
him flash light,
him raise hell;
but fog come in just the same.

Man Alleging Sexual Assault Filed a False Report

Once again, a person who lied is called the "victim". Of what .... stupidity? And isn't it interesting that his name and vital statistics are published.  When have we ever seen that happen with a female false accuser?

Clarksville, Tenn. - On April 4, 2011, around 8:25 pm, officers were called to investigate an alleged sexual assault which had already occurred. According to the victim, Gregory Shearer, a gun was pointed at him and he was forced to have sexual relations at various locations around Clarksville.

An investigation by Detective Ray Colon, which spanned several hours, uncovered several discrepancies in Shearer’s story. He determined the gun was actually a starter pistol and Shearer knew it was not a real gun. The alleged victim had been left alone on several occasions and came in contact with multiple individuals and did not call Police for assistance. Detective Colon ascertained that a sexual assault did not occur and Shearer had fabricated the story.

GREGORY CHARLES SHEARER (w/m, DOB: 10/28/89, Given Address: 449 Shelby Street, Clarksville) was booked into Montgomery County Jail and charged with: FALSE REPORT, BOND: $2,500.


Thursday, April 28, 2011

Jennifer, Suzy, Gina, Judith, Maria, Kathy . . .

. . . are some of the names from the most recent batch of signatures on our on-line Petition to Reject the SaVE Act.

This is not a "men's" issue; it's a "people's" issue. 

Just as no civilized person wants to see a rapist escape punishment, no civilized person wants to see an innocent man punished for a rape he didn't commit. 

Just as every sexual assault of a woman affects the men who love her, a false rape claim lodged against a man affects the women who love him.

Gender divisions are generated by people who love to hate. The rest of us know it is nonsense.

Blogger problems

Blogger is experiencing difficulties today in allowing comments for non-Blogger users (all anonymous and others who don't have a Blogger account).  It seems to be a widespread problem, so I suspect a lot of people will complain about it and demand it be fixed. Thanks for your patience.

Teenager held for false rape charge

Johannesburg - An 18-year-old girl has been arrested for allegedly laying a false charge of rape against a policeman, Eastern Cape police said on Wednesday.

The woman had reported that she was raped on Sunday by a police constable at the Kei Bridge police station, but on Wednesday withdrew the case, said Captain Jackson Manatha.

The policeman had been arrested by this time.

The woman allegedly told the police that she had reported the "rape" as she was "scared of her parents" after having consensual sex with the man.

A case of perjury had been opened against her and she would appear in the Butterworth Magistrate's Court on Thursday, Manatha said.


Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Tell Congress to Stop Treating Your Son Like a Presumed Criminal: Read and Sign the Petition

Click here to read and sign: Reject the Proposed SaVE Act Absent Amendments to Protect the Presumptively Innocent

To our readers: U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced legislation to combat sexual violence on college campuses called The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) (S.834), cosponsored by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). It amends Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. There is so much wrong with this proposed Act that we could have made our petition into a mini-novel. We decided to focus on two areas which most people would agree are problems.  We also stayed clear of divisive discussion of rampant false rape claims, the underreporting canard, etc. and instead discussed only matters that are not open to serious debate.

Pierce Harlan

False rape claim woman has sentence cut

A STUDENT who lied about being raped in a park in Farnham has had her jail term slashed by top judges.

Maria Rosario Brustenga-Vilaseca told a doctor she had been raped because she was worried how her strict Catholic family would react if they found out about her having pre-marital sex at a party.

The 27-year-old, who is originally from Spain, was jailed for 16 months at Guildford Crown Court in November last year after she admitted perverting the course of justice.

But judges sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court on Tuesday (April 5) cut her sentence to six months, saying the original term was too long.

The court heard Brustenga-Vilaseca was living with a family in Roman Way, Farnham, when she made the false allegation in April 2010.

After a doctor reported her claims of a sex attack to the police, she gave officers a detailed account of being assaulted in Borelli Walk, off South Street in the town.

She said she was walking home from the railway station when a man pushed her to the ground and raped her.

A young local man was arrested on suspicion of the attack but he was later released without charge.

Police eventually discovered that Brustenga-Vilaseca's allegation was false after reviewing CCTV footage around the park, which showed she was not there when she had said she was.

In fact, she had been at a party in Addlestone - 20 miles away from the park - and invented the attack after having consensual sex with a 19-year-old man.

By the time her deception was discovered in early May, 50 members of police staff had taken part in the investigation - including eight officers who spent eight days on door-to-door enquiries.

The force had also viewed 500 hours of CCTV footage, spent £12,000 on forensic investigations and 48 witness statements had been taken.

The court heard the intensive investigation was partly because there had been a genuine complaint of rape in the same area, and officers were therefore worried there might be a serial rapist at large.

Brustenga-Vilaseca tried to withdraw her complaint several times, but was told the matter had to be investigated to protect public safety.

Her lawyers argued her jail term was "excessive", saying she had not made a "typical" false allegation - where a specific person is wrongly identified as a rapist out of malice - and did not foresee that the police would make an arrest.

Allowing the appeal, Judge John Bevan QC described her crime as "an unwillingness to face up to actions she had regretted taking".

The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Toulson and Mr Justice Keith, said the original jail term was too long and reduced her sentence by 10 months.


Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The Proposed SaVE Act Tosses Your Son's Rights Onto a Scrapheap of Indifference

The worst of the draconian sexual assault directive that the Department of Education issued on April 4 likely will soon become a law enacted by Congress. U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced legislation to combat sexual violence on college campuses called The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) (S.834), cosponsored by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The SaVE bill is found here. It amends Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Among many other problems with this legislation (including the fact the word "victim" is used in excess of twenty times instead of  "accuser" or "alleged victim"), the bill mandates the following regarding college disciplinary proceedings:

"Each institution of higher education participating in any program under this title . . . shall develop and distribute . . . a statement of policy regarding . . . Procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of an alleged incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, which shall include a clear statement that-- (I) such proceedings shall--(aa) provide a prompt and equitable resolution; (bb) be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability; and (cc) use the preponderance of the evidence standard."

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD: The SaVE act would do legislatively what the Department of Education has already done by executive branch fiat: it would articulate a policy decision that it is acceptable to risk holding more innocent persons (almost exclusively males) responsible for wrongs they did not commit.

The vast majority of institutions of higher education currently apply the "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which means that to find an accused responsible for sexual assault, the school must produce evidence that unequivocally establishes a very high probability that the alleged assault occurred. The only reason they do this is to insure that innocent persons are not held responsible for wrongs they did not commit because it widely accepted among civilized persons that it is far worse to hold an innocent man responsible than to allow a guilty man to escape accountability.

The new law would require schools to switch to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which requires only a slight probability that the male committed the offense in order to punish him.  This law most certainly will increase the risk of holding innocent persons responsible for wrongs they did not commit.

ONE-SIDED ASSISTANCE FOR "VICTIMS": Beyond that, the persons who conduct this hearing are to receive training about how to conduct a hearing "that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability." Nowhere in the bill is there even a hint, much less any requirement, that they should receive training about protecting the rights of the presumptively innocent who are accused of these offenses. "Promoting accountability" means that the persons conducting the hearing must be instructed on handing out appropriate punishments for offenses (it is widely believed by the persons pushing for this law that males accused of sex offenses on campus typically do not receive sufficiently severe punishments).

There is no provision that the accused are to receive representation of counsel, or that they even have the right to representation of counsel at the disciplinary hearing.

