An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[Rhea]

Yeah, except vaginal wounds and her wrists indicated signs of bounding. The physical evidence implied she was attacked and sexually assaulted. But the cops want to then disbelieve her and suggest she is lying, when she suffered wounding that implied rape?!

What more evidence did they need to take her seriously?

We get spoiled from our TV law shows with how well detectives and crime scene investigators work together and solve a crime within an hour. The detective gets a call from Marie's friend that says she made the story up, he asks Marie if she made the story up and she says yes then there are problems.

The best solution and maybe everyone will agree, is that all interrogations need to be taped with sound.

- - - Updated - - -

They did the normal things with looking for the obvious signs. They had a dog try and chase the footprints, they asked other people about anything they saw. As I said, we are spoiled from TV where they solve all the crimes.

Holy shit, NO! The "best solution" is to USE DEPARTMENT PROTOCOL when talking to a rape victim and NOT ask the victim if she "made the story up".

Are you showing us how detectives can be assholes, is this, like, a manual for it?
The Police department SAID THEY FUCKED UP.
The Police department SAID they didn't question her properly.
The Police department SAID they handled it wrong.

Jesus Christ and you're still pretending they didn't fuck up. Defending them, blaming her.

We're not "spoiled by our TV dramas", you are apparently spoiled by not noticing the parts of the story that show the police officers fucked this up with duisastrous consequences. FFS, when do you people ever take responsibility for your actions? The Police Fucked Up. They didn't follow basic protocol. It caused them to make a bad judgment.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We get spoiled from our TV law shows with how well detectives and crime scene investigators work together and solve a crime within an hour. The detective gets a call from Marie's friend that says she made the story up, he asks Marie if she made the story up and she says yes then there are problems.

The best solution and maybe everyone will agree, is that all interrogations need to be taped with sound.

- - - Updated - - -

They did the normal things with looking for the obvious signs. They had a dog try and chase the footprints, they asked other people about anything they saw. As I said, we are spoiled from TV where they solve all the crimes.

I like Homicide LotS. That show was real, some crimes solved, others not, some took over a season to solve.

What does this have to do with vaginal abrasions which indicate vaginal assault. I'm not faulting the police for not solving the crime but for accusing her of lying when she suffered from vaginal abrasions!

What I am saying is that the abrasions are unknown if they can be self-inflicted. In the shows the crime scene people and the investigating department are always discussing the cases and not just a report 3 weeks later.

 

[coloradoatheist]

We get spoiled from our TV law shows with how well detectives and crime scene investigators work together and solve a crime within an hour. The detective gets a call from Marie's friend that says she made the story up, he asks Marie if she made the story up and she says yes then there are problems.

The best solution and maybe everyone will agree, is that all interrogations need to be taped with sound.

- - - Updated - - -

They did the normal things with looking for the obvious signs. They had a dog try and chase the footprints, they asked other people about anything they saw. As I said, we are spoiled from TV where they solve all the crimes.

Holy shit, NO! The "best solution" is to USE DEPARTMENT PROTOCOL when talking to a rape victim and NOT ask the victim if she "made the story up".

Are you showing us how detectives can be assholes, is this, like, a manual for it?
The Police department SAID THEY FUCKED UP.
The Police department SAID they didn't question her properly.
The Police department SAID they handled it wrong.

Jesus Christ and you're still pretending they didn't fuck up. Defending them, blaming her.

We're not "spoiled by our TV dramas", you are apparently spoiled by not noticing the parts of the story that show the police officers fucked this up with duisastrous consequences. FFS, when do you people ever take responsibility for your actions? The Police Fucked Up. They didn't follow basic protocol. It caused them to make a bad judgment.

And of course it's easy a perp was caught to say that things were screwed up. I bet in about 80% of police cases they screw up something, most don't matter. But yes, with a video tape in the interview room they could see if and how much the officer was badgering the person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like Homicide LotS. That show was real, some crimes solved, others not, some took over a season to solve.

What does this have to do with vaginal abrasions which indicate vaginal assault. I'm not faulting the police for not solving the crime but for accusing her of lying when she suffered from vaginal abrasions!

What I am saying is that the abrasions are unknown if they can be self-inflicted. In the shows the crime scene people and the investigating department are always discussing the cases and not just a report 3 weeks later.

She claimed she was bounded and raped. She had injuries consistent with being bounded and raped.

 

[laughing dog]

I have read it several times.

There is no evidence of that in your posts. For example, no one called the police and said she was lying. The anonymous tipster (who turned to be her foster mother) said she did not believe her. Furthermore, an outside investigator found she was mistreated and bullied by the 2 police officers. So why are you trying to say otherwise?

 

[Derec]

She claimed she was bounded and raped. She had injuries consistent with being bounded and raped.

I mentioned it before, but it's bound and raped. She is obviously bounded, her skin is her boundary ...

