Women who lie in court

Remove all ads!

I remembered another real world situation I was told about.


I know of a cop who was given a demotion and (with it) a drop in pay. The guy was in a station at the time another police officer's wife and a few friends came by-they weren't police themselves but do work in the criminal justice system.

The wife was hitting on the men there and possibly giving the invitations. The policer officer husband wasn't there at the time but when he came in later he asked around about if she had been flirting with guys there. The people he talked to either said no or didn't tell him anything (don't quite remember).

When the particular officer I was referring to heard about the husband asking around after the fact made the comment that he would have told the husband he'd been there when the husband was.

That got back to the wife who, as a response, made official complaints that claimed that this officer made improper comments to her and both of her friends/coworkers (they were both women not that this matters on a honesty part other that this may be a group operating as a cliche) claiming to be witnesses.

Nobody who was there other than the 3 women who are friends, coworkers, and came in together claimed to have seen or heard the officer say anything like that. But since 3 people complained rather than just 1 the officer was punished.

Thus you do have more workplace problems resulting from lying (at least by what has been relayed to me).

This is the 2nd person I've brought up with this topic but this time it is a man (mentioned a woman earlier).

Even if there is not prison time and reputation related injuries to someone charged with a crime based on false claims there is still real world harm that has happened and I suspect if far less likely to make the papers when it does.

Now the 3 women may be afraid to tell the truth and fix the harm they caused someone else because if they admit to lying before then they may loose their jobs.

 

I agree. What I understand Sir Recht to be saying is that in this situation, if the man had chosen to rape that woman, he would feel absolutely no sympathy for her. Which I find concerning... people have the right to shlong tease all they want - it may piss us off and anger us, but when a horrible crime happens to them because the man "couldn't control himself," or even misinterpreted her actions as a promise and raped her, she still deserves sympathy. What happened to her might have been prevented if she had not be a cock-tease, but ultimately it was the man's choice to rape her, not her actions that caused it.

I'm sure someone else has already said that, more eloquently though.

 

I agree Saber.

What SR brought up may be a frustrating thing but rape is just not a justifiable response.

What is closer to the topic is that there are and have been people lying in court (and in to workplace authorities) that are totally misusing the system(s) that in place to harm others when it isn't warranted.


I have this question to throw out there. Are the majority of false claims made in court/to authority figures about others done by women?

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the majority of X types of rape are done by men. I can go with that because women aren't physically equipped to allow them to rape others easily.

But they may be physically capable of doing a better job at playing the victim-appearing vulnerable when nobody actually took advantage of them.

Thus are women more likely to use manipulation of legal and/or workplace policy systems as a weapon to inappropriately strike out at others?

Should this thread be about general complaining about dishonesty to authorities or do women have a higher ability or likelihood to manipulate authorities to unjust ends?


On side note (touching on what SR said).

What Rechet said could be viewed as so bad that it forces one to keep in mind that women can and have been treated badly themselves via others excusing rape. And people have been forced to note that one bad thing does not justify a worse one.

And in at least some of the cases where women are getting free food/beers out of someone they have no intent of seeing again (except to possibly use for another free meal) or consider being with in a romantic sense that is taking advantage of others.

 

And thus the two sides of the debate.

Again, I'm not actually a proponent of the 'rape is a mental disease' position. I was just pointing out that it's there.

Again, this is a terrible mis-reading of what Sir Rechet has been saying. And what I have been saying (though I don't say I feel no sympathy for them). Instead of the mild and abused example of a girl out for drinks, imagine an attractive woman who's led a guy on for years, used his influence to make her career, even gotten him into putting his own career at risk, even loosing it, all for the continued promise of her body, her soul, her undying love. Sure, we can all see she's a manipulative b**** and none of us would fall for it, but I'll bet most of us have known someone somewhere who would. When he's given everything he had for her, sacrificed his entire life, and comes to collect on the strongly and continually implied promise, she shoves him off like yesterday's garbage. I see four likely outcomes here:
1.) he kills himself.
2.) he kills her.
3.) he rapes her.
4.) some combination of the above three.
The man who could walk away from that without one of the above is the man who wouldn't have fallen into it to begin with.

Now, I'm not saying that any of the above are anything short of terrible, terrible things, nor that I don't feel terrible sympathy for her if it's 2-4. I'm just saying that she set up the situation and should have known that those results were possibilities. For Sir Retchet's assertion that he doesn't even feel any pity for the woman (given #3), I understand it. I don't agree, but I understand.

For rape? Yes, women are the vast majority, of course, and the statistics may be anywhere from 2% of all reported rapes to 50% (depending on who you ask, but most cite somewhere around 20%). Likewise, women are far more likely to make false allegations of abuse (of any kind) than men are.