In contrast, the "victims" are to receive, among other things, the following: an explanation of their right to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police; the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities; contact information for victim advocacy, counseling, health, mental health, legal assistance, and other services both on-campus and in the local community; an explanation of the availability of a victims' rights advocate to assist in reporting an incident and in locating and
utilizing victim services;  and a description of how the school shall help to enforce any order of protection, no contact order, restraining order, or similar lawful order issued by any criminal, civil, or tribal court, if the "victim" has informed such institution of such order.

A good article about the new bill is found here:

Lake Arthur Woman Arrested for False Rape Accusation

A 17 year-old Lake Arthur woman has been arrested after state police say she lied about being raped by a Lake Arthur Police Officer.

On February 24, 2011, the Lake Charles field office of the Louisiana State Police Bureau of Investigations was asked by the Lake Arthur Police Department to investigate a complaint filed by 17-year-old Megan Franks of Lake Arthur, Louisiana. Franks stated an officer with the Lake Arthur Police Department raped her, according to officers.

Physical evidence and the inconsistent statements Franks provided to investigating troopers indicated a rape did not take place, say police. Officers say that during an interview, Franks admitted to making up the rape allegations and injuring herself to be more credible.

The Jefferson Davis Parish District Attorney's Office obtained an arrest warrant for Franks for false swearing for the purpose of violating public health or safety (L.R.S. 14:126.1). Franks was arrested at her residence and booked into the Jefferson Davis Parish Jail. If convicted, she could face up to 5 years in prison and/or up to a $1,000 fine.


'If it's a crime report it . . . What are these statistics that get thrown at us constantly?'

I wave the white flag. I admit defeat. I can't possibly write about all the news pertinent to this blog. Keeping up with the false rape claims is sufficiently difficult, even with two of us doing it, but working through the op-ed pieces on sexual assault is impossible. Worse, the op-eds are painful to read. One inane op-ed cascades upon the next until they collapse upon one another to form a sort of Rorschach inkblot of bright-lined, unmistakable man-hatred.

But as I clawed my way through the horse dung of op-eds this morning, I came across a piece that was at once so lucid, so perceptive, and so true, it made it all worthwhile. 

First, let me give you a taste of the horse dung.

Awful Caitlin Flanagan (you might remember her from this article we wrote) wants to shutter all frat houses for the protection of women. Flanagan reminisces about her college days and, in words dripping with misandry, recalls seeing the fraternity houses for the first time:  "They are built of the same Jeffersonian architecture as the rest of the campus. At once august and moldering, they seemed sinister, to stand for male power at its most malevolent and institutionally condoned."  Flanagan's piece is not an op-ed. It's pathology in news ink, with a massive circulation.

Or how about Drew Terhune, who gushes: "Sexual violence . . . is much more than an interpersonal crime. It's socially motivated . . . ."  Sigh. Um, that's correct, Drew. But not for the reasons you think. The vast majority of rape is related to poverty and -- brace yourself, Drew -- fatherlessness. See here.  Sorry, Drew, if that doesn't fit with what I presume is your narrative of white-lacrosse-jocks-as-rapists.

Shashwat Samdura wrote that "[s]exual assault needs more attention on college campuses." Right. So do lightning strikes.

Then there's this article, which quotes college administrators who brag about how their internal (higher) numbers of sexual assault are more reflective of reality than the Clery Act numbers. According to the school's internal numbers, 112 women reported being sexually assaulted in 2009, out of a campus of more than 20,000 women. Hmm. Let's see. Over four years that works out to 448 reports, which is about 2.2 percent of all college women reporting they were sexually assaulted during college. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's still a far cry from 25%, isn't it? 

Isn't it?

But then I came across law professor Ann Althouse's take on the Flanagan article, referenced above. You need to read the whole thing, but I'll highlight one part. 

Prof. Althouse quotes it: "A 2007 National Institute of Justice study found that about one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college; almost all of those incidents go unreported." 

That's too much for Prof. Althouse.  Read her next paragraph slowly, and then read it again. It is spot-on and brilliant:

"How did they find it if it was unreported? Much of life is ugly but not criminal. If it's a crime report it. If it's not a crime, what was it? What are these statistics that get thrown at us constantly? I've been seeing them since 1988 when 'I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report on Recognizing, Fighting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape' was published. Over the years, college women have learned to call it rape, but why haven't they learned to report it, if it is rape or some other crime? You can chose to think of something bad that happened as a crime but are you willing to hold your opinion up to the judgment of officials who have the obligation to treat the accused man fairly? Almost all of those incidents go unreported. Exactly why?"

The second to the last sentence is as true as anything we've ever seen on this subject: "You can chose to think of something bad that happened as a crime but are you willing to hold your opinion up to the judgment of officials who have the obligation to treat the accused man fairly?"

You need to read the entire piece: see here.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Top Villains in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax

One of our most astute readers, Zarko, has written a mammoth piece on the top 15 villains of the Duke lacrosse hoax. The words and opinions are his. You can read it here.

College Women Not Charged For Underage Drinking So Long As They Cry Rape

Consider the following facts, which are neither new nor controversial:

(1) "College administrators nationwide say that alcohol is the worst health risk their students face."

(2) "In most allegations of sexual assault, alcohol is involved."

There is no dispute that, aside from its clear and unmistakable correlation to health risks unrelated to sexual violence, alcohol is a significant contributing factor in most sexual assaults that occur on campus.

So, how do college administrators combat both the foremost health problem on campus (alcohol abuse) as well as the most politicized (sexual assault)?

If the goal is to reduce both, the answer is simple: deter the use of alcohol in all cases.

If the goal is to pander to the politicized sexual grievance industry, a different answer would be expected.  Indeed the trend is not to deter alcohol in all cases but to arrive at the different answer.

The Department of Education's April 4 directive to college administrators on how to handle sexual assault tells schools to consider whether punishing students (almost always women in this instance) for alcohol offenses will have a "chilling effect on victims' . . . reporting of sexual violence offenses."

In fact, many schools have policies that forbid charging rape accusers for alcohol-related offenses because "some women have complained that when they went to school administrators to say they'd been sexually assaulted, they ended up getting punished for breaking school rules on drinking or using drugs."

Imagine that -- holding a student accountable for her misconduct!  The fact that this sort of accountability is entirely verboten and politically incorrect tells us all we need to know about the so-called "rape culture" on campus.

For example, the University of Wisconsin and Madison Police Departments "do not issue underage drinking tickets to sexual assault victims."  According to Tonya Schmidt, an assistant dean in the Division of Student Life for the University of Wisconsin: "If something like that [issuing underage drinking tickets to sexual assault victims] happened, [the Division of Student Life] would be all over it, calling and saying that ‘you cannot do this. We highly advise you to take the ticket away, this person has been a victim of an assault,' she said. 'But we've never had to do that.'"

If an intoxicated underage male reported he'd been beaten badly, he would be charged with underage drinking because his victimization isn't the right kind.  Several questions arise:

(1) How is "victimhood" is determined?  With false rape claims running rampant on college campuses, as we've demonstrated on this blog, it is assumed that "victimhood" is determined solely on the basis of the rape accuser's say so.  When  a claim is determined to be false, is the accuser then charged with an alcohol offense? My guess is she's not, and that if she would be charged, the usual suspects would chant about a "chilling effect" (because to them, there is no difference between a victim and an accuser).

(2) Aren't college administrators simply fomenting both alcohol and sexual assault problems by not taking a zero tolerance stance against alcohol? 

