The woman never lies about rape?

[Loren Pechtel]

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/...book-messages-were-altered-by-alleged-victim/

How about fabricating the evidence to convict the "rapist"?

And the police failed to check what was going on, and aren't doing anything about her forgery.

 

[arkirk]

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/...book-messages-were-altered-by-alleged-victim/

How about fabricating the evidence to convict the "rapist"?

And the police failed to check what was going on, and aren't doing anything about her forgery.

Why did you post this? Do you really think this is a widespread problem? I agree that there are problems with the way rape is treated, but mostly it is unfair to women who are too embarrassed or ashamed to come forward and press charges. There are multitudinous reasons women do not do so. Sometimes it is simply a matter of trying to carry on living. You think Cosby was really just a good old boy who was destroyed by a bunch of lying women? Are you a woman hater? Your message could have contained information on how to avoid this kind of problem...if you only knew.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Victims are very truthful about this sort of thing. 90+%. I am not aware of anyone ever claiming that accusers are telling the truth 100.000000000% of the time. So this anecdote isn't disproving anything.

Additional info:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-derbyshire-42576716

Question: why did it take 4.5 years after getting facebook credentials?

 

[laughing dog]

I suspect the ratio of rapists lying about rape to fabricators lying about rape is on the order of of at least 100 to 1. How come the ratio of outrage of rapists to victims is on the order of about 1 to 1 around here?

 

[Derec]

There is no indication that the woman will face any charges for submitting what appears to be altered evidence and a false claim of rape. She remains unidentified as a sexual assault victim.

1. Why is she not being prosecuted?
2. Why is she still being considered a "sexual assault victim"?

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect the ratio of rapists lying about rape to fabricators lying about rape is on the order of of at least 100 to 1.

Utter BS. Even most radical feminists admit to a 2-8% false reporting rate. They still think men should be convicted based solely on a woman's say-so though. I.e. "women must always be believed" nonsense.

 

[Derec]

Why did you post this?

I would guess because it is news and has a political dimension. So right up PD's alley. Or do you think only threads supportive of the left-wing narrative should be permitted?

Do you really think this is a widespread problem?

It certainly is, especially given how much effort the feminist left is expanding to downplay the issue.

I agree that there are problems with the way rape is treated, but mostly it is unfair to women who are too embarrassed or ashamed to come forward and press charges.

So we should ignore men being falsely accused as, what, some kind of pseudo-karmic balance?

There are multitudinous reasons women do not do so. Sometimes it is simply a matter of trying to carry on living.

And if they do so, they should not get to decide to press charges 40 years later.

You think Cosby was really just a good old boy who was destroyed by a bunch of lying women?

Did you get lost old-timer? The Cosby thread is over there. ------------------------------------------------>

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why in the world should there be a statute of limitations on reporting a rape? Cosby did worse than rape; he drugged women unconscious—an act that could have killed any of the numerous women he preyed upon—in order to rape their lifeless bodies. He should be put down like a dog for the betterment of the species and has finally—rightfully—met justice for his despicable crimes. It has nothing to do with “feminism.”

 

[Arctish]

Loren, can you provide a link to any post that anyone has ever written in which they expressed the opinion that women never lie?

Derec, you know how I like to track down the original context of sentence fragments posted online? You should try it. You'll find your understanding of the meaning of the fragment "women must always be believed" is off base. It's likely the person who mined that quote wanted you to misunderstand, but I'm still a bit surprised you fell for it.

 

[zorq]

Where are conservative types hearing these weird quotes like, "Women never lie about rape." I've never met anyone who has said that. It's not commonly held wisdom. It is an absurd quote on it's face. So who is repeating it besides anti-feminists trying to use it as a strawman position to attack?

 

[Terrell]

How about publishing her name & picture. She's not a victim, but a liar, why should she have anonymity? Why should she be allowed to use actual victims as human shields for her lies?

If you're the person being punished for a crime you didn't commit, whether the rate is 1% or 50% is irrelevant. It doesn't affect your punishment. Any type of criminal case should be investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated according to the specifics of the case. Trends, real or perceived, may not hold for that particular case.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How about publishing her name & picture.

To what end?

She's not a victim, but a liar, why should she have anonymity?

Why would being a liar result in someone losing their anonymity? You’re a liar (based on the fact that it’s a near certainty that you have lied at least once in your life), should we publish a picture of you now?

Why should she be allowed to use actual victims as human shields for her lies?

What in the world does that mean?

Any type of criminal case should be investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated according to the specifics of the case.

Every type of criminal case is.

 

[Derec]

To what end?

Why should she continue to be protected when it is clear that she is the perpetrator, not a victim?

Why would being a liar result in someone losing their anonymity? You’re a liar (based on the fact that it’s a near certainty that you have lied at least once in your life), should we publish a picture of you now?

She is not just a liar, but a false accuser who cost an innocent man 2 years of his life. I think if a false accusation yields to jail time it should be treated as false imprisonment.
In any case, her anonymous status was because of her status as "sexual assault victim". Since we know that that status was fraudulent, she should not reap the benefits of it.

