An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[RavenSky]

Yes, I am the one who posted the comment about Malintent not reading the article in the OP...

I wasn't trying to throw you under the bus, btw. I just found it... amusing... that he was erroneously finger-wagging me about it. You are a much nicer person apologizing to him than I would have been, btw. I think your assessment was quite fair under the circumstances

 

[Toni]

Which means - in the case of rape - virtually never prosecuted

The op you linked does not support that. There were, what, 5 serial rapes reported? 4 were investigated correctly and 1 was not... the 1 that was from the mentally ill girl.
And the criminal was caught, prosecuted, and arrested.

ANY person who was just raped has been subjected to serious emotional and physical trauma. Her 'off' reaction was not 'off' but normal for any victim of rape

The failure of police to investigate Marie's rape led to the rapes of 4 other victims. The other victims were treated as victims, their rapes were investigated and the rapist was caught, arrested and prosecuted. Because those officers did their jobs unlike the officers who badgered Marie and failed to investigate a serious crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately the only way we could really tell is from the questioning interviews but we don't have them.

No, "we" really don't need transcripts of the interviews. "We" have the police who reviewed the actions of the investigating police, and the investigating police themselves stating that the police bullied her.

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only way this makes sense is if most rape reports are at least partially false.

Wrong. It means that the majority of rapes reported are not prosecuted. It has zilch to do with the reports being false (though Derec likes to pretend that is the case). It typically has to do with not enough physical evidence or the rapist is never caught. Sometimes, as with Marie, it is because the woman is disbelieved even when she is telling the truth.

Just because the perp isn't prosecuted doesn't make the report a lie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wrong. It means that the majority of rapes reported are not prosecuted. It has zilch to do with the reports being false (though Derec likes to pretend that is the case). It typically has to do with not enough physical evidence or the rapist is never caught. Sometimes, as with Marie, it is because the woman is disbelieved even when she is telling the truth.

Just because the perp isn't prosecuted doesn't make the report a lie.

Yes, that was what RavenSky just said.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, "we" really don't need transcripts of the interviews. "We" have the police who reviewed the actions of the investigating police, and the investigating police themselves stating that the police bullied her.

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

No. There is plenty of evidence that was paid attention to, that reveals the Police acted wrongly in this case. Also, there should never have been an interrogation to begin with, so nothing to tape if procedure had been followed.

- - - Updated - - -

No, "we" really don't need transcripts of the interviews. "We" have the police who reviewed the actions of the investigating police, and the investigating police themselves stating that the police bullied her.

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

No. There is plenty of evidence that was paid attention to, that reveals the Police acted wrongly in this case. Also, there should never have been an interrogation to begin with, so nothing to tape if procedure had been followed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, "we" really don't need transcripts of the interviews. "We" have the police who reviewed the actions of the investigating police, and the investigating police themselves stating that the police bullied her.

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

Wha?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because the perp isn't prosecuted doesn't make the report a lie.

Yes, that was what RavenSky just said.

But she's acting like the perp not being prosecuted puts her in danger of prosecution.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

Wha?

There's a considerable trend these days to throw the police under the bus if there's the slightest question of whether they were right. Without the evidence we have no way of knowing whether this is more of the same.

 

[Toni]

Yes, that was what RavenSky just said.

But she's acting like the perp not being prosecuted puts her in danger of prosecution.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

Wha?

There's a considerable trend these days to throw the police under the bus if there's the slightest question of whether they were right. Without the evidence we have no way of knowing whether this is more of the same.

There's a thing now about attempting to hold police accountable for deaths of people in their charge or even just children playing in the playground, as is the purpose of playgrounds, btw. This is distinctly different than throwing police under the bus.

But thanks for pointing out that police shooting or otherwise causing the deaths of citizens is similar to police treating rape victims as criminals and even arresting them after they are bullied int recanting the report of their rape.

 

[laughing dog]

There's a considerable trend these days to throw the police under the bus if there's the slightest question of whether they were right. Without the evidence we have no way of knowing whether this is more of the same.

There was sufficient evidence for outside investigator, the captain, and for anyone who read the entire article. Your denial of reality does not make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But she's acting like the perp not being prosecuted puts her in danger of prosecution.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

Wha?

There's a considerable trend these days to throw the police under the bus if there's the slightest question of whether they were right. Without the evidence we have no way of knowing whether this is more of the same.