(3) And finally, why is there no public discourse about the dangers such policies pose to innocent men on campus?  When an intoxicated women needs only to cry "rape" to avoid getting in trouble for underage drinking, colleges are painting proverbial targets on the asses of innocent young college men.
We have reached the stage on campus where a consensual tryst can lead to an innocent young man being falsely accused of rape and charged with underage drinking while his equally intoxicated, false accusing partner is both lionized as a rape victim and excused from underage drinking charges.  The frightening part is that politicized zealots who deny that false rape claims are a problem would insist that this scenario is perfectly fair and just, without even cracking a smile.

Tell me again: why are young men avoiding college in droves?

False sexual assault case continues

A former Orangeville resident charged in connection with an Inglewood sexual assault investigation dating back to September 2005, is next scheduled to appear in Orangeville court on September 2.

Jennefer Davis was not present in the Superior Court of Justice Monday, August 11, however a lawyer representing her made plans for the accused to return to court on September 2 to be spoken to by a judge.

Davis was charged in March 2007 with two counts each of public mischief and fraud following a lengthy police probe after a woman claimed she was sexually assaulted while tending to her broken-down vehicle near Inglewood. For several months an intense manhunt unfolded in west Caledon, which turned up several leads, however, no suspect. The case took a strange twist following the 18-month long probe when police laid charges against the then 36-year-old Orangeville complainant herself.


Sunday, April 24, 2011

Flashback: Amanda Marcotte's take on Duke Lacrosse

"Amanda Marcotte, appointed as chief blogger to John Edwards’ presidential campaign only days after penning the following “analysis” of the case:

I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
"When criticized for the remarks, Marcotte deleted them from her website."


Saturday, April 23, 2011

Rape report by 12-year-old girl determined to be false

New Castle County Police have concluded the investigation of a reported sexual assault of a 12-year-old that allegedly occurred last week in the community of the Christiana Green Townhomes in the Bear-Christiana area did not take place.

The investigation revealed that the incident had been falsely reported. It was learned that the juvenile was dealing with adjustment issues related to a recent move to Delaware. The case is being further reviewed by the Attorney General’s office.


Friday, April 22, 2011

When God allowed his son to experience the greatest injustice possible: a wrongful conviction

Today is Good Friday, the day Christians around the world celebrate what they believe to be the central fact of history: that God sent his only son to live as man in order that he might willingly offer himself as a sacrifice for the transgressions of all of mankind.

In order to vicariously atone for mankind's sins, Christ was subjected to trumped-up charges by the leadership of his faith and brought before the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, who promptly declared him innocent.  Nevertheless, to appease the angry mob that didn't think enough was being done to punish a blasphemer, Pilate ordered Christ to be flogged.  When that wasn't enough for them, Pilate ordered Christ to be subjected to the death penalty.

Jesus is the most famous wrongly convicted man of all time.
And there are, of course, lessons here for modern day advocates of the falsely accused. 

Even 2,000 years ago, the state bowed to the pressure of a committed interest group by sacrificing a  wrongly accused man. Jesus was unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in the state's more important, politicized interest of appeasing a group of its inhabitants.

It is well to remember that God allowed his son to be executed by the state, not just murdered by a criminal acting on his own, in order to make a crucial point. Being killed by a criminal would not have manifested the community's rejection of the Messiah. The Divine Plan recognized that, all other things being equal, misconduct by the state in punishing an innocent man is qualitatively different, far more significant, and far worse, than the punishment inflicted on the innocent by a criminal acting on his own. It is one thing for a criminal to do a terrible thing to an individual; it is quite another for the government to do a terrible thing to an individual.

Just as Christians believe that all of us are responsible for Christ's death, so, too, all of us -- without exception -- have blood on our hands for the wrongful treatment of the modern day falsely accused.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

If Crystal Mangum's rape lie had been properly punished, Reginald Daye likely would be alive today

Crystal Mangum was charged earlier this week in Durham with first-degree murder and two larceny charges in connection with the stabbing death of Reginald Daye.

Mangum is best known for falsely accusing three Duke lacrosse players of rape in March 2006. The charges hung over the heads of the innocent young men until April 2007, when North Carolina's attorney general Roy Cooper declared them "innocent."

Mangum previously was arrested in February 2010 on charges of attempted murder, arson and child abuse. She was convicted only of misdemeanor charges in connection with that incident and was sentenced to time served.

Mangum had made false rape accusations similar to the Duke lacrosse allegations in 1996 that were never prosecuted. See  here.

Despite all this, incredibly, some still insist on calling her a victim.  How many people must this woman destroy before she loses that label?

Here's the reality: if Ms. Mangum had been properly punished for her rape lie in the Duke case, she likely would have been in prison at the time she stabbed Mr. Daye.

Professor Alan Dershowitz once said this: “Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime and women are not being punished for those crimes. I believe that being falsely accused of rape is as traumatic as being raped.”

Yet, women like Melissa McEwan, commenting not about Mangum but about the woman who was wrongly charged with filing a false rape report, wrote this "Well, what do you want the police to do—just let women who make false reports GET AWAY WITH IT?! Yes. That is exactly what I want."  And Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape, and Dr. Kim McGregor, director of Rape Prevention Education, and many others, have made it clear they don't want rape liars charged.

The evil attendant to that position is self-evident.

Wouldn't it have been fitting to require those women to attend the viewing of Reginald Daye -- to see the sorrow on the faces of his family and friends, to learn about his life, his hopes, his dreams, his struggles? 

Because if  false rape claims were treated the way the "equally serious crime" of rape is treated, Mr. Daye likely would be alive today.

False rape claim triggers killing of two men

Rape liar tells her cousin and another man to shoot her boyfriend in the penis "so he don't use it no more."

A tearful Priscilla Ramirez, 21, telephoned her cousin Philip Perez Gonzales Jr., 27, and asked him to come and get her. Mr. Gonzales complied, and brought his friend Michael Lee Armstrong, 23, with him. Ms. Ramirez told the two men that her boyfriend, Everett Antonio Taylor, 28, had raped and beat her, and that she wanted them to deliver a little payback. Ms. Ramirez got in their vehicle and took them to Mr. Taylor's apartment in a housing project.

"There was one big problem with Ramirez's rape story," Deputy District Attorney Eric Kindall told a Sacramento Superior Court jury last week. "It was 'a complete and total bogus lie." 

In fact, witnesses say that Ms. Ramirez was upset with Mr. Taylor because he showed interest in another woman.

Ms. Ramirez gave the two men directions as they drove into the projects where Mr. Taylor lived.  They came upon Mr. Taylor, who was on a porch, chatting away with his friend, Deshawn Dante Holloway, 35, who was getting ready to go to a wedding. 

According to Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Ramirez gave him and Mr. Gonzales very specific instructions about what she wanted them to do to Mr. Taylor: she wanted them to shoot him in the penis "so he don't use it no more."

Gonzales and Armstrong got out of their vehicle, and tangled with the boyfriend, Mr. Taylor, and his friend Mr. Holloway.

In the end, Mr. Armstrong fired five shots at Taylor and Holloway, four into their backs, killing both men.

Both deceased men were fathers. Mr. Taylor was a security guard who was just getting his life together. Mr. Holloway had recently enrolled in a technical school

Last week, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Armstrong were on trial for second degree murder. Two separate Sacramento juries returned verdicts against them. Ms. Ramirez is scheduled for a May 9 trial.

Two men are dead; two men's lives are forever destroyed. All because of a rape lie. Just another mind-numbing tragedy all too common to readerrs of this blog. Earlier this week, in connection with a similar case, we wrote extensively about such tragedies. See here.

It is not at all unusual that this terrible story has received very little media coverage. In contrast, a woman was wrongly convicted of making a false rape claim and was fined $500, and the case became a cause célèbre. That's because that very rare, peculiar story fits the official metanarrative of the persons who dominate gender issues. It is far more typical for some hapless man to suffer tragedy -- up to and including death -- as a result of a false rape claim, but those stories are always ignored by the politicized sexual grievance industry.

