Women don't lie about rape, Pennsylvania edition

[Derec]

Woman admits to lying about attack in parking lot; innocent man freed from jail: DA'

Feminist dogma that all women must be believed is as sexist as it is dangerous.

 

[zorq]

Woman admits to lying about attack in parking lot; innocent man freed from jail: DA'

Feminist dogma that all women must be believed is as sexist as it is dangerous.

The misogynist misinterpretation of "believe women" means "women never lie" is a sexist and dangerous misinformation push. That this post comes from the usual suspect is no surprise. "Believe Women" was a plea for authorities especially and people generally to take allegations from women seriously instead of ignoring them without investigation. It is a plea for women to be believed just as much as men are believed.

The expression as explained by Judy Doyle writing for Elle explains that the expression means "don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."

False allegations exist—but they’re quite rare and unusual, and they’re usually quite easy to expose. Sexual violence, meanwhile, is neither rare nor strange. It happens every day, mostly to women.

You have started this thread in the dumpster Derec. Good luck.

 

[laughing dog]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes. Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

 

[thebeave]

Her motive was the flimsiest reason I've seen so far regarding a false rape claim. He "looked creepy"? Da fuq? Maybe she thought he was an incel. This woman is truly disturbed. I hope that guy sues her and makes her pay, in addition to her criminal charges.

 

[Toni]

And just a reminder: this is the reason that most people---male and female--do not report rapes. Because they fear being disbelieved, thought to be sick, disturbed, vindictive, whatever but definitely lying. Which of course allows rapists to keep on raping.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People seeking help should not be denigrated and mocked.

People who seek help but lied about being a victim should be held accountable. Not being able to prove something, however, doesn't implicate them as automatically being liars.

 

[starwater]

Sigh.

The same old "see I told you". Of course this is going to happen, but rarely. Every incident needs to be investigated, and believed until proven.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes. Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

Reading comprehension failure.

But more than a month after the investigation, police say there were multiple inconsistencies with Urumova's account of the attack.


Officers say data pulled from Urumova's iPhone and surveillance video in the parking lot contradicted her story of events.

During a second meeting with police on May 17, authorities say Urumova admitted that she lied about the entire incident and that no assault occurred in the Redner's parking lot on April 16, according to the criminal complaint filed Monday.

No mistaken identity, she made the whole thing up.

When asked why she chose Pierson, she says that she saw the truck and Pierson in the parking lot of her previous employer in the past and thought he was "creepy," the criminal complaint states.

Urumova reportedly told officers she used the description of her then-boyfriend's clothing to describe Pierson.

As for the injuries she claimed to have suffered, Urumova allegedly admitted that she suffered a laceration on her lip during an altercation with a family member.

In other words, she knowingly accused an innocent of attempted rape to cover up an injury she received.

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

He's absolutely on target.

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

Whataboutism.

 

[Arctish]

I am glad to hear the police investigated the report with due diligence and professionalism. That's what should happen when people say they witnessed or were the victims of crimes.

 

[laughing dog]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes. Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

Reading comprehension failure.

Only in your case. I accurately described the situation. v

But more than a month after the investigation, police say there were multiple inconsistencies with Urumova's account of the attack.


Officers say data pulled from Urumova's iPhone and surveillance video in the parking lot contradicted her story of events.

During a second meeting with police on May 17, authorities say Urumova admitted that she lied about the entire incident and that no assault occurred in the Redner's parking lot on April 16, according to the criminal complaint filed Monday.

No mistaken identity, she made the whole thing up.

Are you feeling the need to reiterate uncontroversial facts or is this an example of a reading comprehension failure since no claimed the identity was mistaken.

When asked why she chose Pierson, she says that she saw the truck and Pierson in the parking lot of her previous employer in the past and thought he was "creepy," the criminal complaint states.

Urumova reportedly told officers she used the description of her then-boyfriend's clothing to describe Pierson.

As for the injuries she claimed to have suffered, Urumova allegedly admitted that she suffered a laceration on her lip during an altercation with a family member.

In other words, she knowingly accused an innocent of attempted rape to cover up an injury she received.

Are you feeling the need to reiterate uncontroversial facts or is this an example of a reading comprehension failure since no claimed otherwise.

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

He's absolutely on target.