Every type of criminal case is.

This one doesn't appear to be. Feminists in general think that false accusers should not be prosecuted. I guess you agree with them.

 

[Terrell]

To what end?



Why would being a liar result in someone losing their anonymity? You’re a liar (based on the fact that it’s a near certainty that you have lied at least once in your life), should we publish a picture of you now?

Why should she be allowed to use actual victims as human shields for her lies?

What in the world does that mean?

Any type of criminal case should be investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated according to the specifics of the case.

Every type of criminal case is.

So everyone knows who she is. Hopefully her history of lying could be used against her should she bring future charges.

When did I lie about someone committing a crime? To argue that I'm not talking specifically about the false accusation of rape is intellectually dishonest. The context here is pretty damn clear. When you accuse a person of a crime you're turning the power of both society & the state against that person. (this exposes them of undue risk of harm by the state or by vigilantes.) If you're doing this to an innocent person, where it's a good chance their name & picture will be public, why should you get to hide behind anonymity?

Using victims as human shields for liars means using victims, in any way shape or form, to oppose holding liars (deliberate false accusers) accountable for their actions. This accountability, IMO, should be criminal.

The percentage of false allegations is irrelevant to any specific case. That was the point of that line.

 

[Derec]

Loren, can you provide a link to any post that anyone has ever written in which they expressed the opinion that women never lie?

Derec, you know how I like to track down the original context of sentence fragments posted online? You should try it. You'll find your understanding of the meaning of the fragment "women must always be believed" is off base. It's likely the person who mined that quote wanted you to misunderstand, but I'm still a bit surprised you fell for it.

How about this article:
Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

Let's be clear: If you choose to believe women, you choose to believe every woman. Even when it's uncomfortable. (Especially when it's uncomfortable.) You cannot pick and choose which feminist values to align yourself with. If your knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true," then you are allowing your privilege to get the better of you.
[..]
Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted. You make it harder for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. You force people who have already been deeply traumatized to fear your wrath, as well. I shouldn't have to tell you how critical it is to believe women. If I did, you wouldn't be reading this article in the first place. What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women. No exceptions. No "what if"s. Your lived experience does not, and cannot, speak to the credibility of others' experiences. Believe that.

No exceptions.

 

[Derec]

Why in the world should there be a statute of limitations on reporting a rape?

Because of fairness . Imagine if you were accused of something that supposedly happened 40 years ago. How do you even defend yourself.

Cosby did worse than rape;

Go with arkirk. Maybe together you two will find the Cosby thread. Hint: it's the one with "Cosby" in the title.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why should she continue to be protected when it is clear that she is the perpetrator, not a victim?

Are you under some impression that you have some sort of right to see photos of other people or something?

She is not just a liar, but a false accuser who cost an innocent man 2 years of his life.

And she should answer for that lie.

I think if a false accusation yields to jail time it should be treated as false imprisonment.

That’s not what false imprisonment entails, but even if it did the recourse would be against the State not the accuser.

The better question to ask is why didn’t the accused’s lawyer present the Facebook messages as evidence?

In any case, her anonymous status was because of her status as "sexual assault victim".

And because of her being a human being.

Since we know that that status was fraudulent, she should not reap the benefits of it.

Yeah, again, it’s not a binary proposition.

Every type of criminal case is.

This one doesn't appear to be.

Based on what exactly?

Feminists in general...

I don’t believe you are in any way qualified to start any such assertion that way.

I guess you agree with them.

Wow, that brings me back to a time when I was a kid in the sixties in St. Louis and this racist p.o.s. I didn’t know said, “I guess you’re a nigger-lover” when I commented about how I admired Rev. King.

 

[Derec]

Where are conservative types hearing these weird quotes like, "Women never lie about rape." I've never met anyone who has said that. It's not commonly held wisdom. It is an absurd quote on it's face. So who is repeating it besides anti-feminists trying to use it as a strawman position to attack?

Women Don't 'Cry Rape'
Despite all the evidence to the contrary,:Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, Brian Banks, UVA, the anonymous chick in this thread, this feminist myth is far from dead.

Or how about this tweet by actress Lena Dunham. She is not practicing what she preaches though.

Here's a feminist who says that despite false allegations women should be believed. Because, screw falsely accused men, right?
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.

Yeah, who cares about technicalities such as due process or having to prove your claims.

if I were to check out books by feminists like Andrea Dworkin I bet I could find many more. I am not a masochist though.

 

[Derec]

Are you under some impression that you have some sort of right to see photos of other people or something?

News usually posts photos and names of criminals. Why should she be an exception? Also, it would be important to know who she is so men can stay away and not risk to be victims of her craziness.

And she should answer for that lie.

Except that Brits seem way too PC to prosecute her.

That’s not what false imprisonment entails, but even if it did the recourse would be against the State not the accuser.

The state's is a crime of negligence. Hers is premeditated. I think she should go to prison for a long time and have to pay her victim restitution.