Paramedic was 'unfairly dismissed' after false rape claim

A paramedic who was sacked after a drunken woman made a false rape allegation against him, was unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The patient asked David Gledhill: 'Why don't you come in and f**k me?' when he walked her back to her home after he and his colleagues had assessed her in an ambulance.

She then stripped off her top and 'gyrated' on his crotch, repeating her question, only to tell police an hour later that he had attacked her.

Police dropped their investigation through lack of evidence and a panel from the Health Professions Council, which regulates paramedics, said his actions on the night had not constituted any misconduct.

Yet despite that and the fact that the woman had previously falsely accused two other men of raping her, London ambulance bosses labelled 48-year-old Mr Gledhill 'a predator' and 'potentially dangerous' and sacked him, saying they could no longer trust him.

They alleged he had been in the woman's home for 25 minutes, as opposed to the one-and-a-half minutes he insisted was nearer the truth.

After an employment panel found in his favour, a clearly delighted Mr Gledhill said: 'I feel absolutely exonerated because I've always said I had the patient's interests at heart.

'London Ambulance Service, for their own reasons, thought I had done something.

'All I wanted was someone completely objective to look at the facts and say: 'Your version of the facts was right'.'

Despite the victory he has not asked to be reinstated, as he stated he never wanted to work for London Ambulance Service again after the way he had been treated.

The claimant, from Isleworth, west London was in an ambulance with a female colleague on a Saturday night shift on September 26, 2009.

Controllers received a 999 call from a 33-year-old woman in Hampton Hill High Street complaining of chest pains, and they dispatched a fast response unit and Mr Gledhill's ambulance.

When they arrived the woman admitted she had been drinking and that she had made the call because she was lonely and upset.

After all three clinicians had checked the woman and decided not to take her to hospital, Mr Gledhill walked her across the road to her flat to ensure she was safe, declining an offer of help from his female crewmate.

When he failed to reappear she called him to ask if there was anything wrong he said no, and he maintained the situation when he returned to the vehicle about 15 minutes later.

The tribunal, in Croydon, south London, heard he withheld the information from her out of embarrassment and also that he did not fill in an incident form or ensure managers were properly informed until after the rape allegation had been made.

He said: 'As a paramedic working in London on a Saturday night you get spat at, abused, people do all kinds of things to you - throw bottles at you, steal things.

'So we have a high (tolerance) threshold and a young woman being a bit silly with me is not a big deal.

'Once she made the allegation that has completely and utterly wrecked my life I became more concerned.'
He conceded: 'I was probably naive but my naivety was not about the patient. My naivety was about how others would view my actions.'

An hour after the ambulance left the scene, to deal with a genuine emergency, the Metropolitan Police were called by the woman, claiming she had been raped.

Mr Gledhill was then arrested at his home and taken out in handcuffs before being interviewed and having swabs taken.

No charges were ever brought and the police dropped the case because of a lack of evidence.

Andrew Smith, counsel for LAS, criticised the claimant after he admitted having a cup of tea, as well as going to the toilet and restocking his ambulance after he got back to base, rather than ensuring a manager was aware of what had gone on.

Mr Gledhill said: 'I did, and you can hang me out to dry for that, but we had been working 11 hours, rushing all over London, taking people to hospital.

'We were shattered and yes, I prioritised having a cup of tea over having a chat about a woman who was a bit drunk.'

He said he was in her flat for 'a minute-and-a-half at most' and in the public vestibule outside her front door for 10 to 15 minutes.

LAS bosses said what happened between Mr Gledhill and the woman was not central to their investigation but it had been the catalyst to their investigation.

Peter McKenna, the service's assistant director of operations for the west area and the man who dismissed Mr Gledhill, told the tribunal, in Croydon, Surrey, that the claimant had acted like a predator.

He said: 'I didn't understand why the claimant didn't remove himself from the property.

'I didn't accept his rationale. He failed to provide me with an adequate explanation.

'The claimant unnecessarily stayed in a vulnerable patient's property for 25 minutes - he doesn't accept that timing - thereby compromising his position as a healthcare professional.'

Tony Crabtree, assistant director of human resources for the trust, told Gledhill: 'Given there was a breach of trust there were concerns over patient safety.

'We felt we were unable to trust you to be alone with patients.'

Mr Gledhill said in his closing submissions: 'Had I left that patient that night and she had self-harmed or killed herself I would be here today facing a charge of death by neglect. I know which charge I would rather face.'

Employment Judge Nash told the hearing: 'The claimant's case of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.'

She said the dismissal process was flawed as LAS never told Mr Gledhill he was being investigated for sexual misconduct - the offence for which he was dismissed - but she stressed that even if the correct procedures had been followed the tribunal panel felt LAS would not have had reasonable grounds to sack him.

The judge added that the tribunal felt that the timing LAS estimated the claimant had been with the patient alone had been 'inflated' by the service.

'The tribunal note there was a lack of any corroborating evidence,' she said.

'All the evidence against the claimant used by the respondent had come from the claimant himself.'

However, despite finding in Mr Gledhill's favour, the judge ordered no compensation should be paid, as he had contributed to his dismissal with some 'serious and blameworthy conduct'.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

I don't need to criticize feminism, I just quote it

"Well, what do you want the police to do—just let women who make false reports GET AWAY WITH IT?! Yes. That is exactly what I want. Because I frankly think that most reports called "false reports," which constitute less than 2% of rape allegations, aren't actually false reports in the first place . . . and that the tiny remainder of authentically false reports do not warrant the continuation of a practice that empowers rapists and discourages survivors of sexual violence from reporting the crimes against them, for fear of being arrested if their allegations can't be proven."

Melissa McEwan

False Accusation Has Snowball Effect for Accuser

Police sort out woman's claim of sexual assault at motel. Three are charged, including the accuser.

A woman's false accusation of sexual assault at an Oak Lawn motel led to charges being filed against three people, including the woman who initiated the complaint, police said.

Drakita Parks, 20, of Calumet Park, was picked up on an outstanding warrant for criminal damage to property and charged with obstructing a peace officer after police looked into her story.

Police said they went to the Midway Motel, 9320 S. Cicero Ave., around 5:30 a.m. on March 15, in response to a possible criminal sexual assault. The caller said the supposed victim, Parks, was walking northbound on Cicero Avenue.

Parks identified herself to police as “Star M. Partise” and told them she had been sexually assaulted at the motel 20 minutes earlier, police said.

Police went to the motel room where they found Reginald Simmons, 48, of Chicago, passed out and half dressed, according to reports.

The motel manager told police that Simmons and Parks had also been in another room. Police said the room was empty after the manager let them into the room with the passkey.

Simmons told police he was missing his car keys, cell phone and money, and that sex between the two had been consensual, police said.

As Parks was being driven back to the motel, police said she told them a second man had also been involved in the assault.

Upon arriving at the motel, where Parks positively identified Simmons, police said they found Parks in possession of Simmons’ phone and car keys, but Simmons denied taking his money.

A Cadillac that Simmons claimed was his was found in the parking lot. Parks said she believed the car belonged to the second man involved in the alleged assault. The car turned out to be registered to a woman in Jackson, TN, police said.

Simmons signed a complaint against Parks for theft. While doing so, another man arrived on the scene claiming that he was Parks’ boyfriend.

When police asked him her name, he said he believed her last name was Parks and her first name “Daralay.”

