An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[laughing dog]

What evidence do we have that Marie was "bullied" by the police?

Nothing, other than the report of the police officer who conducted the outside review of the case:

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,”

All of which was posted in the OP and available in the cited article.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't find the OP story unbelievable but some the responses to the story in this thread are unbelievable.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why can't we focus on all of the above?

This is a case of police misconduct, and it is an example of police bullying somebody into recanting their complaint of an actual crime that took place.

That doesn't make other crimes that you listed above any less heinous or worthy of attention. There is no need to take the sides that you folks so seem to love to take on this.

In any of the above cases the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the police and prosecutors should do their best to prove the guilt.

Because that is how Derec and his buddy up there derail, diffuse and dilute the fact that rape happens, and that all too often what happens to the victim after the rape is almost as horrifying. Derec and a few others pull that shit in every single thread about rape, and I refuse to allow it in this one - though I fully expected them to try it, and point to the fact they did as evidence of the sort of thing that happened to Marie.

He does. And folks at the other end encourage him and straw man him at every opportunity, and often jump the shark in the opposite direction. The polarization causes illogic in all directions and makes it hard to take any of these threads seriously.

 

[Arctish]

Because that is how Derec and his buddy up there derail, diffuse and dilute the fact that rape happens, and that all too often what happens to the victim after the rape is almost as horrifying. Derec and a few others pull that shit in every single thread about rape, and I refuse to allow it in this one - though I fully expected them to try it, and point to the fact they did as evidence of the sort of thing that happened to Marie.

He does. And folks at the other end encourage him and straw man him at every opportunity, and often jump the shark in the opposite direction. The polarization causes illogic in all directions and makes it hard to take any of these threads seriously.

I disagree.

What makes it hard to take any of these threads seriously is having posters who obviously didn't read the article in the OP pontificating about what they assume it said, or didn't say, or why it was wrong, or why it doesn't count. And yet their posts have to be addressed because otherwise, the posters will think they made some sort of coherent argument or valid point. So these threads tend to get cluttered with nonsense and pointing out the obvious.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why can't we focus on all of the above?

This is a case of police misconduct, and it is an example of police bullying somebody into recanting their complaint of an actual crime that took place.

That doesn't make other crimes that you listed above any less heinous or worthy of attention. There is no need to take the sides that you folks so seem to love to take on this.

In any of the above cases the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the police and prosecutors should do their best to prove the guilt.

Because that is how Derec and his buddy up there derail, diffuse and dilute the fact that rape happens, and that all too often what happens to the victim after the rape is almost as horrifying. Derec and a few others pull that shit in every single thread about rape, and I refuse to allow it in this one - though I fully expected them to try it, and point to the fact they did as evidence of the sort of thing that happened to Marie.

Not only are women treated badly by police and courts, but it's so bad and so well known, most women do not report rapes because they fear what will happen afterwards at the hands of an incompetent judicial and police system. We see reports of many states that have accumulated many untested rape kits because they refuse to allot the funds to do their jobs. That shows an attitude problem right there. A study by the Justice department some years ago demonstrated the 4/5s of rapes are not reported. That does not seem to bother the Derec types of the world much. And the untested rape kits could in fact clear men who are falsely accused of rape in a few cases.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because that is how Derec and his buddy up there derail, diffuse and dilute the fact that rape happens, and that all too often what happens to the victim after the rape is almost as horrifying. Derec and a few others pull that shit in every single thread about rape, and I refuse to allow it in this one - though I fully expected them to try it, and point to the fact they did as evidence of the sort of thing that happened to Marie.

He does. And folks at the other end encourage him and straw man him at every opportunity, and often jump the shark in the opposite direction. The polarization causes illogic in all directions and makes it hard to take any of these threads seriously.

I'll take False Equivalency for $1600 Alex.

Let's look at Derec's only post in this thread.

So if police getting it wrong on a case of false rape claim means we should stop prosecuting women for filing false rape claims does that mean that police getting it wrong on rape (there have been many cases of men wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of rape) means that we should stop prosecuting men for rape?

Were you talking about strawman? Because that is what Derec provided, to an OP about a woman who was not only terribly violated by a rapist, but also by the Police.

 

[laughing dog]

Because that is how Derec and his buddy up there derail, diffuse and dilute the fact that rape happens, and that all too often what happens to the victim after the rape is almost as horrifying. Derec and a few others pull that shit in every single thread about rape, and I refuse to allow it in this one - though I fully expected them to try it, and point to the fact they did as evidence of the sort of thing that happened to Marie.

He does. And folks at the other end encourage him and straw man him at every opportunity, and often jump the shark in the opposite direction. The polarization causes illogic in all directions and makes it hard to take any of these threads seriously.

Then why are you doing your best to make it even more difficult to take these threads seriously?

 

[Derec]

Let's look at Derec's only post in this thread.
So if police getting it wrong on a case of false rape claim means we should stop prosecuting women for filing false rape claims does that mean that police getting it wrong on rape (there have been many cases of men wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of rape) means that we should stop prosecuting men for rape?
Were you talking about strawman? Because that is what Derec provided, to an OP about a woman who was not only terribly violated by a rapist, but also by the Police.