Here is an interesting read on the topic as concerns therapists. Two enlightening paragraphs:

Spoiler

False allegations of abuse occur in a variety of contexts; the most frequent being 1) disputed and ugly divorce cases; 2) in custody disputes involving children; 3) by angry borderline patients; 4) by patients with Munchausen's syndrome by proxy; 5) by psychopaths against authority figures; 6) by inadequate patients with strong needs for recognition and attention; 7) by patients with personality disorders; 8) by substance abusers, particularly alcoholics; 9) by patients with paranoid psychoses; 10) by patients with paranoid personality; 11) by patient with "multiple personalities"15; 12) by passive patients urged to file complaints by their therapists to meet the unspoken needs of the therapist.

Knight16 notes that "the fact is that a significant proportion of allegations of rape and indecent assault reported to the police are found to be untrue. This is often hotly denied by women's groups, but is an indisputable fact, proven by many subsequent admissions by girls that no such attack took place." "However, against this is the equally true fact that only a minority of real sexual assaults are reported to authorities."

The critical conclusions are that:
1.) most false abuse cases come from mentally unstable individuals (of 12 groups identified, only 4 are not identified by a mental disorder).
2.) while many rape and abuse accusations are false, many actual cases are never reported.

I couldn't find any statistics on false accusations outside of the rape/abuse area. Apparently false accusation cases are not typically tracked.

 

You did the right thing. I would have done the same. As would pretty much all of the men I know. Some I don't know well enough to be able to tell for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that they'd too. But then there's these mouth-frothing lowlifes* that have a self-appointed status as God's gift to women that possibly wouldn't.

And, since such lowlifes exist, any woman teasing a random guy is already putting themselves into heightened risk zone. Nothing inherently wrong with that - yet. As long as the woman has the common sense to keep the heat in reasonable limits. Sure, she can flirt all she wants, but if the response to her first 'hello' is something like 'my place, your place or here on the spot', it could be argued that she probably should reconsider her choice of target. INSTEAD OF heading to the guy's place afterwards to 'teach him manners'.

Keeping up with the 'getting yourself shot' analogy - walking in the city in the middle of the broad daylight is rather safe, heading into the dark alleys during nighttime less so, and slapping random people silly and calling them ho's left and right while there is borderline suicide.

Common theme? Failure in the use of common sense. Which implies idiocy, if persistent enough. Which, in turn, ultimately suggests Darwin Award if left unchecked. And my gut reaction to such would be pity, rather than compassion..

Remember the * beside the lowlifes above? Here it comes to play again. It's to a large part due to these lowlife men that such accusations can actually succeed. Combine that with select parts of feminist propaganda and we men ought to be glad that we still may lick the boots of these supreme beings called women without facing jailtime!

Although I gotta admit that it takes some balls for a woman to falsely accuse a man of a rape. Doesn't she usually have to go through a whole lot of less than cozy test procedures at the gyn chair to prove that some sort of sex was involved? That's at least often cited as one of the big obstacles why *real* rape victims sometimes fail to report.

So, what to do? I had a discussion about that a long time ago (Usenet news era, in Finnish) and I guess the consensus was that if it gets any worse than it already is, "consensual sex" is to be considered non-existant unless confirmed with a written contract before the act. With at least two independent witnesses and their signatures on it, as well.

"Squirm out of THAT, you bee-ach!" *spit*

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later... ----------

WTF, here we go again.

I have never, ever said it is JUSTIFIABLE. Nor that she deserves it.

Are you guys intentionally feigning illiteracy to me or what?

 

There is always hard evidence. The case of that basketball player is an example: there were signs on the girl's body of a struggle and it became pretty clear that the she was man-handled by this guy. And he apologized later for his conduct. However, under investigation it turned out that some of her story was fabricated, which was revealed under close scutiny. And that her credibility became a question. So there is the investigative power of the police and the defense to consider in any accusation of rape, not just someone accusing a guy out-of-hand and eveyone believing it.

 

I'm sorry, Chandos, but that's BS. There is not always evidence of anything, especially where accusations are made more than a few days after the supposed event (real or not). When there is evidence, it's a good thing, but it's not always there. In the case that started this all, the man who was eventually convicted did nothing more to her than insult her. It seems he never laid a hand on her, yet he was convicted. Psychologists and psychiatrists regularly have to face accusations of sexual misconduct as well, and while a few cases may be real, the bulk are BS. No evidence exists of anything save that they were alone in a room together (by requirement), but these cases still often go to court, and even see convictions.

 

Really? Show me where this is often the case. You can say that in some instances about any crime, including murder AND instances of child molestation, which is worst of all. I find it rather odd that a thread is crafted about "women lying," when there are many instances of this in other crimes, and it is proven that witnesses were lying. I guess it's just "women who lie in court."

Yes, and many times it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

 

1.) I never said it was often. You, however, said that there was always 'hard evidence'.
2.) To support my claim, I cited the case that started this whole thing, where the woman later admitted the man didn't even touch her. Exactly what 'hard evidence' do you think they used?
3.) In many rape cases, especially real ones, the event isn't reported until days, weeks, or even months after the event. Any DNA evidence that could possibly have been there is gone by then. Even bruising could be gone. The crime scene is hopelessly contaminated, if it can even be identified as a crime scene.

