An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[Jimmy Higgins]

The real problem here is that when faced with a problem in her story (my suspicion is that when faced with gaps in her memory she made things up rather than admit she couldn't recall--in other words, she lied) she resorted to lying--saying the original was a lie.

You either did not read the linked article, or you immediately forgot what you read. Also, your suspicions are worthless here. She did not resort to lying. After being bullied by the police who interrogated her (yes, 'bullied' and 'interrogated' both seem to be words that apply here), she said it might have been a nightmare. She probably hoped it had been a nightmare. She wrote a statement that said as much, and signed it for her interrogators, but that was not enough for them. They coerced her into writing out a second statement saying that she had lied about the whole thing.

Which is terribly bizarre. Why is a victim writing a confession? It was like a bunch of Derec-like Officers wanted to make an example of her.

 

[Rhea]

Which is terribly bizarre. Why is a victim writing a confession? It was like a bunch of Derec-like Officers wanted to make an example of her.

And they succeeded. Tragically.


I don't know why Loren and Derec and Co are even surprised by this. We _KNOW_ that humans placed in extremely stressful situations _will_ make false confessions under duress. We _know_ this. There are books on this. People will admit to _murder_ just to be allowed to sleep. People under extreme stress make _terrible_ decisions. This is common knowledge.

It's WHY the Police department received training (which they ignored) in how to deal with rape victims. Because everything she did was completely predictable from a person who had been raped and traumatized.

Now make the person 18 years old. A child of foster care (no permanence, few role models). Who has been sexually abused in the past. And thought the Police were the Good Guys™, and therefore had a great deal of trust in their judgement (tragically).

And people are surprised that she did what they told her to do? Followed their lead, and gave them what they asked for?

Watching those people go on and on for days defending their lack of clinical knowledge of a situation is kind of depressing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real problem here is that when faced with a problem in her story (my suspicion is that when faced with gaps in her memory she made things up rather than admit she couldn't recall--in other words, she lied) she resorted to lying--saying the original was a lie.

You either did not read the linked article, or you immediately forgot what you read. Also, your suspicions are worthless here. She did not resort to lying. After being bullied by the police who interrogated her (yes, 'bullied' and 'interrogated' both seem to be words that apply here), she said it might have been a nightmare. She probably hoped it had been a nightmare. She wrote a statement that said as much, and signed it for her interrogators, but that was not enough for them. They coerced her into writing out a second statement saying that she had lied about the whole thing.

Of course the police try to break down her story, they would be negligent if they didn't.

The problem is that she responded to that by turning around and saying her initial report was a lie.

 

[Rhea]

You either did not read the linked article, or you immediately forgot what you read. Also, your suspicions are worthless here. She did not resort to lying. After being bullied by the police who interrogated her (yes, 'bullied' and 'interrogated' both seem to be words that apply here), she said it might have been a nightmare. She probably hoped it had been a nightmare. She wrote a statement that said as much, and signed it for her interrogators, but that was not enough for them. They coerced her into writing out a second statement saying that she had lied about the whole thing.

Of course the police try to break down her story, they would be negligent if they didn't.

The problem is that she responded to that by turning around and saying her initial report was a lie.

...as one does when one is traumatized and faced with further trauma.

This is so well documented that they have training on it. THAT DEPARTMENT received training on it.

Wake up.

 

[KeepTalking]

You either did not read the linked article, or you immediately forgot what you read. Also, your suspicions are worthless here. She did not resort to lying. After being bullied by the police who interrogated her (yes, 'bullied' and 'interrogated' both seem to be words that apply here), she said it might have been a nightmare. She probably hoped it had been a nightmare. She wrote a statement that said as much, and signed it for her interrogators, but that was not enough for them. They coerced her into writing out a second statement saying that she had lied about the whole thing.

Of course the police try to break down her story, they would be negligent if they didn't.

Why? She was reporting a crime, not being investigated for criminal activity.

The problem is that she responded to that by turning around and saying her initial report was a lie.

The problem is that she was treated like a criminal, rather than a victim, and she came to the point where she would do anything they told her to do just to get the ongoing trauma to end.

 

[Derec]

Why? She was reporting a crime, not being investigated for criminal activity.

Because police have to determine if the report of the crime is credible or not. It is not their job to credulously accept everything a complaisant tells them.

The problem is that she was treated like a criminal, rather than a victim, and she came to the point where she would do anything they told her to do just to get the ongoing trauma to end.

She wasn't treated as a criminal until she said that she wasn't raped after all.

 

[KeepTalking]

Because police have to determine if the report of the crime is credible or not. It is not their job to credulously accept everything a complaisant tells them.

The officers in this case ignored the training that informed them of how this should be done in the case of those reporting that they were victims of rape. Also, contrary to what Loren said in the post to which I was responding, this is not done by trying to "break down" the story, or the victim, but rather by observing if the report fits the known facts.

The problem is that she was treated like a criminal, rather than a victim, and she came to the point where she would do anything they told her to do just to get the ongoing trauma to end.

She wasn't treated as a criminal until she said that she wasn't raped after all.