Reasoning failure - No one claims any and all rape allegations are true. The idea that any person who claimes they were raped shoud be believed means that their allegations should be taken seriously not that their word alone is proof.I

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

Whataboutism.

Just an interesting observation.

 

[Derec]

The misogynist misinterpretation of "believe women" means "women never lie" is a sexist and dangerous misinformation push.

Wrong. "Believe" means "hold something to be true", not "investigate impartially".

It is a plea for women to be believed just as much as men are believed.

It's not a plea to neutrality. Quite the contrary. It is also linked to claims that false rape claims should not be prosecuted, or that investigators challenging accusers about details of their claims is tantamount to "revictimizing" them.

Take this idiotic article by a radfem:
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.

The writer, Zerlina Maxwell, rejects the idea that we "should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases".
Radical feminists like her do not want rape claims to be investigated impartially. They want women to be believed a priori, no matter the negative consequences for the men who are wrongly accused.

The expression as explained by Judy Doyle writing for Elle explains that the expression means "don't assume women as a gender are especially deceptive or vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones."

No, it assumes that men as a gender should be placed under general suspicion of rape no matter the evidence or lack of it.

False allegations exist—but they’re quite rare and unusual, and they’re usually quite easy to expose.

Bullshit! They are much more frequent than radfems admit.

Sexual violence, meanwhile, is neither rare nor strange. It happens every day, mostly to women.

That does not men that women should automatically be believed when they make an accusation.

 

[Derec]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes.

Police/prosecutors should be impartial at first and apportion belief based on evidence - not start out believing women a priori.

Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

What?

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

No, it's another example why feminist dogma on rape is wrong.

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

The burden of proof is, and should be, on the accuser and not on the accused.
Besides, there are no campaigns proclaiming that we should "Believe men. Period" or that "men don't lie about rape".
People lie. Men as well as women. "Believe women" is sexist on its face.

 

[Derec]

And just a reminder: this is the reason that most people---male and female--do not report rapes. Because they fear being disbelieved, thought to be sick, disturbed, vindictive, whatever but definitely lying. Which of course allows rapists to keep on raping.

This woman was definitely lying. Should she not be prosecuted just because that may deter other women from reporting rapes? Going further, should police refrain from actually investigating women's claims and just take them at face value just to make women reporting rapes more comfortable?

 

[laughing dog]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes.

Police/prosecutors should be impartial at first and apportion belief based on evidence - not start out believing women a priori.

Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

What?

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

No, it's another example why feminist dogma on rape is wrong.

I suspect you have no clue about feminism.

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

The burden of proof is, and should be, on the accuser and not on the accused.

And it is.

Besides, there are no campaigns proclaiming that we should "Believe men. Period" or that "men don't lie about rape".
People lie. Men as well as women. "Believe women" is sexist on its face.

Given the history of sexism by police and society in rape allegations, it is hardly surprising.

 

[Toni]

And just a reminder: this is the reason that most people---male and female--do not report rapes. Because they fear being disbelieved, thought to be sick, disturbed, vindictive, whatever but definitely lying. Which of course allows rapists to keep on raping.

This woman was definitely lying. Should she not be prosecuted just because that may deter other women from reporting rapes? Going further, should police refrain from actually investigating women's claims and just take them at face value just to make women reporting rapes more comfortable?

Police absolutely should take seriously claims from people who claim to be victims of crimes, especially of violent crimes.

Do you not realize that boys and men are also rape victims? It’s even more under-reported that girls/women reporting rape? For very similar but not 100% congruent reasons. Male victims of rape also must fear being thought to be gay, if they are actually straight.

Shame, humiliation, guilt, fear of how they will be perceived —if their allegations are even taken seriously, the extremely daunting legal process, going through the trauma of reporting, collection of evidence which may or may not be preserved or analyzed, the trauma of a trial, should there be one—and of course the fear of seeing their attacker in their community or on the courtroom, and the terrible terrible assumptions made if a conviction does not occur—or even if it does. And of course the real issue: Why didn’t you fight him off? Are you sure you didn’t really want it? Are you just angry because he didn’t call you after?

Imagine if that were you. Seriously: How would you feel? Would you ever tell anybody? How scared would you be? For how long?