There's a thing now about attempting to hold police accountable for deaths of people in their charge or even just children playing in the playground, as is the purpose of playgrounds, btw. This is distinctly different than throwing police under the bus.

But thanks for pointing out that police shooting or otherwise causing the deaths of citizens is similar to police treating rape victims as criminals and even arresting them after they are bullied int recanting the report of their rape.

Many of these cases involve no police wrongdoing, just media that likes to stir up trouble and BLM to be appeased. The police are afraid of what insanity a jury might do and settle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But she's acting like the perp not being prosecuted puts her in danger of prosecution.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, pay no attention to the evidence.

Wha?

There's a considerable trend these days to throw the police under the bus if there's the slightest question of whether they were right. Without the evidence we have no way of knowing whether this is more of the same.

There's a thing now about attempting to hold police accountable for deaths of people in their charge or even just children playing in the playground, as is the purpose of playgrounds, btw. This is distinctly different than throwing police under the bus.

But thanks for pointing out that police shooting or otherwise causing the deaths of citizens is similar to police treating rape victims as criminals and even arresting them after they are bullied int recanting the report of their rape.

Many of these cases involve no police wrongdoing, just media that likes to stir up trouble and BLM to be appeased. The police are afraid of what insanity a jury might do and settle.

Why do we always have this 'conversation' come up?

This thread is about obvious and admitted wrong doing of officers to a victim of a brutal rape assault. That doesn't seem to stop you from bringing out your pet topic of the brutal treatment the police receive because of BLM. Can't you just keep it in your pants and stay on topic?!

 

[laughing dog]

Many of these cases involve no police wrongdoing, just media that likes to stir up trouble and BLM to be appeased. The police are afraid of what insanity a jury might do and settle.

This case is about an actual rape victim being disbelieved. It establishes that it is possible that an actual rape victim is not lying when she (or he) has small inconsistencies in her or his account or if the rape victim recants. It is about the police mishandling (the verdict of the outside investigator who is a veteran police officer). This is not about hanging anyone out to dry.

Yet for some reason, those who are so busy licking the boots of police authority or apologizing for rapists seen intent of ignoring the obvious to focus on the inconsequential. Why is that?

 

[Toni]

Many of these cases involve no police wrongdoing, just media that likes to stir up trouble and BLM to be appeased. The police are afraid of what insanity a jury might do and settle.

This case is about an actual rape victim being disbelieved. It establishes that it is possible that an actual rape victim is not lying when she (or he) has small inconsistencies in her or his account or if the rape victim recants. It is about the police mishandling (the verdict of the outside investigator who is a veteran police officer). This is not about hanging anyone out to dry.

Yet for some reason, those who are so busy licking the boots of police authority or apologizing for rapists seen intent of ignoring the obvious to focus on the inconsequential. Why is that?

To be fair, I don't see anyone apologizing for rapists so much as denying that rapists are rapists. The belief seems to be that a) all rape victims are women and the only male victims are child victims of priests and/or coaches. And most of the women aren't really victims at all but willing participants who merely regret having sex while unconscious because the guy wasn't really into her as he told her while she was passed out from the ruffie laden drink he and his buddies gave her. Or she's embarrassed when the images her rapists friends filmed are posted all over the Internet. Anyone can see she clearly wasn't trying to get away while passed out. So it must mean she wanted it and wanted him and just can't handle the consequences of her behavior. Unlike the rapist and his buddies who will trot out numerous accounts of her previous sexual exploits even if they have to make them up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, I'm sorry... it's another thread about rape, and false rape reports...

but I am sincerely hoping that some people will actually read the article. I warn you in advance, it is very long. It is also necessary to read all of it to understand what happened, how and why...

She had reported being raped in her apartment by a man who had bound and gagged her. Then, confronted by police with inconsistencies in her story, she had conceded it might have been a dream. Then she admitted making the story up. One TV newscast announced, “A Western Washington woman has confessed that she cried wolf when it came to her rape she reported earlier this week.” She had been charged with filing a false report, which is why she was here today, to accept or turn down a plea deal.
Her lawyer was surprised she had been charged. Her story hadn’t hurt anyone — no suspects arrested, or even questioned. His guess was, the police felt used. They don’t appreciate having their time wasted.
The prosecution’s offer was this: If she met certain conditions for the next year, the charge would be dropped. She would need to get mental health counseling for her lying. She would need to go on supervised probation. She would need to keep straight, breaking no more laws. And she would have to pay $500 to cover the court’s costs.

Marie wanted this behind her.