I think the outrage is when it is so obvious that the lie and only the lie convicted an innocent man and sent him to prison for years, along with the complete destruction of his reputation. Many of the men accused of rape loose their whole families, even if they're aquited. If a man is accused of stealing something, and someone lies saying they saw them in the vicinity, there is some slim chance that that lie may make the difference between conviction and not, especially if there's also a boat load of other evidence. It by itself, however, won't convict anyone. Even eye-witness testamony of 'I saw him do it' probably wouldn't convict someone by itself these days. On the other hand, the mere accusation of rape is often enough to sentence the target to divorce, termination of their job, loosing custody of children, loosing their home, general public scorn, etc. On top of that, the mere accusation can easily be enough in a trial to convict someone. The outrage is greater for both the greater harm and the greater likelyhood of direct causation of harm.

Not many. Some, yes, but not many. At least, I assume you were saying the accusations were true. If you were talking about something else being true, then disregard the above.

 

An example of evidence in such a case is what happened to a good friend of mine who was assualted by a doctor in his office (actual rape was not committed because she fought him off). Because there was no real evidence -- just her word against his -- the prosecutor would not take the case. But when the case became public, two other women came forward to make similar accusations. As a result, he lost license to practice in a hearing before the board, but got off in criminal court with a minor offence, because no one was actually "raped," only molested (not that he didn't try). What made this case even stranger for me, is that I found out later that the doctor was the boyfriend of my ex-wife at the time of the assualt.

IF the victim waits, of course most of the evidence is gone! I was speaking as "always" because of the event. But of course if someone waits too long the evidence is probably gone and those cases are probably much harder to prosecute. Again, that's true of a lot of crimes.

I noticed you went right for the easy crimes, and avoided the murder cases where people spent time on death row because of false accusations.

 

Chandos, you've gotta admit that there's quite a difference in the forensic evidence available after something concrete such as a murder or a break-in as compared to the human body's ability to (slowly) heal itself concealing such quite fast after a rape. ESPECIALLY if it's of the kind that LKD mentioned - consensual sex turned into rape accusations, ie. no violence or anything like that.

By definition, there can't be eyewitnesses to false accusations unless they've teamed up with the accuser to fabricate a story. Those are a nightmare to pick apart by the legal system - which builds upon the assumption that witnesses speak the truth and nothing but the truth.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

Yes, that would be the extension of what lying in court can lead to. But I recall this thread being mostly about rape cases and why the mere accusation of it leads to all too much of a social stigma with or without actual guilt behind it.

 

Yes, that was my point, that there are many types of crimes in which people are falsely accused of crimes and sentenced. As I commented, this is a strange thread, that it highlights a particular sex as lying in court, while trying to ignore the issue that, "people lie in court" all the time for all kinds of reasons.

 

Actually, I believe this thread was supposed to be about radical feminists wanting to put men in jail, and using accusations of rape to do so. But I think we've moved beyond that.

 

Well yes, but maybe LKD has read that "psyhco, feminist" novel to To Kill a Mockingbird one too many times.

 

I'm sorry, Chandos, but that's not an example of evidence. If anything, it's an example of there not being evidence, not even of the assault (I'm assuming nothing was caught on tape or anything). Mind you, it is a good example of how to handle cases without evidence.

So you were saying there's 'always' evidence immediately after the crime? How long it lasts and whether it's ever found is a seperate issue? I can see that usage, but I think it's a rather moot point in this discussion.

Find me a case where a man was convicted of murder based solely on a witness's testamony and I'll accept it.

 

DMC - This is the case I was thinking of, the Porter case.
I agree that there is usually more than just a witness account, but such accounts make it easy for the police to ignore other avenues in investigating crimes.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/cwc/exonerations/ilPorterSummary.html

 

Chandos, TKAM was more racial in its focus than sexist, but it illustrates an interesting point. Tom was going to be convicted come hell or high water simply because he was guilty of being black. He was accused by a white. End of story for him -- he had no chance at that trial, despite the fact that he was 1000% innocent of any crime. The novel made it clear that such pre-supposition of guilt by the community is wrong.

My point now is that it isn't about race that society has this tremendous urge to convict for no good effing reason -- it's about gender. I don't think I've been overly influenced by Lee's work, though it's message has crossed my mind when reading about these sorts of cases. I think it happens far more often than we want to believe.

 

It isn't? Many blacks would disagree with you, and the record may give them some support. It's like Eddie Murphy used to say: "The American justice system is about justice. And when you get to prison, that's all you see, Just-us."

 

Fair enough -- I did not mean to imply that race is now a non-existent issue in North American judicial inequality. For the US, it appears that Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. Here in the Great White North, it's Natives.

But my point remains the same -- a definite bias based on gender is also in place, and it really boils my blood when a woman abuses the trust put into her to not lie, and gets an innocent imprisoned. I believe that rape cases are particularily prone to this sort of thing because there can be very little evidence in some cases, but a woman's histrionics and our natural revulsion at the crime of rape overcomes the lack of evidence, and as shown in my example, an innocent man lost 4 years of his life.

Not to mention that it makes it that much more difficult down the road, as the pendulum swings the other way, for real victims to achieve justice against the real rapists.