I thought you said you read the article. She was very clearly treated as a criminal throughout the interrogation process.

 

[Derec]

I thought you said you read the article. She was very clearly treated as a criminal throughout the interrogation process.

No, I do not think she was. And if you had read the article you would have seen why police were skeptical. The perp was careful not to leave much evidence behind. And he was a neat freak who even put away her shoes neatly after removing the shoelaces.
So you have a case without any obvious physical evidence (touch DNA and shoeprints were found elsewhere), with an unreliable witness and you get a phone call that basically says she is a fantasist. They press her, and she "admits" to lying. It was not a good situation, but short of demanding police have to believe an accuser no matter what, I do not see what the police did wrong here.

 

[laughing dog]

Because police have to determine if the report of the crime is credible or not. It is not their job to credulously accept everything a complaisant tells them.

There is a distinct difference between skepticism and ignorant bullying.

She wasn't treated as a criminal until she said that she wasn't raped after all.

It is obvious that neither you nor LP have read the linked OP article at all. The forensic scene before they questioned was consistent with her initial story:

Police, walking around Marie’s apartment, discovered that the rear sliding glass door was unlocked and slightly ajar. It led to a back porch, with a wooden railing that was covered with dirt — except one part, about three feet wide, where it looked like maybe someone had brushed the surface while climbing over. On the bed officers found a shoestring — used, apparently, to bind Marie. On top of a computer monitor they found a second shoestring, tied to a pair of underwear, the apparent blindfold or gag. Both laces had come from Marie’s black tennis shoes, in the living room. Next to the bed was a black-handled knife. Marie said the knife was hers — that it had come from the kitchen, and was what the rapist had used to threaten her.

.

She was clearly traumatized. These two male officers did not follow know/understand the basics of dealing with a rape victim - they made false assumptions based on her demeanor. They bullied her based on their misconceptions and she ended up recanting. If you had bothered to read the OP article, it detailed how traumatic and difficult her life had been up to that point - including sexual and physical abuse when she was younger (she was 18 at the time of reported actual rape). Which most likely made her more sensitive to the mistreatment by the police.
She did not know her attacker, so there was no identifiable victim of a false accusation (even if it had been false). Her attorney was surprised she was charged.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that this case was broken by two female detectives. One wonders if the responding officers to Marie's case had been more competent or sensitive, if the outcome would have been different.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You either did not read the linked article, or you immediately forgot what you read. Also, your suspicions are worthless here. She did not resort to lying. After being bullied by the police who interrogated her (yes, 'bullied' and 'interrogated' both seem to be words that apply here), she said it might have been a nightmare. She probably hoped it had been a nightmare. She wrote a statement that said as much, and signed it for her interrogators, but that was not enough for them. They coerced her into writing out a second statement saying that she had lied about the whole thing.

Of course the police try to break down her story, they would be negligent if they didn't.

The problem is that she responded to that by turning around and saying her initial report was a lie.

The fucking point is, had the story come out, Derec would have labeled an actual rape victim a "lying bitch". This teaches us that there is a very large gray area with regards to rape accusations and even if nothing is discovered by the Police, or even if the accuser recants and pleads to lying, it is still possible the rape occurred.

Hence forth, no jumping to conclusions almost ever!

 

[KeepTalking]

I thought you said you read the article. She was very clearly treated as a criminal throughout the interrogation process.

No, I do not think she was. And if you had read the article you would have seen why police were skeptical. The perp was careful not to leave much evidence behind. And he was a neat freak who even put away her shoes neatly after removing the shoelaces.
So you have a case without any obvious physical evidence (touch DNA and shoeprints were found elsewhere), with an unreliable witness and you get a phone call that basically says she is a fantasist. They press her, and she "admits" to lying. It was not a good situation, but short of demanding police have to believe an accuser no matter what, I do not see what the police did wrong here.

Of course you don't, despite the article, which you ostensibly read, laying out exactly what they did wrong, and at least one of the officers who interrogated her admitting to the wrongdoing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought you said you read the article. She was very clearly treated as a criminal throughout the interrogation process.

No, I do not think she was. And if you had read the article you would have seen why police were skeptical. The perp was careful not to leave much evidence behind. And he was a neat freak who even put away her shoes neatly after removing the shoelaces.
So you have a case without any obvious physical evidence (touch DNA and shoeprints were found elsewhere), with an unreliable witness and you get a phone call that basically says she is a fantasist. They press her, and she "admits" to lying. It was not a good situation, but short of demanding police have to believe an accuser no matter what, I do not see what the police did wrong here.

You mean other than force her to plead to false accusal of rape when there wasn't even an identified person accused?

 

[Rhea]

I do not see what the police did wrong here.

Does it affect you at all that the Police themselves _DO_ see what they did wrong?

perhaps the most accurate thing you could state at this point would be, "it's clear I don't know shit about how to get evidence from rape victims in order to serve justice, wow, glad the Police have a better plan than I do; and it's a good thing I'm not a cop - I would clearly suck at it."