She took the deal.

By early March, a forensic computer specialist cracked into files that O’Leary had stored on his hard drive. He found a folder called “girls” — and pictures that O’Leary had taken of his victims in Golden and Westminster. Galbraith recognized them by sight.

But then Galbraith stumbled across an image of a woman she didn’t recognize. It was a young woman — far younger than the Colorado victims, perhaps a teenager. The pictures showed her looking terrified, bound and gagged on a bed. Galbraith felt sick. How would she identify her? How would she find justice for her?
After looking through the images, she found an answer. It was a picture of the woman’s learner’s permit, placed on her chest. It had her name. And it had her address.

Lynnwood, Washington.

O’Leary pleaded guilty to 28 counts of rape and associated felonies in Colorado. On Dec. 9, 2011, almost a year after his arrest, O’Leary was sentenced to 327½ years in prison for the Colorado attacks — the maximum allowed by law. He is currently housed in the Sterling Correctional Facility in the barren, remote northeastern corner of Colorado. He will never be released.

After O’Leary was linked to Marie’s rape, Lynnwood Police Chief Steven Jensen requested an outside review of how his department had handled the investigation. In a report not previously made public, Sgt. Gregg Rinta, a sex crimes supervisor with the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office, wrote that what happened was “nothing short of the victim being coerced into admitting that she lied about the rape.”

That Marie recanted wasn’t surprising, Rinta wrote, given the “bullying” and “hounding” she was subjected to. The detectives elevated “minor inconsistencies” — common among victims — into discrepancies, while ignoring strong evidence the crime had occurred. As for threatening jail and a possible withdrawal of housing assistance if Marie failed a polygraph: “These statements are coercive, cruel, and unbelievably unprofessional,” Rinta wrote. “I can’t imagine ANY justification for making these statements.”

Two and a half years after Marie was branded a liar, Lynnwood police found her, south of Seattle, and told her the news: Her rapist had been arrested in Colorado. They gave her an envelope with information on counseling for rape victims. They said her record would be expunged. And they handed her $500, a refund of her court costs.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

If you choose not to actually read the article, that's fine. But don't bother commenting in this thread either.

I've been waiting this whole time until I had a long block of time to read the whole article. That took an hour.

I think it was worth the read.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow, skimming this thread, I can see that some posters clearly did not read the article. And their posts are not worth responding to, though I can see how I could fall into that trap, I'll try not to.

I wasn't even going to comment because I didn't think I could say anything of value, but looking at the thread early on...I guess I could say something here.

First, accusations against police being too tough on suspects is very true. I mean, they're even allowed to coerce and lie to the point of people confessing. If they don't get the "right" confession, they'll keep at it. Second, there's the whole plea bargain thing--a thing that exists in large part because our court system is so slow that the vast majority of cases are handled by deals. And the deals leave quite a few groups with injustices to a greater extent than other groups. Third, because of the nature of rape victims psychological trauma and the he-said-she-said business, it is a very slippery slope for them to move from being a reporter of a crime against them, to being accused of false accusation. Then, suddenly the first two points (coercion and plea deals) apply to them and WOW, that is terrible. Like the article said about Marie, they are victims twice.

The quick-change from accuser to accused is quite interesting to me because it shows a false dichotomy at play. But people using the dichotomy and lamenting all the false rape accusers are also employing a double standard. They demand irrefutable evidence that accused persons are guilty, but then when it's an alleged false rape accuser, suddenly they're labeled guilty on less evidence. For example, they're claiming that police labeling rape claims as "unfounded" means the accuser is a liar who should be prosecuted. Meanwhile, there are a myriad of reasons why evidence may not found to substantiate the claims.

 

[Malintent]

Why are you saying that Marie, based on how she was treated as a child, is not entitled to have a set of psychological problems? How heartless of you.

What are YOU saying? That Marie, based on how she was treated as a child, who may or may not have psychological problems, should automatically be DISBELIEVED when reporting a crime? How heartless of YOU!

obviously not. Emphasis on OBVIOUSLY. You PR police love to polarize things into black and white. "She seems off" becomes "she can never be trusted about anything". alas, if only life were as simple as the minds of children... anyway, "crazy seeming" is contributory to the failure of the police to properly investigate. If you act weird, it is reasonable to think that your story is a bit weird.

When reporting a crime, it is important that you keep the facts straight and try not to sound like a liar, or else you may be perceived as a liar.