 

[Sweetpea7788]

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.

The police always consider the possibility that the person reporting a crime is lying.

I think people are confusing roles here. The police are just supposed to take a report. It is the prosecutor who is responsible to read that report, consider the facts, meet with the victim (not required but strongly preferred), and decide whether or not to file charges. Prosecutors have wide latitude in taking a case or not, and part of that does come down to credibility of the victim.

It's the defense attorney who will attack the victim's story the strongest. That is their job.

Police are not prosecutors or lawyers, and shouldn't try to act like them.

I worked in criminal court for 7 years at the misdemeanor and felony levels.

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?

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

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.

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.

Blind defenders of the status-quo criminal justice system may think this situation is good enough, but I don't.

Yes, which is normal human memory especially after trauma. They should have said I'm sorry we'll try and catch him but it will be tough.

Even if you figure it's only minor details she's still in the wrong. When confronted with the discrepancies she said she lied--at that point there's no doubt whatsoever she's lying about something.

Even if you figure it's only minor details she's still in the wrong. When confronted with the discrepancies she said she lied--at that point there's no doubt whatsoever she's lying about something.

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.

There is a lot of men who have served REAL time in jail for a false rape charge proven by DNA. How does the police separate a small liar with a big liar? WTF is wrong with you laughing dog?

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.

- - - Updated - - -

If there is DNA, that typically indicates a rape occurred,

Wrong. DNA only proves there was intercourse taken place.

If she said "I was raped" and he says "I never had sex with her" then DNA pretty much proves rape.

On the other hand, if she says "I was raped" and he says "It was consensual" then DNA is worthless.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

This is not about the woman being "right". She was raped. She did not lie about the rape. She was bullied (the verdict of the outside investigation by a police officer) into retracting her accusation. If they had followed well-established procedure, there would have been no reason for her to retract anything, and this incredibly traumatic experience for her (on top of the actual rape) and damning incident for the police would have been avoided.

Someone who has been traumatized might easily be intimidated by the police to withdraw an accusation if he or she is threatened with jail time. The point which should be obvious to anyone with a moral conscience, is that she should not have been bullied. In your kneejerk zeal to defend the police, you are blaming an actual victim of rape for failing to stand up to police mistreatment and bullying. Your position is morally repugnant.

If she didn't lie about the rape then she lied when she said she lied about the rape.

She made two statements that can't possibly both be true. Ergo, she lied.

She also had abrasions on her wrists consistent with being tied up with the shoe laces.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She claimed she was bounded and raped. She had injuries consistent with being bounded and raped.

I mentioned it before, but it's bound and raped. She is obviously bounded, her skin is her boundary ...

Yeah, isn't there a rock you should be crawling under by this point?

 

[RavenSky]

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?

The crime is making a false police report--and she most certainly did that.

That is utter bullshit. Even the police in this case admit that she did not make a false police report. Are you, of all people, disagreeing with the police?

 

[Derec]

Yeah, isn't there a rock you should be crawling under by this point?

That's a weirdly hostile response to somebody correcting your grammar.

 

[RavenSky]

The police were wrong this time - both in that assumption and in their methods. And as Rhea pointed out, if they had been a bit more diligent and a lot less assholish, they might have been able to stop this serial rapist before he raped 4 more women.

That is highly unlikely. There was a dearth of evidence, which is part of what led them to disbelieve her in the first place.

Wrong. There was plenty of physical evidence (until they destroyed it without running the DNA through the system.

I will agree that it was somewhat unlikely that they would have caught him before he raped again, but because he had been in the military (which means his prints and other information would have been somewhere in the system), there would have been a chance.

That first police officer blew it HUGELY, and 4 more women (including two older women) were violently raped as a result.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. There was plenty of physical evidence (until they destroyed it without running the DNA through the system.

Can you elaborate? My understanding is that he was very careful not leaving DNA behind and they could only collect a few partial profiles from the other crime scenes.
Which DNA-bearing physical evidence was destroyed?

That first police officer blew it HUGELY, and 4 more women (including two older women) were violently raped as a result.

Note that nobody disbelieved the first three of these women either, and yet he managed to not get caught. His first mistake was the pickup truck that was identified. I do not think anybody saw that pickup truck at the Marie crime scene.

And yes, the police there made a mistake, but that was because circumstances fit in certain way. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[RavenSky]

You will not get agreement from me that this woman should have been interrogated at all. She was reporting a crime, that is not a reason to interrogate someone. Given that the interrogation should not have been conducted, I don't see how anything about recording interrogations can be a possible solution in this situation.

Except her friends/foster care said she had made it up. There is a line between interrogation and trying to get more detail too.

You keep claiming that her friends said they thought she was lying. This is not true. The cop told Marie that her ex-boyfriend said he didn't believe her, but the ex-boyfriend swears that he never said that at all, and he supported her throughout all of it. Her other friend at the apartment house also believed her and stuck by her throughout.