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
Etc.
Had Crystal Magnum been prosecuted, her boyfriend might still be alive.

 

[Derec]

We see reports of many states that have accumulated many untested rape kits because they refuse to allot the funds to do their jobs.

And all such kits should be tested in a timely manner. No argument there.

That shows an attitude problem right there. A study by the Justice department some years ago demonstrated the 4/5s of rapes are not reported. That does not seem to bother the Derec types of the world much.

If they are never reported how does DOJ claim to know how many there are? And if these unreported claims are never investigated how does DOJ claim to know they are non-reports of actual rapes?
Had Jackie Coakley never reported her imaginary rape she would have been included in this 4/5 estimate (and estimate is all that is, and all estimates are based on assumptions).
""

 

[coloradoatheist]

Let's look at Derec's only post in this thread.
So if police getting it wrong on a case of false rape claim means we should stop prosecuting women for filing false rape claims does that mean that police getting it wrong on rape (there have been many cases of men wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of rape) means that we should stop prosecuting men for rape?
Were you talking about strawman? Because that is what Derec provided, to an OP about a woman who was not only terribly violated by a rapist, but also by the Police.

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
Etc.
Had Crystal Magnum been prosecuted, her boyfriend might still be alive.

It's more of the presentation. I think you could say that this was a sad story and the details of the story should not have been doubted as much as other types of rapes.

 

[Derec]

No matter what else happens, what you think can happen, how people interact with the victim, she was bounded, gagged, and raped in her own home.
And then she had to plea out to lying about rape. The police didn't just not find the evidence to support the case, they charged her with lying about rape.

For whatever reason police thought she was lying. Sometimes police get it wrong. That does not mean police (or anybody else) should blindly believe rape accusers and ignore inconsistencies in their statements.

Did she fall apart during questioning, were details mixed up? She was traumatized because she was raped for four hours in her own home. Trauma does that to you. I remember walking in on a guy trying to rob my dorm, I couldn't remember what his clothes looked like after 10 minutes. Oh, wasn't traumatized by rape either. The Police should know stuff like that.

If she was inconsistent during questioning that is a bigger problem than merely not remembering. As you said, police should know stuff like that. Therefore I think the problems with her statements were more severe than not being able to remember the perp's clothes.

But let me get to the point, she was bounded, gagged, and raped and pleaded to lying about it.

"She was bound" you meant to say surely. 'Bounded' means she had a boundary or limit. For example: 'the surface of a sphere is unbounded'.

Had Derec and his pals known about the story, they would have posted here and gloated about a woman who was actually raped for four hours, had pleaded guilty to lying about rape. This tells us that rape, accusing of rape, living through a rape is absurdly hard. And that even if you can't prove it, that doesn't mean the woman is lying.

Criminal justice system works with evidence and being able to prove something. Often it gets it wrong. Innocent men get wrongfully convicted of rape all the time.
Luckily evidence emerged that proved this woman was right. But I do not see why this case should mean that we automatically believe a woman's claim without evidence.

Yes, people lie about rape. However it is people like Derec and yourself that make it easier for the rapist in this case to rape more women.

Do you think people who lie about rape should ever be prosecuted? Or should there be an automatic immunity for false rape accusers because of what happened to this woman?

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[Derec]

Lying about rape is really bad. Raping someone is worse.

Why is it worse? You could argue false rape allegations are worse because it fraudulently enlists the government to deprive an innocent person of their freedom.

So why on earth would anyone focus on the least of the 5 bad outcomes? Hmmm...

Least? Tell that to innocent men like Brian Banks who were wrongfully convicted and had to spend years in prison. And of course, his false accuser, Wanetta Gibson, never got prosecuted.

 

[Derec]

Indeed. the FBI data shows about 5% of rape claim are classed "unfounded."

Citation needed.

INCLUDING ONES EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE, where a rape did happen and no one believed her. They label that "unfounded."

But excluding the much more frequent case of false rape claims not being dismissed as "unfounded" and leading to prosecution or conviction. The false accusation of the Duke Lacrosse players isn't in that category and neither is the false accusation of Brian Banks.

 

[Derec]

Really? Like who?

Crystal Magnum - Duke Lacrosse case
Wanetta Gibson - Brian Banks case. He spent 5 years in prison.
Tawana Brawley - well that case is known by her own name. Never was prosecuted, had been ducking civil judgment for 20 years
Jackie Coakley - UVA gang rape case.
Etc.

I've heard of women that have re-canted their accusation, but that by no means is an indication she "made a false charge". Did you not read the article?

Yes, of course, women don't lie about rape. So every woman who recants an accusation must have been coerced because there is no way she lied the first time.

Recant does not equal lied
no evidence does not equal lied
inconsistencies does not equal lied

Of course not. Because women don't lie about rape.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Once again, I challenge posters to put their money where their mouth and do something about the falsely convicted:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.

 

[Derec]

Derec,
Should she have been prosecuted in this case?

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

 

[Derec]

You were the person I had most hoped (and least expected) to actually read the article. It is clear that you did not,

I actually did.

First of all, NO ONE has suggested that "we should stop prosecuting women for filing false rape claims" so take that asinine strawman right off the table.