The man said he wasn’t sure because they had only just met in a store and she had been staying with him for three weeks, reports said.

Parks and Simmons were both taken to the Oak Lawn police station. On the way, police said, Parks told them her real name.

Police discovered an active warrant for Parks’ arrest for failure to appear in court on a criminal damages charge. As detectives interviewed Parks, she admitted that sex between her and Simmons was consensual and that the second unidentified man had nothing to do with it, police said.

Parks did tell police that Simmons grabbed her around the neck, where police said there was a visible mark.

During processing, the motel manager called police to say that Simmons’ car was leaving. Police stopped Ishmaila Williams, 29, who told them he had received a call from someone named “Mike” to pick up the car at the motel, police said.

While searching Williams, police said they found a small bag of cannabis.

Police charged Simmons, of the 6400 block of South Hoyne Avenue in Chicago, with battery.

Williams, of the 5900 block of South Wood Street in Chicago, was charged with possession of cannabis.

All three are due in court on April 4 in Bridgeview.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A college feminist's morally grotesque, factually vapid, defense of the April 4 directive to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases

Viviana Arcia, Stanford class of 2013, proffers the most reprehensible, morally grotesque, and factually vapid defense of the Obama administration's April 4 directive to colleges to lower the standard of proof for sexual assault cases to date. The April 4 directive means that there need only be a slight probability that the offense occurred in order to hold the accused (almost always a male) responsible.

Why is this lowering of the standard of proof critically important to men on campus and the people who care about them?  The only reason that the vast majority of colleges currently apply the "clear and convincing evidence" standard (which means that to find an accused responsible for sexual assault, the school must produce evidence that unequivocally establishes a very high probability that the alleged assault occurred) as opposed to the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, is to insure that innocent persons are not held responsible for wrongs they did not commit. The higher standard of proof is bottomed on a fundamental value determination that it is far worse to hold an innocent man responsible for something he didn't do than to let a guilty man escape punishment for something he did do. It is a manifestation of Blackstone's Formulation. When the standard of proof is lowered, a policy decision is made that it is acceptable to risk holding more innocent persons responsible for wrongs they did not commit  in order to hold a greater number of responsible parties accountable for the wrongs they did commit. We've written about the April 4 directive extensively.  See, e.g., here.

Does Viviana Arcia even acknowledge that lowering the standard of proof will increase the risk that the school might get it wrong and wrongly hold the innocent responsible? Does she deign to give a passing nod to the interests of those innocent young male classmates of hers who might be wrongly held responsible for something they didn't do? 

Of course not. "This decision" to lower the standard of proof, Viviana Arcia  gushes, "comes as a great joy to me." In fact, it is "a cause for celebration . . . ." (You will recall that another Stanford woman said: “Lowering of the standard of proof is absolutely crucial to the women’s community.”) 

"Getting it wrong" and punishing the innocent for sex offenses is an acceptable risk to too many feminists. Viviana Arcia's defense of the April 4 directive is grounded on three erroneous rationales:  false rape claims are rare; campus rape is rampant; and underreporting of rape will be curbed by lowering the standard of proof. Let us dispose of each in short order.

As a preliminary note, Viviana Arcia suggests that sometimes criminal courts prosecute sexual assault by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Not so. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) and its progeny.  A state must prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."


Have you ever noticed that every time a young feminist discusses false rape claims, she becomes an actuary? False rape claims, they posit, are an acceptable risk because there are so few of them and because there are so many actual rapes. Viviana Arcia is no exception: "While it may be the case that some accusations are unfounded" (no, Viviana Arcia: it is the case that a significant number of accusations are not merely unfounded but false), "this occurs in less than 2 percent of overall cases."

Sigh. When the legend becomes fact, old cowboys and feminists alike insist on printing the legend. It is remarkable that we are forced to dispel this two percent assertion over and over and over. The two percent canard was long ago conclusively debunked, yet it is still trotted out with zombie-like repetition by members of what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry. See, e.g., E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947, a scholarly law review article that painstakingly traced the two percent canard to its baseless origin. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers, as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor KC Johnson explain that "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data." (Page 374.)

While no one else can legitimately say what percentage of rape claims are actually false, mirabile dictu, Viviana Arcia can tell us to a mathematical certainty. This is in stark and telling contrast to a leading feminist scholar, who has explained: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted).  That fact is, most rape claims cannot be definitively classified as actual rapes or as false claims.

Of those claims we can classify with reasonable certainty as either actual rapes or false claims, a significant percentage are false claims.  Every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. See, among many others, B. Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice. See also here.


But facts be damned. Viviana Arcia plows ahead by spewing the gender divisive, lock-the-doors, hide-the-daughters Chicken Little rape hysteria that "campus sexual assault has become an epidemic."

Sorry to disappoint you, Viviana Arcia.  It's not one-in-four, or one-in- five, or one-in-four before Thanksgiving of Freshman year (these, and every other variation of the "one-in" lie, are constantly repeated by the various representatives of the sexual grievance industry). It's more like one in 1,187.  If the feminists were to be believed, our college campuses would be more dangerous places than even the Tadmor Prison in Syria, where the bloodthirsty guards butcher inmates with axes for the fun of it.  What sane parent would pay to allow their daughter to attend such a place? And what sane woman would go to a co-ed college?

The April 4 directive was premised on research supposedly finding that one in five college women are victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Aside from the fact that this number does not comport with the figures of of reported rapes on any college campus in America or even with the number of alleged rapes adjusted using a 60 or even a 90 percent underreporting figure (even that adjusted number is relatively puny -- in a different universe --  compared to the one-in-five lie), the survey that concocted that outrageous one-in-five number utilized self-selecting respondents. We've explained in previous posts that the the problems with such methodology are insurmountable. It is not at all surprising that we haven't heard a single feminist complain about that methodology.

Here are the facts at Stanford. From 2007-2009, campus sexual assault on the main campus had an annual average of approximately 11 reported sexual offenses of either a forcible or non-forcible nature. There were an average of 5.3 reported rapes during that time. Critically, the statistics do not tell us how many of those reported claims were false or unfounded.  If the numbers mirror national trends, the numbers of false and unfounded claims are significant.

Viviana Arcia posits that these aren't the real numbers, since "over 60 percent of sexual assaults are unreported." Which means that there should have been an annual average of  28 reported sexual offenses on the main campus and 13.2 rapes during that time period. Anyone who bothers to do the math will know that this number is in a different galaxy from one-in-five.  In addition, for some perspective, during that same period of time, there were an annual average of 254 reported burglaries and a far, far greater number of reported thefts than even that.

Perhaps the feminist mantra "all men are rapists" needs to be changed to "all men (and likely some women, too) are burglars." 

Heather MacDonald's words were apt: "It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center."

Rape and sexual assault are not rampant on America's college campuses.


But wait, Viviana Arcia isn't finished. "By having such a stringent standard [of proof] for sexual misconduct cases, survivors of sexual assault and relationship abuse were being deterred from pursuing the process, given the difficult standards they were required to meet." And: "it’s not hard to see why, considering how many women are re-victimized once they decide to come forward and seek justice . . . ."

No one -- no one -- knows the precise extent of underreporting, and no one ever has. In fact, the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting is at all significant. See, J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments, 35 N.E.J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009).

But even accepting for the sake of argument that undrereporting is a significant problem, the actual reasons for it scarcely support the draconian fiat lowering of the standard of proof at all colleges. At the Specter Hearings in Congress last autumn, Scott Berkowitz, President and Founder of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) said that alleged underreporting is mainly due to reasons other than the ones posited by Viviana Arcia:  Mr. Berkowitz said that a generation ago, the reasons were things like, "fear of not being believed; fear of being interrogated about and blamed for their own behavior, and what they were wearing." In short, women feared that they would be the one on trial.  Today, Mr. Berkowitz explained, the perception of many victims has evolved. Now they don't report for these reasons: "they don't want their loved ones to know what happened; they're ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them." 

