Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Wife falsely accuses husband of rape because he behaved 'in an unchivalrous way'

A woman, 23, met her husband to try to patch up her broken marriage. They had sex, but he refused to end their estrangement, so she went to the police and falsely accused him of rape.  She reported that he forced her to have oral sex by grabbing her head and forcing his penis into her mouth. Then, he supposedly pushed her on the bed and forced her to have vaginal sex.

The husband was arrested and held in custody for fifteen hours. The husband showed police a video he had taken of their sex act on his cell phone. The video shows that she was enjoying it -- she was giggling and laughing -- and that it was consensual.

Police confronted the wife, and she admitted it was all a lie. She had lied to get her husband in trouble because she was angry at him. According to her attorney, she lied because he had behaved "in an unchivalrous way" toward her. 

The wife was convicted and jailed for nine months for perverting the course of justice.

The readers who commented under the original news story largely mirror the public's palpable disgust with false rape claimants. Invariably, some readers insist that these kinds of stories give license to men to videotape their sexual encounters in order to avoid unjust deprivations of liberty. It is well to keep in mind, however, that most men who secretly, and illegally in many jurisdictions, record their sexual encounters, do so for reasons having nothing to do with the fear of false rape claims.

Still, it is not certain what might have happened if there had been no video in this case. When people are incarcerated, whether for years, or even for "just" fifteen hours, because of a lie about rape or sexual assault, and the lie is exposed only due to the happenstance that a video exists to prove the truth, it undermines public confidence -- including the confidence of potential jurors -- in the integrity of all rape accusers.

The woman, and others who lie about rape, do a grave disservice not just to the persons their lies target, but to all rape victims.

Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126070/Spurned-housewifes-rape-claim-backfires-husband-shows-police-video-having-consensual-sex.html

http://www.mk-news.co.uk/News/Wife-jailed-over-flase-rape-claim-11042012.htm

30 comments:

  1. How about not sticking your dick in crazy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "not stick your dick in crazy"

    Are you f***ing kidding me? How would you feel going to a female victim and saying "sorry, but you should have known not to let a felon / pervert / rapist / criminal stick his dick in you!"

    It's not like people who are "crazy" or criminal go out of their way to let you know beforehand. "Oh hi, I'm John! I'm going to act completely normal on our date, but then I'll drug you and try to rape you tonight." or "Hi, I'm Jane. Nice to meet you! If you have sex with me I will save the condom and try to impregnate myself to screw you over" aren't exactly things that get said.

    "Don't stick your dick in crazy" just needs to go away. Seriously. NOBODY tells a female victim "you should have known." Why is it okay to tell male victims of false rape allegations the same thing? Just stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one said this guy should have known, all they are saying is don't stick your dick in KNOWN crazy, the analogue for a woman would be don't go out with a KNOWN rapist. Pretty simple really, you can get off your pedestal now.

      Delete
    2. You're defending a position that doesn't make sense. Don't stick your Dick in crazy, hell it took me 10 years to figure put how manipulative my ex was.. that's crazy and me just trusting. The man's point stands.

      Delete
  4. I'm pretty sure that the above commenter was telling the man to not stick his dick in crazy, not the woman to not allow the man to do it, understand a phrase before you misinterpret the response

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. how about u back down u know nothing of this story only what you've read

    ReplyDelete
  7. trolling!! haha, unless u know the full story then keep ur thoughts to urself

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who do you think you are? You're just as anonymous as everyone else, so you can shut up too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous A-hole - ”how about u back down u know nothing of this story only what you've read”

    It could be worse. One could read about the story, and not understand what they had just read – much like you, apparently.

    You stated:
    ”firstly she never said she lied about being raped”

    The story “we” read said:
    ”The judge heard Ferguson was seen on the video to be giggling and laughing. Police interviewed her and she admitted she had made up the story.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. She should get the punishment her husband would have gotten had he been convicted. Falsely accusing someone of rape should be a much more serious offense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did anyone catch this outrageous comment:
    "The law should be changed so that a woman can change her mind. Not only during sex, as it is now, but for a full day afterwards. That way they would be fully protected against men." --That's one of the worst comments I've ever seen regarding gender issues.
    Made by someone named Chris, Just click worst rated comments & it should be the third one down.
    It's this sort of thing that breeds false rape claims & keeps the culture of misandry alive & well in today's society.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The person who posted this:

    Are you f***ing kidding me? How would you feel going to a female victim and saying "sorry, but you should have known not to let a felon / pervert / rapist / criminal stick his dick in you!"

    Is a crazy female who takes offense to everything.

    The person who said this:

    firstly she never said she lied about being raped and second how the hell do u know the person she was giving oral sex to on the video was her husband, his face wasnt seen on the vidoe tape and nor was his voice

    Is a completely stupid female, who is also possibly and very likely, crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To me it looks like a single guy talking to himself in these comments

    ReplyDelete
  14. At this point, I'm about ready to disable anonymous posting. Is it so much to ask that people put some form of either initials or make up a username and post under it?