It was the two foster moms (both of whom sound like complete idiots) that said they didn't believe her. One of them is still blaming her

 

[RavenSky]

What does this have to do with vaginal abrasions which indicate vaginal assault. I'm not faulting the police for not solving the crime but for accusing her of lying when she suffered from vaginal abrasions!

What I am saying is that the abrasions are unknown if they can be self-inflicted...

She reported a rape, and the physical evidence was consistent with her report. You are still acting like she was a crime suspect rather than a crime victim. Being a rape victim does NOT make one an automatic suspect of anything.

 

[Rhea]

Can you elaborate? My understanding is that he was very careful not leaving DNA behind and they could only collect a few partial profiles from the other crime scenes.
Which DNA-bearing physical evidence was destroyed?

That first police officer blew it HUGELY, and 4 more women (including two older women) were violently raped as a result.

Note that nobody disbelieved the first three of these women either, and yet he managed to not get caught. His first mistake was the pickup truck that was identified. I do not think anybody saw that pickup truck at the Marie crime scene.

And yes, the police there made a mistake, but that was because circumstances fit in certain way. Hindsight is always 20/20.

What article are you even reading?
Marie was the first victim. Number one.
He didn't take her sheets, was not as careful as he became later. **IF** they had tested, they would have found DNA. His first mistake was foot prints and sheets at his first victim's (Marie's) house.

And the fact that they believed the next three victims was compounded by even though they believed them they don't, as a rule, care enough to compare records or have a database. Which is another problem. But the first problem was how they handled Marie's case. They treated her horribly, coerced her into a confession that was untrue, botched the physical data and, based on the coerced statement, discarded both the evidence and the case file.

(this post is for others reading, not for Derec, who has no interest in truth or justice)

 

[RavenSky]

Can you elaborate? My understanding is that he was very careful not leaving DNA behind...

In the first case, Marie's case, he was not as careful. He did not take the sheets like he did in the later cases. There was a finger print found on the window. There was a full "rape kit" done on Marie by the hospital that included possible hairs and fibers. He did not force her to shower as he did in later cases. (Those are the three examples I remember off the top of my head. There may have been more).

But instead of investigating any of that evidence, they decided she was lying, PROSECUTED her, closed her file and DESTROYED all of the evidence.

 

[Toni]

Can you elaborate? My understanding is that he was very careful not leaving DNA behind and they could only collect a few partial profiles from the other crime scenes.
Which DNA-bearing physical evidence was destroyed?

That first police officer blew it HUGELY, and 4 more women (including two older women) were violently raped as a result.

Note that nobody disbelieved the first three of these women either, and yet he managed to not get caught. His first mistake was the pickup truck that was identified. I do not think anybody saw that pickup truck at the Marie crime scene.

And yes, the police there made a mistake, but that was because circumstances fit in certain way. Hindsight is always 20/20.

No. It was not a case of 'hindsight being 20/20.' It was a case of police persecuting a victim who had been victimized her entire life.

Here's what the review done on Marie's case concluded:

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.”

There are a lot of reasons rape victims don't tell. This account describes some of them.

Do you also disbelieve male victims of priests and coaches? Were Paterno's vicitms lying or exaggerating? Or is it just female victims?

 

[Derec]

In the first case, Marie's case, he was not as careful. He did not take the sheets like he did in the later cases.

He did. In the article, Marie is described as shopping for new ones. In fact, one of the reason her foster mom disbelieved her was because she wanted exactly the same sheets he took.

There was a finger print found on the window. There was a full "rape kit" done on Marie by the hospital that included possible hairs and fibers. He did not force her to shower as he did in later cases. (Those are the three examples I remember off the top of my head. There may have been more).

Ok. If that evidence was still there it should have been evaluated.

But instead of investigating any of that evidence, they decided she was lying, PROSECUTED her, closed her file and DESTROYED all of the evidence.

Because she foolishly said she made it all up.

 

[RavenSky]

He did. In the article, Marie is described as shopping for new ones.

The POLICE took her sheets

 

[Derec]

What article are you even reading?
Marie was the first victim. Number one.
He didn't take her sheets, was not as careful as he became later. **IF** they had tested, they would have found DNA. His first mistake was foot prints and sheets at his first victim's (Marie's) house.

I know she was the first. But he still did take the sheets. Remember, she had to shop for new ones.
Footprints are not very specific, usually you can only find the size/model of a shoe that way. My point is that nobody (if I recall correctly) saw his pickup casing Marie's apartment. That was the piece of evidence that led then to the perp.

Of course, if the fingerprint RavenSky mentioned belonged to him, police should have run it anyway, to see if it belonged a) to somebody in the system and b) somebody who had no business being there.

(this post is for others reading, not for Derec, who has no interest in truth or justice)

Oh bullshit!