Lowering the standard of proof won't do anything to alter any of that.


Viviana Arcia's defense of the April 4 directive is wholly indifferent to the concerns of the falsely accused. Innocent men are nothing more than collateral damage in her more important war on rape.

So what else is new?  Feminists across America are applauding the fact that the victimization of our daughters has been officially elevated over the victimization of our sons. 

All persons of good will should condemn blatant exercises in misandry such as Viviana Arcia's article that blink at the interests of the innocent in order to further an angry, political agenda.

Woman Arrested for Making False Sexual Assault Allegations

A Dubois woman has been arrested for falsely filing a sexual assault charge while she was working as a dancer at the Paradise Club in Salamanca.

The Cattaraugus County Sheriff Department charged 23 year-old Kenita Miechick with falsely reporting and filing a statement after they determined that a sexual assault never took place.

Miechick was issued an appearance ticket to Salamanca Town Court.


Monday, April 18, 2011

Six are sentenced for vicious home invasion stemming from false rape claim

Exactly one year ago, on April 18, 2010, Felisha Hardison, 25, from Latrobe, Pennsylvania, along with her mother, picked up a group of young men, ages 19-22, and drove them to the home of Cody Wightman, 25. Hardison and her mother then sat in their minivan while the young men proceeded to kick in Mr. Wightman's front door, then punch and kick him, and finally, beat him with a claw hammer. They cut Mr. Wightman's head and bruised him, but, thankfully, Mr. Wightman survived the attack relatively unscathed.

The attack occurred because Hardison had told her mother and the young men that Mr. Wightman had raped her. Police say the rape claim was false.

Last Friday, Hardison, her mother, and four of the young men pled guilty to charges in connection with the attack.

It turns out that several weeks before the attack on Mr. Wightman, Hardison had falsely accusing another man of raping her. She pled guilty to that charge, along with charges related to the attack on Mr. Wightman, last Friday. In that earlier false rape claim, Hardison told police she had been raped by a man with whom she has three children. She claimed the man forced her to have sex with him, punched her and choked her, and videotaped the act with his cell phone camera.  The man denied the allegations and said Hardison made the accusations to get custody of one of their children. A review of the cell phone camera footage contradicted Hardison's claims of rape and showed the two had consensual sex, police said.

Last Friday, two of the young men in the attack on Mr. Wightman were given maximum sentences of 23 months and two years respectively. Hardison's mother was given a sentence of nine to 23 months in jail, but she was given credit for time already served and is no longer in custody. Hardison and two other young men were given sentences of two to four years.  But note, Hardison's sentence also included her unrelated, prior false rape claim, so, presumably, Hardison received a more lenient sentence for the attack on Mr. Wightman than the two young men who merely exacted her vengeance against Mr. Wightman.

This was just another mind-numbing tragedy all too common to readers of this blog. Those of us who closely follow the false rape phenomenon find unmistakable patterns of gendered reactions to rape claims, true or false. Based on a fair review of the reported cases, it is reasonable to assert that men, especially young men, typically express far greater outrage over rape claims than do women. The rape of a woman often elicits a visceral reaction of outrage in men exceeding the actual harm inflicted by the crime. One need not look to the hanging trees of the old South to know that even rape accusers who tell far-fetched rape lies are nearly universally believed while even innocent men and boys accused of rape are nearly universally vilified.

This blog has covered more than its share of similar tragedies. Need to be reminded?

Last December, New York Governor David Patterson commuted the sentence of John White, a 50-something black father, who was serving a two-to-four year sentence for manslaughter in the shooting death of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro, who was white. At his trial, Mr. White testified that late in the evening of August 9, 2006, his 19-year-old son, Aaron, woke him up to tell him that he had just come from a party where a young woman wrongly accused him of threatening to rape her on a MySpace posting. Aaron told his father that a group of angry white youths were headed to their house to beat him up because they wrongly believed the young woman. Mr. White and his son walked to the end of their driveway to confront the youths, and in the heated confrontation that followed, young Mr. Cicciaro was killed. Mr. White claimed his gun accidentally discharged.  The girl later recanted the rape claim.  One boy is dead, and a father was imprisoned after a racially charged trial that divided a city. But the girl, apparently, escaped unscathed.

A 15-year-old girl falsely told her boyfriend that Sumbo Owoiya, 18, raped her. The girl, the boyfriend, and another man then drove to the innocent youth’s apartment. While Mr. Owoiya was looking through a peep hole, the other man shot him to death through the door. The boyfriend was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, but the girl was given a suspended sentence.

Two teenage girls lied to a 19-year-old man that another 19-year-old, Cory Headen, had raped one of them, so the man broke into Mr. Headen’s home and beat him to death with a baseball bat while he was sleeping. At the man’s trial, the judge described the teens who accused Mr. Headen of rape as "stupid, drunken, immature girls" who delivered a vile message. The judge sentence the man who did the beating to seven years in prison. One young man was dead, another’s life was destroyed, all because of a false rape claim, and the girls who ignited the fire apparently escaped unscathed.

John Chalmers, a 47-year-old prominent businessman, suffered devastating brain injuries in a vicious attack after a woman's brother was wrongly convinced that Mr. Chalmers had raped his sister, so the brother thrashed Mr. Chalmers. So terrible was the beating that Mr. Chalmers has had to “learn everything again.”

Darrell Roberson had come home unexpectedly from a trip when he found his wife, Tracy Roberson, and her lover, Devin LaSalle, together in Mr. LaSalle's truck. To cover up her affair, Mrs. Roberson falsely told her husband she had been raped, and Mr. Roberson shot and killed Mr. LaSalle. In a rare switch, a grand jury refused to indict Mr. Roberson, but Ms. Roberson was charged, convicted, and imprisoned for five years for involuntary manslaughter. "The wrong person went to prison," fumed Jill Davis, Roberson's attorney.

And we won't even mention Philadelphia, where vigilante "justice" against men accused of rape isn't just tolerated but officially encouraged and rewarded.

Chivalry, far more than so-called "rape culture," is a defining characteristic of masculinity.  Too often, this chivalry serves to enable the worst kinds of false rape claims.

We will be posting about another similar tragedy tomorrow.


Behind bars for false rape claim

A woman with learning difficulties who lives in a care home has been jailed after admitting a false rape claim.

Emma Chaston, 21, who lives in Shinfield care home Jigsaw, pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice earlier this month and was sentenced to nine months in prison by Reading Crown Court on Friday.

Chaston has been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder.


Friday, April 15, 2011

'Rape Culture' Round-Up: to Get Your Blood Boiling for the Weekend

▲George Washington University violated Title IX by creating a "biased and one-sided process" against males "in the manner in which it approaches the investigation, adjudication, and appeal of allegations of sexual assault" where "the accused is so fundamentally denied due process as to be virtually assured of a finding of guilt . . . ."

Complaint (paragraph 54) of male student alleging university disciplinary hearing panel refused to consider witness testimony tending to prove his sexual encounter was consensual. (See here and here)

▲"I really can't say she  . . . cleared my name because it (rape charge) is going to follow me wherever I go . . . .  I'm always going to worry about an employer saying, 'What about this (rape charge) and what about that.' It's a serious charge that raises eyebrows."