    Enough with all of this people. Show a bit of civility, or we are going to have to force people to log in, or we'll disable comments completely.

    We get that what we post here is considered controversial by some, but please, can everyone be adult enough to stop the name calling?


    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some of the above comments are of the wall.
    How bout doing the unthinkable and holding a woman accountable for her actions - for a change.

    As one commenter posted
    ”The judge heard Ferguson was seen on the video to be giggling and laughing. Police interviewed her and she admitted she had made up the story.”
    SHE'S GUILTY

    ReplyDelete
  16. Glad she's been jailed. 9 months doesn't seem like a long time, but I'm sure it'll suffice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, is "innocent until proven guilty" not a thing anymore or did I misinterpret the article?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ESB - ”At this point, I'm about ready to disable anonymous posting.”

    Please do.

    I can understand that some would wish to be as anonymous as possible, but as each and ever person who posts anonymously will have their comments unattributed to a recognizable identity, it does make for many instance of confusion as to who is saying what, and of having no context to help determine what a particular poster may be trying to say.

    For instance, this “anonymous” comment:

    ”So, is "innocent until proven guilty" not a thing anymore or did I misinterpret the article?”

    To what is this poster referring, the innocent man who was arrest and detained (and named, even if only indirectly), or the woman who was convicted in a court of law (seems she might have plead to get a short sentence rather than take it to trial) to a felony (in the UK) offense, and duly sentenced by a judge to 9 months time?

    There isn’t even a history of posts with which we can associate this anonymous poster to try to gain contextual clues as to which way this poster was leaning.

    I’m left supposing that this post was about the women who was convicted, meaning to suggest that COTWA should have taken on HER cause, and assumed that she was innocent (little matters like a confession and subsequent plea/conviction not being the sort of things to dissuade false rape apologists).

    Then again, the comment at April 11, 2012 5:56 PM makes a pretty convincing argument for membership only commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Then again, the comment at April 11, 2012 5:56 PM makes a pretty convincing argument for membership only commenting."
    What did that person say? --I missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. billy williams - "What did that person say? --I missed it."

    It was a profanity-laden call for all of us to shut up about FRA's

    ReplyDelete
  22. "It was a profanity-laden call for all of us to shut up about FRA's"
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. All I know is this: There are over 763,000 men, women and children across the nation required to register. The "crimes" range from urinating in public, sexting, exposure, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry girlfriend, or spiteful student, to looking at abusive or suggestive images of anyone up to 18 years old, solicitation, Romeo and Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, endangering the welfare of a child, rape and incest. I can vouch for the fact that there are many folks who have been falsely accused, terrified into taking a plea deal because their appointed defense counsel told them they could be facing "X" amount of years if found guilty and all it takes is a crying (even if it is fake) female and you are done. Would you like to go from a 6 digit income to a minimum wage job because of something like this? As guys know, once accused you NEVER regain your life..if you multiply 763,000 by 3 or 4 family members of the registrant there are almost 3,000,000 wives, children, mothers, grandmothers, girlfriends and others suffering the collateral damage caused by the registries. Families are harassed, beaten, threatened, forced to leave their church, lose jobs, and lose friends and family. How is the family supposed to survive and become functional again under these conditions? So, this female, I won't call her a lady, got off EASY and should have to do some Public Service Announcements to warn vengeful females what could face if they falsely accuse someone.
    Vicki Henry
    Women Against Registry dot com

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yellowroselady,

    Thank you for the comment (I hope you don't mind, I deleted the duplicate).

    Welcome to the site.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I know for a fact that false statements due to a vindictive x made to the police are taken as gospel. Yeah, she proved to be CRAZY, but up until things didn't go the way she wanted, i.e. buy her car, expensive shoes, not work... She acted fine . The post about wide spread damage is true lost job,had to borrow money for bale, facing life in jail or death penalty is hell on your health. Can't see my son. She stole my life. Everyone should be held accountable for their falsehoods especially to the police!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Its not just incarcaration that is painful about false accusations.

    I am to face trial 11 months after the accusaton, the accusations are easy to falsify, but I dont get to say that until trial !

    and I dont get to live with my kids, the police give my wife the power to decide whether or not I get to see my kids.

    The state court said it wont even decide if this is fair or not, as I could ask the federal court (in Australia) if it is fair or not. This is just crazy, do not live in crazy states which defer to the federal court. WHy not ? well the federal court needs a property settlement as they dont like doing things in little bits, they want a whole divorce complete or nothing, but all I want is for the false accusation to be heard in court and she is told "no you are not able to make such useless claims, in fact you left out facts that are obvious, well known to you, and you must have left these facts out on purpose, ie you have deceived by omission, which is to say you wasted police and court time on purpose, GO TO JAIL, BITCH !

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.