 

[Malintent]

Why is the assault where an attacker penetrates a woman's vagina with a penis so radically different than when an attacker penetrates a woman's stomach with a knife, in terms of how the woman reports the assault? The latter is so much more physically damaging and life threatening, but the former is so much more emotionally damaging.. to the point of being difficult to report in a useful, consistent way.. why?

Why don't you ask the people who insist women are lying about rapes? They are the ones who make reporting a rape so radically different from reporting a non-sexual assault.

I can't find anyone that says that all reasonable sounding women with reasonable sounding accounts are lying about being raped. Can you? anyone believe this? anyone? Beuler? Beuler?

 

[Malintent]

Yes, I am the one who posted the comment about Malintent not reading the article in the OP. Here's the exchange:

I think you should take the time to read the article at Wired.com. You'll find that your supposition that false confessions is a female-centric problem is entirely baseless, that the notion current police interrogation tactics are effective at uncovering the truth is unsupported by research into the topic, and that better methods of interviewing witnesses and suspects have been developed.

You won't find anything about punishments for filing false reports, but that's not what this discussion is about so ...

Not sure what this discussion is about, then... OP says read the article and discuss.. no input, commentary, or any guidance as to what the point should be. so, I posted one of many possible impressions that can be taken from reading the entire serial rapist stories. It could be a mini series. However, the OP was barely a caption.

So like several posters before you, you didn't read the OP article but you're commenting on what you suppose it might say that could be used in support of an assertion you wish to make, and the rest of us can ignore your posts until it becomes apparent you have read it and understand the topic of this thread.

I believed you hadn't read the OP article because the two 'morals to this story' you posted make no sense in the context of the OP article and are thoroughly debunked in the Wired.com article, and because you said you didn't know what the thread discussion was about. I see now that it's possible you read it and still didn't know that the discussion isn't about bashing women or the punishment for filing a false report.

I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that you had not read the OP before commenting, as some other posters did. I should have asked how you got those 'morals' from the linked articles.

BTW, how did you get those two 'morals' from the linked articles?

"moral" was not intended in the strict sense... more like "the moral of the story.." meaning.. "what I got out of it".

To quote myself (that you also quoted):

OP says read the article and discuss.. no input, commentary, or any guidance as to what the point should be. so, I posted one of many possible impressions that can be taken from reading the entire serial rapist stories.

.. one of many possible... meaning, what did the OP WANT us to discuss about the story...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I am the one who posted the comment about Malintent not reading the article in the OP...

I wasn't trying to throw you under the bus, btw. I just found it... amusing... that he was erroneously finger-wagging me about it. You are a much nicer person apologizing to him than I would have been, btw. I think your assessment was quite fair under the circumstances

No apology from either of you was or is necessary. This is a discussion... an unguided one.. .but a discussion nonetheless.

 

[Malintent]

The op you linked does not support that. There were, what, 5 serial rapes reported? 4 were investigated correctly and 1 was not... the 1 that was from the mentally ill girl.
And the criminal was caught, prosecuted, and arrested.

ANY person who was just raped has been subjected to serious emotional and physical trauma. Her 'off' reaction was not 'off' but normal for any victim of rape

The failure of police to investigate Marie's rape led to the rapes of 4 other victims. The other victims were treated as victims, their rapes were investigated and the rapist was caught, arrested and prosecuted. Because those officers did their jobs unlike the officers who badgered Marie and failed to investigate a serious crime.

I know a woman that is a 911 survivor. She has severe PTSD. She can no longer work. Through immediate family members of mine, I have gotten to know this women quite well.

While here 911 experience was horrific, and she lost 2 family members and most of her coworkers / friends in it, it is clear, after speaking with her multiple times, that her "crazy" is far deeper than PTSD. In other words, clearly she was not exactly "fully sane" before 911. That historic instability in her personality was very likely contributory to how she reacted to her 911 losses... and acted as additional compounding issues.

She has the "right" (whatever that means) to be crazy after her 911 experience.... but she was obviously already a bit crazy...

The point to this is that "crazy" is not black and white (like all the PR police seem to think everything is), and someone can be crazy before a "crazy-worthy" event occurs. If you met this women, you wouldn't fully believe her perspective on events that she witnessed or experienced... she sounds off. and she IS off. but she did experience 911 trauma, for sure.

If YOU read the article in full, then you should have comprehended that Marie was indeed already traumatized all throughout her life before the rape trauma occurred.

Things are complicated... deal with it.