Shannon Hudson, on false rape charge that kept him in jail for two months (see here)

▲"I do agree my daughter needed punishment, but to carry it to this extreme is wrong, unless you get the whole story."

Ronnie Denham, on why his daughter, Melinda Denham, doesn't deserve jail time for a rape lie that sent Shannon Hudson to jail for two months (see here)  

▲"Having you shove your dick down my throat to the point where I couldn't breathe and vomited twice made me feel like trash."

Message to alleged rapist written on denim, displayed at University of Colorado "Denim Day" to raise awareness about sexual assault (See here)

▲"It's hard to exaggerate the importance of the new advisory that the White House put out . . . about the application of Title IX to tougher college standards on sex assault."

Wendy Murphy, on Department of Education's April 4 directive (see here)

▲“Lowering of the standard of proof is absolutely crucial to the women’s community.” 

Associated Students of Stanford University President Angelina Cardona on Department of Education's April 4 directive mandating schools to lower standard of proof for sex crimes to "preponderance of the evidence" (see here)

▲“Officials at the University worry that the government’s imposed changes may keep students from seeking help."

Washington University, St. Louis, student newspaper, on the provision in the Department of Education's April 4 directive forbidding an accuser from seeking mediation, and mandating disciplinary hearings, in cases of alleged sexual assault (see here)

▲"This is nothing more than a glorified zero-tolerance policy, and a very dangerous one at that. As both a feminist and someone who has experience with sexual misconduct, I am annoyed and frustrated with this meaningless and misguided gesture."

Comment in the Duke Chronicle, agreeing with Pierce Harlan's comment about the dangers of lowering the burden of proof for sexual assault at college disciplinary hearings (see here)
▲"The sad truth is, until men take responsibility for the actions of our gender, this problem is not going to go away."

Man speaking at Decatur "Take Back the Night" rally (see here)

▲"I think it's always important that, if somebody discloses [an assault] to you, to always believe that person."

Woman speaking at Indiana State University "No Woman Left Behind" sexual assault rally (See here)

▲". . . one in six boys is sexually assaulted in his lifetime."

According to Southern Utah University Center for Women and Families. That's 17% of males to age 17 (See here)

▲". . . one in four women and one in six men are sexually abused. ... "

Speaker at Prince George County "Take Back the Night" rally. That's 17% of adult males (see here)

▲"Among whispers of hurting feet, male college students, many from organizations such as Male Allies Against Rape and Violence, the rugby team and fraternities, along with law enforcement and community members, proved even the most masculine of men will walk, literally, a mile in women's shoes for the cause. 'Men are the solution to the problem,' Vanderburgh County Sheriff Eric Williams said."

News report about University of Southern Indiana "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" rally (See here)

▲Columbia University EMS Director Alex Harstrick, CC ’12, explained that sexual assault calls to CU EMS are rare, with less than 10 of their 800 to 900 yearly calls relating to any form of physical assault. (See here)

▲And finally, the quote that merits the award for "honest statement of the week": Vivian Barnette, NC A&T's Director of Counseling Services "says A&T's campus doesn't have a major problem with sexual assault." (See here)

Gender 101: The War on Women by Connie Chastain*

Earlier this month, before the federal government's budget deal was struck, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman from San Francisco, former Speaker of the House, she of the periwinkle blue suit and ginormous gavel of the health care free-for-all, spoke at the Women Money Power Summit sponsored by the Feminist Majority Foundation. According to CNN, she said there is a war on women.

Her reason for so saying was the budget battle then in progress. Her proof was the proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood and the overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid, the predominant recipients of which are women.

Of course, Pelosi was just engaging in partisan politics -- the mean old Republicans vs. the saintly Democrats. No big deal, business as usual in national politics, right? Except that feminists have used the government (both parties and the taxpayers' money), along with the courts, academia and the popular culture, to foist their worldview and agenda off onto society for decades. That being the case, it might be instructive to look at whether the Republicans' alleged war on women will impact existing (and firmly ensconced) female privilege that pervades our culture.

The fact that women are predominantly the recipients of Medicare and Medicade should tell you something. Women live, on average, five years longer than men. And there is a war on women?

Moreover, if cutting Planned Parenthood's budget means women with STDs have to use their own money to pay for dealing with the results of their pomiscuity, I can't get too upset about that. That's not the taxpayers' responsibility, anyway; never has been.

Women make up the majority of the voters in this country, and the majority of the workforce. They control spending. Seventy-plus percent of divorces are initiated by women; mothers are awarded custody of children in most of those divorces, despite the fact that the majority of child abusers in the United States are women/mothers, and that the safest place for women and children is in a family headed by the husband/father. Discriminatory laws favor women in employment; standards men must pass are lowered for women candidates.

That doesn't sound like a war on women to me. It sounds like female privilege and it seems unlikely that the Republican's budget-war on women with change that.

There is a war for Ms. Pelosi to observe, however, and there's no better proof than Title IX and the VAWA. The latest salvo in the Title IX theater is found in the Obama Administration's directive that lowers the standards of proof in sexual assault cases on college campuses, covered eloquently by Archivist's recent posts on this blog.

Nah, Ms. Pelosi probably wouldn't be interested, because this is a war on men. You can't read the blog entries on this subject and reach any other conclusion. I have to wonder, though, about feminists like Nancy Pelosi -- women who have sons, husbands, brothers and fathers. Yes, the men of her family are shielded from the war on men by money (incomprehensible amounts of it) and political power. But has she no comprehension of and sympathy for those who are not so shielded?

If anyone doubts that feminism is, in fact, built upon the hatred of men, the Obama Administration's directive is one more proof that's hard to ignore. In my opinion, lowering the standard of proof of sexual assault isn't intended to protect or help rape victims, or even to punish the guilty. Its aim is to punish the innocent who happen to be men -- because they are men. Feminist may deny this, but they'll never convince me.

More and more, radical feminists are showing their hand, proving that the hatred of men is the core of their "philosophy" and its ultimate aim the destruction of men. How can we reach any other conclusion when they can't wait to throw innocent young men to the lions over imaginary rape?

War on women? What a very unfunny joke.

*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is 

When Titanic Sank 99 Years Ago Today, People Were More Honest About Gender Roles Than They Are Today

If I were to ask you to think of a hero who refused to give up his or her seat on a vehicle of public accommodation merely because of their birth class, you likely would think of Rosa Parks, a black woman who refused to budge in the front of a Montgomery, Alabama bus in 1955, even though the seats up front were “reserved” for white people.

You likely would not think of J. Bruce Ismay.

Ismay was chairman of the company that owned Titanic, who famously survived the disaster synonymous with the name of the ship, 99 years ago today, but was widely accused of cowardice because he took a seat in a lifeboat that, many believed, should have gone to a woman.

No one has ever confused Mr. Ismay with Ms. Parks, but one could ask the same question about both: should someone be deprived of their seat — on a bus, a train, a roller coaster, or even a lifeboat — simply because of their birth class? Both Mr. Ismay and Ms. Parks stayed in their seats, yet Mr. Ismay is widely reviled as a coward while Ms. Parks is properly lionized as a civil rights icon, because men are expected to give up their seats in the lifeboat for members of the opposite sex. Even today.

A newspaper article written shortly after the Titanic disaster talked about the “armchair hero” who would sooner sit in judgment of the men who did not lose their lives on the ill-fated ship than applaud the contributions of those who did. The article explained:

“‘Women and children first,’ is the rule of the sea. In the case of the Titanic, it was ‘Women, children, and pet dogs.’ But the armchair hero would press this rule so far as to veto the escape of any man at all. It is probable that many men died rather than face the armchair hero, who would demand explanations from them of their cowardice in daring to be alive. Perhaps this explains why some of the boats were not filled. The armchair hero is not appeased by the appalling death-roll of men. He asks for more. Surely this is sentiment gone mad, chivalry gone to seed.”