Do I think that people who deliberately falsely accuse others of a crime should be punished? Of course. But please not only people who make false allegations of rape.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And just a reminder: this is the reason that most people---male and female--do not report rapes. Because they fear being disbelieved, thought to be sick, disturbed, vindictive, whatever but definitely lying. Which of course allows rapists to keep on raping.

Should she not be prosecuted just because that may deter other women from reporting rapes?

There is nothing in Toni's statement that remotely implies that sentiment.

Going further, should police refrain from actually investigating women's claims and just take them at face value just to make women reporting rapes more comfortable?

She was referring to that type of shit being the problem.

Also, the Police just taking an alleged victims word for it doesn't help the victim at all, as there isn't much of a case. They need to actually investigate the claims to demonstrate her accusation is accurate. You know, courts and all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police ought to investigate all allegations of crime. They believe the allegation but act to verify it. That happened in this case - the wrong person was identified but eventually released before trial. That happens in all sorts of alleged crimes. Yes, people of all types may lie to grt someone in trouble or to grt themselves out of trouble or to make trouble. In this case, nit only did the justice system appear to work ( perhaps too slowly), but the alleged liar is nie faving charges.

Reading comprehension failure.

Only in your case. I accurately described the situation. v

But more than a month after the investigation, police say there were multiple inconsistencies with Urumova's account of the attack.


Officers say data pulled from Urumova's iPhone and surveillance video in the parking lot contradicted her story of events.

During a second meeting with police on May 17, authorities say Urumova admitted that she lied about the entire incident and that no assault occurred in the Redner's parking lot on April 16, according to the criminal complaint filed Monday.

No mistaken identity, she made the whole thing up.

Are you feeling the need to reiterate uncontroversial facts or is this an example of a reading comprehension failure since no claimed the identity was mistaken.

Are you here to engage in discussion or to engage in deceptive word games? Please note that the actual situation was an allegation which was wholly made up, not "the wrong person was identified". There is no reason to suggest the possibility in this case.

So, the OP is a another example of a poorly reasoned hobby horse.

He's absolutely on target.

Reasoning failure - No one claims any and all rape allegations are true. The idea that any person who claimes they were raped shoud be believed means that their allegations should be taken seriously not that their word alone is proof.

You're treating his pointing out manufactured allegations to be a hobby horse. Sorry--basically all crimes have a certain amount of false allegation rate (yes, even murder. There are some suicides where they go to considerable length to make it look like murder.) Rape has a higher rate than average.

As an aside, I suspect there are magnitudes mire instances of rapists lying about their innocence than there are rape victims lying about their rape. No mention of that from our resident social justice warrior. Hmmmm.

Whataboutism.

Just an interesting observation.

Whataboutism. And false, besides. An order of magnitude is typically 10x. Thus "magnitudes" must be at least 100x. That would require the false report rate to be under 1%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sigh.

The same old "see I told you". Of course this is going to happen, but rarely. Every incident needs to be investigated, and believed until proven.

Investigated, yes. Believed until proven otherwise--no, any more than any other crime should have presumed guilt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, the Police just taking an alleged victims word for it doesn't help the victim at all, as there isn't much of a case. They need to actually investigate the claims to demonstrate her accusation is accurate. You know, courts and all.

The police should be investigating, but both to prove or disprove.

 

[Arctish]

Sigh.

The same old "see I told you". Of course this is going to happen, but rarely. Every incident needs to be investigated, and believed until proven.

Investigated, yes. Believed until proven otherwise--no, any more than any other crime should have presumed guilt.

What is it about this topic that causes people to ignore all possible meanings of the word "believe" and go with the stupidest interpretation?

"Believe" can mean having unwavering faith. It can also mean to provisionally accept something as true or accurate until evidence of its untruth or inaccuracy is found. It can mean to suppose something exists, or to think it is possible.

To believe someone reporting a crime is truthfully reporting what they genuinely think happened is not the same as ignoring the possibility that they might be mistaken, confused, or deliberately lying.

If Al goes to the police and says Bert raped him, the police should accept his report as possibly true and conduct a conscientious, thorough investigation, not just shit can the report and go back to looking for stolen cars and burglars. They should believe Al to the point they interview Bert and look for witnesses and corroborating evidence, but not to the point they shut down their brains and assume every detail Al gave them is 100% accurate, because that would be stupid.