 

[RavenSky]

What I meant by this is that I fear that this case will be used by feminists to argue against ever prosecuting women for filing false rape claims. It's not like feminists have not demanded that already.
The Problem With Prosecuting Women for False Rape Allegations
Jailed false accuser draws feminist support

Derec, did you even read the articles you posted?

From the Times article:

Meanwhile, Lisa Longstaff, a spokeswoman for WAR, says, police are not putting in the necessary work into catching and convicting rapists. “They’re not dealing with rapists properly.”

Avalos agrees: “We do a bad job prosecuting rape across the Western world. A big part of what fuels that bad job is that police do not believe victims. Time after time after time we have victims saying they went to the police and the police didn’t believe them.”

A lot of what WAR says resonates with the statistics. Earlier this month an official inquiry into police practices in England and Wales found that police had failed to record more than 25 percent of the rapes and sexual offenses reported to them by the public as actual crimes. In some regions the figures were even worse, with police not recording one out of every three reports of rape or sexual assault.

Similarly, an explosive report released earlier this year found that police in Rotherham, England, disregarded numerous reports, over a course of years, of rape, sexual assault and forced prostitution made by young girls who were being abused by a group of men. Longstaff also points out that many of the girls in the Rotherham case who came forward to the police wound up being charged with offenses such as underage drinking, while their rapists went free.

No one is arguing that women who make malicious false allegations of rape should be free from consequences... Part of the larger problem with prosecuting women for making false allegations is, according to Longstaff, that past examples prove “we can’t trust the authorities to make a rational decision about which is a false and which is not a false allegation. We’ve gone down the road so many times of seeing women who report rape or domestic violence or even child abuse and then [unjustly] end up on the wrong end of the prosecution.”

She points to the stateside case of Sara Reedy, who received a $1.5 million settlement from a Pennsylvania police department after she was raped at gunpoint at the age of 19 and then charged with inventing the story. Authorities were so convinced she was lying, she was even briefly jailed. It wasn’t until her attacker was arrested for another assault and then confessed to raping Reedy, that charges were fully dropped.

Thanks for proving the point of the OP though

 

[RavenSky]

Innocent men get wrongfully convicted of rape all the time.

NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD - BUT THANK YOU FOR AGAIN PROVING MY POINT ABOUT HOW YOU DERAIL EVERY THREAD ABOUT A WOMAN BEING RAPED WITH YOUR BULLSHIT MRA HOBBY HORSE!!!

(Also a gross exaggeration. Innocent men do NOT "get wrongfully convicted of rape all the time")

 

[RavenSky]

Thank you for the link. It definitely adds a lot more to the story of what happened to Marie.

It seems that Marie's story was so inconsistent that not only trained investigators but also people closest to her thought that she was lying. And when she said she was lying and accepted the plea deal there is really not much they could do.

It seems that she was an 18-year-old who had been viciously raped for hours in her own home, and was severely traumatized. There was one hell of a lot the police could have and should have done, especially when there was PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that she was raped (abrasions to her wrists consistent with being tied up, for instance)

But leave it to you to dismiss all of that and blame her for what happened to her.

- - - Updated - - -

<snipping Derec's derailing bullshit>

DERAILING THE THREAD AGAIN!

Stick to the actual topic or stop posting in this thread

 

[RavenSky]

Derec,
Should she have been prosecuted in this case?

Probably not, but then again she should not have said she made it all up.

Blaming the victim again

She was bullied by the police into saying she made it up after being traumatized by the rape. Can't you even admit that much?

 

[RavenSky]

You are seriously saying that being the subject of a false rape allegation is worse than actually getting raped? WTF is wrong with you?

I think being falsely placed in jail for most of ones life is far worse than being raped. Besides losing ones freedom, the mere act of being in jail means that you are going to get raped anyway while in jail. Where as in the case that you are raped out of jail, you still have your freedom and also a clean record to get a job.

There was no one even identified in the OP case, much less anyone spending any time in jail

 

[RavenSky]

It certainly is if the falsely accused has to spend time in prison.

Derailing yet again with your MRA apologist bullshit.

Marie did not point a finger at anyone; couldn't even describe her VERY REAL rapist, so all of your crocodile tears about some sap going to prison has zero place in THIS thread.

Are you entirely incapable of EVER admitting that a woman was violently raped without somehow trying to blame her or deflect/derail/dismiss it?

 

[RavenSky]

Bullshit Loren.

Every witness statement will have minor discrepancies (unless they are lying), and for a young woman who has been traumatized by a horrible rape there will also very possibly be confusion, missing time, weird emotional affects, etc. This is exactly what the articles (you clearly have not read) talk about. She was NOT "in the wrong" and it is really very disgusting that you would say such a thing.

You're so determined the woman is right you missed the point. Either she's lying about the rape or she's lying when she said she's lying about the rape.

No Loren... YOU are so fucking determined to blame the rape victim, that you are writing asinine bullshit. But fine, let's play your stupid game...

If, per your bullshit, Marie was "lying when she said she's lying about the rape" after being bullied by the police to write that lie... are you suggesting she should have been prosecuted for it? Seriously?