There are definitely people who do. And hardly any false accusers get prosecuted in the US.

What IS suggested factually evidenced by the article is that, contrary to your constant claims in other threads, some women really will recant a rape report EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE IN FACT RAPED.This means that when you insist that XYZ women are lying liars who lied, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT. You just prefer to believe it.

But they are "lying liers who lied" - they are either lying when they made the original accusation or when they recanted.

Here is what the article did say:

Marie’s case led to changes in practices and culture, Rider said. Detectives receive additional training about rape victims. Rape victims get immediate assistance from advocates at a local healthcare center. Investigators must have “definitive proof” of lying before doubting a rape report, and a charge of false reporting must now be reviewed with higher-ups.

There should certainly be probable cause of lying to charge somebody with lying about rape. Merely doubting a claim should not require such steep burden of proof however. It seems the police department has now swung too far in the "automatically believe a rape accuser even when there are problems with her story". Exactly what I am fearing.

That is not the same as "lack of evidence for rape" or that the prosecution declines to take a case to trial or even that the woman withdraws her complaint. None of these means a woman has lied about being raped, and should therefore be prosecuted. Without CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL LIE there should not be any prosecution of a person who files a rape report.

I agree that there should be evidence before charging somebody with making a false report. But isn't a recantation "conclusive evidence of an actual lie"?

Again from the article:

Investigators, one guide advised, should not assume that a true victim will be hysterical rather than calm; able to show clear signs of physical injury; and certain of every detail. Some victims confuse fine points or even recant. Nor should police get lost in stereotypes — believing, for example, that an adult victim will be more believable than an adolescent.

The problem I have with that is that it claims that pretty much anything is consistent with being raped and thus a woman should be believed no matter what.

Police should not interrogate victims

Why not? And why use the prejudicial term "victim" rather than the more neutral "accuser"?

From what Mason wrote up later, he wasted little time confronting Marie, telling her there were inconsistencies between her statements and accounts from other witnesses.

A fair thing to confront any complainant about.

Marie said she didn’t know of any discrepancies. But she went through the story again — only this time, saying she believed the rape had happened instead of saying it for certain.

And you do not see how that is a red flag?

Tearfully, she described her past — all the foster parents, being raped when she was 7, getting her own place and feeling alone. Rittgarn told Marie that her story and the evidence didn’t match. He said he believed she had made the story up — a spur-of-the-moment thing, not something planned out. He asked if there was really a rapist running around the neighborhood that the police should be looking for. “No,” Marie told him, her voice soft, her eyes down

Well based on her answers I do not see how police did anything wrong here. Since she was really raped I do not think she should have said that police should not be looking for a rapist. But she was a terrible witness, I think we can all agree on that. Had the rapist not struck again he would not have been brought to justice even if the investigators were very sympathetic.

“Based on her answers and body language it was apparent that [Marie] was lying about the rape,” Rittgarn later wrote.

No human system is infallible. But investigators have to come up with conclusions, even if they are not infallible. The alternative would be to believe every rape complainant no matter what. And why limit it to rape either?

So Derec, have you learned anything at all from this article?

Yes, one should not be quick to sign statements to the police.

 

[Derec]

I don't see anywhere in the article or this thread where any of that was suggested. You must have imagined all that.

No, it's a demand made by feminists even before the Marie case.

I think the moral of the story is that having police officers intimidate and threaten the people who ask for their help is not productive or acceptable.
Yes, every crime reported could be a prank or a lie. But without substantive evidence of a lie, all reports should be taken seriously.

All reports should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. It was ok for police to confront Marie with inconsistencies between her statements and those of witnesses. It was not ok for Marie to say that police should not be looking for a rapist.

What kind of country is this where you call to report a crime and the police threaten you with fines and imprisonment unless you recant? And then punish you further even after you recant? This is a problem. I don't know exactly how big of a problem this is, but it clearly has happened at least once, so it must exist.

That is not exactly what happened. She initially recanted without such threats. She was only threatened when she tried to recant her recantation.
It's an incredibly messy case, but I do not think police were at fault here. It is part of their job to be skeptical toward claims that seem flaky.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that people must think that there is a clear and clean symmetry and equity between the acts of rape and false rape accusation and the prosecution of each. Different things are different. Proving a false rape accusation is different from proving a real rape. No matter how hard you try you can't make them the same.

They are not the same, but that does not justify false rape accusers almost never getting prosecuted.

e totally shut down this air headed woman (they also have air headed men on the panel at times) down with logic.

"Logic" being that groping is ok if the groper is a woman?

 

[laughing dog]

Why is it worse? You could argue false rape allegations are worse because it fraudulently enlists the government to deprive an innocent person of their freedom.

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

Least? Tell that to innocent men like Brian Banks who were wrongfully convicted and had to spend years in prison. And of course, his false accuser, Wanetta Gibson, never got prosecuted.

I will tell that to innocent men after you tell actual rape victims it is worse to lie about a rape than to be raped.

- - - Updated - - -

Derec,
Should she have been prosecuted in this case?

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

Which would not have happened if the police had not acted like rape apologists.