Excerpt here:

It is well to remember Titanic for a number of reasons, not the least of which are its lessons about gender, which still resonate today. For the uninitiated, the disaster struck men much harder than women, because the men aboard Titanic were societally expected to sacrifice their lives for women -- and they obliged. The startling demographics from the disaster are as follows:

114 women died, 324 women survived: 72% of the women survived.
1339 men died, 325 men survived: 19% of the men survived.

In 1912, chivalry was a powerful, overriding social influence, just as it is today. But here's the difference: in 1912, both chivalry's practitioners and beneficiaries knew and acknowledged that chivalry was an important societal force; in 2011, both chivalry's practitioners and beneficiaries have no clue that it even exists.

Here's an example of the honesty back in 1912: the giant front page headline of the April 16, 1912 Arizona Journal-Miner read as follows: “1800 ARE LOST IN OCEAN . . . Report is That Most of Saved are Women And Children Indicating Chivalry On Part of Adult Male Passengers.”

While the overwhelming consensus at the time was to salute the brave men who gave their lives, the sentiments of one group, the suffragettes, were decidedly less laudatory. The suffragettes seemed to understand that special, undeserved privilege for women did not comport with the gender equality they championed, so they simply refused to acknowledge that the treatment women received was either special or undeserved.

Some of them declared that the propagation of the human race depended on chivalry, but their reasoning had more leaks than Titanic. This, according to the New York Times, April 19, 1912:

“English Suffragettes of prominence, when questioned as to what they thought of the men who died on the Titanic in order that women might be saved, seem to have manifested a disposition, possibly significant, almost to resent the inquirer’s obvious belief that the display of chivalry was magnificent. While the strenuous ladies did not deny that the behaviour of the men was rather fine, they hinted that after all it only fulfilled a plain duty and therefore had not earned any particularly enthusiastic praise.

“As one of the suffragettes put the case, by natural law women and children should be saved first, the children because childhood is sacred, and the women because they are so necessary to the race that they cannot be spared. Another said: ‘It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men.”

(New York Times, April 19, 1912)

In claiming that women were spared because of their child-bearing duties, the suffragettes never bothered to explain why the many women beyond child-bearing years were also spared while their male counterparts, who were able to produce sperm throughout their lives, condemned themselves to an icy grave and the worst kind of death.

Another suffragette went so far as to suggest that men and women aboard Titanic were, in fact, treated equally, even though the men largely died and the women largely were saved. This was so because the “women, though saved through the noble sacrifice of men, were in the equally hard situation of having to see the ship go down” (New York Times, April 20, 1912) You see, there was no qualitative difference between the sacrifice of the persons who actually gave up their lives and the persons for whom that sacrifice was made. Who would have guessed?

In short, the suffragettes wanted their equality but weren’t prepared to give up their belief that women were entitled to special treatment, for reasons they couldn’t rationally explain.

But most everyone else understood that women were singled out for special treatment on the Titanic, and it was apparent to those who thought about it that such special treatment did not comport with gender equality. Following the disaster, Clark McAdams, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, contrasted women’s desire for the vote with what occurred on Titanic. In significant respects, the poem’s words still speak to us:

“Votes for women!”
Was the cry,
Reaching upward to the Sky.
Crashing glass
And flashing eye-
“Votes for Women!”
Was the cry.

“Boats for women!”
Was the Cry.
When the brave
Were come to die.
When the end
Was drawing nigh-
“Boats for women!”
Was the cry."

The men’s chivalry was widely acknowledged, and applauded. The views trivializing the sacrifice of the men did not play well. The headline for an April 20, 1912 New York Times story was openly disdainful of the suffragettes:

“Women first” Is the Universal Rule, says Sylvia Pankhurst, and This Is No Exception
Jangling Note Disgusts English Nation, Proud of the Way Men Died

Consistent with the prevailing sentiment, and fittingly enough, a 13-foot tall statue in Washington, D.C. erected in 1931 by the Women’s Titanic Memorial Association honors the brave men who gave their lives on Titanic. The inscription reads:


The memorial was not without its detractors. “Some feminists criticized the memorial, saying it was inappropriate to not only commemorate but perpetuate the notion of chivalry. Margaret [Molly Brown] responded that she thought it was very brave that some men had chosen to step aside and let women and children live — but the gesture should never have been required by law or custom.” (Molly Brown: Unraveling the Myth, by Kristen Iversen, Muffet Brown at 226 (1999).)

Molly Brown, of course, “got it.” If only her kind of rational thinking had prevailed.

Now, almost 100 years after Titanic, in important ways, we are far less honest about gender than we were when the mighty ship sank. In 1912, society freely acknowleged the chivalry at work on Titanic.

Today, we claim to embrace gender equality, yet chivaly is alive and well and manifests itself in countless ways — and we pretend it doesn’t exist. Like the elephant in the room, it leaves its imprint on virtually every institution, but it’s entirely too politically incorrect to acknowledge. It manifests itself in family law proceedings; the objectively proven gender disparities in criminal sentencing; the lopsided government funding asymmetry favoring diseases affecting women over diseases that affect men; the requirement that only males must register for selective service and that only males may serve in combat; the special government programs that assist girls in school but not boys even though boys need more help; and the fact that there are numerous programs that assist women breaking into the the business world while there are no programs that assist men breaking into the domestic world. And we could go on and on and on, but you already know this.

Like the suffragettes, deep down we are certain that chivalry can’t be reconciled with our enlightened notions of gender equality, so we do what the suffragettes did — we deny it exists, or we rationalize it away. In 1912, such denial was limited to one marginalized group and was disparaged by society as a whole. Today, denial of chivalry is so widespread it’s the norm.

It is no epiphany that the chivalry that manifests itself in our modern institutions is wholly inconsistent with gender equality. This isn’t something concocted by men’s rights groups; it was apparent even when Titanic sank. In the aftermath of the Titanic disaster, a smart woman writing about the astounding chivalry of the Titanic’s men also couldn’t help but notice the decline of chivalry in everyday life. She well understood that chivalry must give way if true equality is to flourish. It is too bad her words aren’t etched into the hearts of all who preach gender equality but close their eyes to the chivalry that disadvantages men. Here’s what she wrote, less than one month after Titanic sank:

“‘Men are not what they were.’ The phrase falls from the lips of every woman. In it’s train falls the stereotyped indictment: Politeness is a forgotten art; deference to womankind is unknown. In a packed tram, the woman is allowed to stand while the man sits; in a rush for the boat, the woman is shoved aside by the more muscular man; in offices or shop, the girl worker receives no consideration from the man; and so on and so on. The grievance is lengthy . . .

“Yet it may all be true. Very likely ‘men are not what they were’ because, you see, women are not what they were, and things have to balance themselves. We decline altogether these days to have a sphere of our own; we walk triumphantly into man’s. We not only want, we insist on having, his privileges, his pleasures, his work, occasionally ousting him out of them, in any case sharing them willy nilly…

“But we must remember what Nursie taught us long years ago; you cannot have your cake and eat it, much as you wish to. And if man finds you persistently invading his domain, sharing his pursuits, working as a man, acting as a man, aping man’s free and easy arrogance, he is apt to forget, despite your apology for petticoats, that you are not a man. You want to be a free and independent comrade? Well, then, accept the penalties as well as the pleasures of comradeship.”


This story ran earlier this week at The Spearhead and the comments are still open there.