The better question to ask is why didn’t the accused’s lawyer present the Facebook messages as evidence?

When did the lawyer find out about it?

And because of her being a human being.

Because newspapers never print names and photos of human beings.

Based on what exactly?

Brits not prosecuting despite copious evidence of wrongdoing.

I don’t believe you are in any way qualified to start any such assertion that way.

I think I have a lot of experience in the matter.

Wow, that brings me back to a time when I was a kid in the sixties in St. Louis and this racist p.o.s. I didn’t know said, “I guess you’re a nigger-lover” when I commented about how I admired Rev. King.

I did not know you were that old. In any case, King was admirable in many ways. This chick is pure piece of shit. Hardly comparable.

 

[Arctish]

Loren, can you provide a link to any post that anyone has ever written in which they expressed the opinion that women never lie?

Derec, you know how I like to track down the original context of sentence fragments posted online? You should try it. You'll find your understanding of the meaning of the fragment "women must always be believed" is off base. It's likely the person who mined that quote wanted you to misunderstand, but I'm still a bit surprised you fell for it.

How about this article:
Why "Believe Women" Means Believing Women Without Exception

Let's be clear: If you choose to believe women, you choose to believe every woman. Even when it's uncomfortable. (Especially when it's uncomfortable.) You cannot pick and choose which feminist values to align yourself with. If your knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true," then you are allowing your privilege to get the better of you.
[..]
Every time you tell a friend or your Facebook feed or your millions of fans that you believe a woman has made it all up, you propagate the myth that women lie about being assaulted. You make it harder for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. You force people who have already been deeply traumatized to fear your wrath, as well. I shouldn't have to tell you how critical it is to believe women. If I did, you wouldn't be reading this article in the first place. What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women. No exceptions. No "what if"s. Your lived experience does not, and cannot, speak to the credibility of others' experiences. Believe that.

No exceptions.

1. That is not the original context. The author is responding to the same sentence fragment.
2. Her "No exceptions" argument is an excluded middle fallacy.

Try this one:

Despite What You May Have Heard, "Believe Women" Has Never Meant "Ignore Facts"


***ETA:

Here's a feminist who says that despite false allegations women should be believed. Because, screw falsely accused men, right?
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.
In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.

Yeah, who cares about technicalities such as due process or having to prove your claims.

if I were to check out books by feminists like Andrea Dworkin I bet I could find many more. I am not a masochist though.

You cut off a pretty important part of that paragraph, and in doing so you misrepresented the author's point:

Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

UVa campus police should take every report of a crime seriously and investigate it conscientiously. They should believe students who report being raped, robbed, assaulted, etc. are making their reports in good faith and remembering details to the best of their ability, not just assume that the female ones are mistaken or lying. That's what 'women should be believed' meant in the original context, not that stupid argumentum ad metum about mindlessly convicting accused men on the say-so of random females.


***ETA Part 2: If you're never going to read what Andrea Dworkin actually wrote, maybe you should stop talking about her. It's not a winning strategy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So everyone knows who she is.

“Everyone”? Does your local news routinely post pictures of every criminal arrested? Or is it just the occasional unusual or higher crime to fill the news cycle?

Hopefully her history of lying could be used against her should she bring future charges.

It would be. In court, where it belongs.

When did I lie about someone committing a crime?

You said she’s a liar and therefore you had some sort of right to see her photo or some such bullshit.

To argue that I'm not talking specifically about the false accusation of rape is intellectually dishonest.

To hide the true reason why you—or anyone—would want to post a picture of her is worse.

When you accuse a person of a crime you're turning the power of both society & the state against that person. (this exposes them of undue risk of harm by the state or by vigilantes.) If you're doing this to an innocent person, where it's a good chance their name & picture will be public, why should you get to hide behind anonymity?

You are confusing exculpatory evidence with malicious intent, but even if it were true and the woman in question had falsely accused the man of rape in order to seek some sort of vengeance or something, that still does not justify some sort of requirement by the press (or the State) to publish a photo of her.

You are arguing to publicly shame her, nothing more.

Using victims as human shields for liars means using victims, in any way shape or form, to oppose holding liars (deliberate false accusers) accountable for their actions.

What evidence do you have that she lied and/or deliberately falsely accused him? Again, you are confusing exculpatory evidence for intent. It is entirely possible that she believes she was in fact raped, even if subsequent messages suggest otherwise. Rape can happen at any point during an otherwise consensual act. It’s not a “once we start having consensual sex, then you can do anything you want to me after that initial condition has been met” kind of proposition.

Regardless, even if she were acting with malicious intent and deliberately falsely accused him, there could be other mitigating circumstances (such as she is mentally unstable or the like). The point being you don’t know shit about this case and are jumping to what certainly appear to be pre-conceived conclusions.

This accountability, IMO, should be criminal.

It is. Why do you keep thinking it isn’t? Because no press outlet has yet to publish a photo of her in the town square so you can throw rotten vegetables and rocks at her in the docks?