• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Woman admits lying about rape


She admits she completely lied when she accused the three boys of rape.

How does this affect the #MeToo movement?

How does this affect the concept that we should ×××ALWAYS××× believe women when they accuse someone of rape or sexual assault?

She accused them in 2006. From your article:
In April 2007, the state’s then-Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is now governor, reviewed the case and exonerated the three men, declaring that the charges never should have been brought against them.

Duke University and the three players reached an undisclosed settlement shortly after the charges were dropped.

The city of Durham settled a lawsuit by the three men in 2014. As part of the settlement, Durham agreed to pay $50,000 to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission.
This lie was known and called out ten years before the #MeToo movement took off. I don't think it will affect the movement at all. Incidents like this were already factored in to the zeitgeist.
 
Accusations should always be taken seriously.
This went way beyond taking the accusations seriously. The defendants were arrested and indicted. The team had to cancel its 2006 season. The coach lost his job. The prosecutor went straight from zero to unethical in a matter of weeks.

No accusation should be taken that seriously.
 
#MeToo didn't go too far. Sexual exploitation is an entirely real thing.

Literally anything will be abused by someone, somewhere, somehow. Ya deal with the offenders harshly, whichever side of the narrative they fall on.
 
Yes, and should be thoroughly investigated. Nobody should lose their job or position SIMPLY due to an accusation. #MeToo went too far.
People have been falsely accused of every crime in the book and suffered as a result of the lie. Strangely, there is no push-back movement against child abduction advocates or animal abuse awareness.
 
Yes, and should be thoroughly investigated. Nobody should lose their job or position SIMPLY due to an accusation. #MeToo went too far.
#MeToo didn't take off until a decade after these defendants were exonerated.

Where #MeToo went too far was the railroading of Al Franken and the Rolling Stone rape article (and arguably the insane amount of blind support for Amber Heard). I get your concern, but your timeline is seriously twisted.
 
I said what I said and I meant what I said. I didn't say or mean what you said.
I figured there were two ways to respond to what you said:

Either as a vague banality that really should go without saying.

Or in the context of the specific topic of the thread.

I chose the latter response, as being more topical and interesting. And also being argumentative, without being confrontational or accusatory towards you.
 
I figured there were two ways to respond to what you said:

Either as a vague banality that really should go without saying.

Or in the context of the specific topic of the thread.

I chose the latter response, as being more topical and interesting. And also being argumentative, without being confrontational or accusatory towards you.

False dichotomy. In the words of Wolverine "Shutting the ◊◊◊◊ up is also free". You weren't required to respond.

That being said, I really don't understand what the point of this thread is? Is the OP just looking for people to join in? Shall we all be butthurt at this event from 10 years ago? Is there seriously not a thread for the Duke thing already?
 
#MeToo didn't take off until a decade after these defendants were exonerated.

Where #MeToo went too far was the railroading of Al Franken and the Rolling Stone rape article (and arguably the insane amount of blind support for Amber Heard). I get your concern, but your timeline is seriously twisted.
I'd argue it was the Aziz Ansari case that eventually derailed it. Where it really goes overboard is college title 9 cases, basically no due process to kick folks out of college, and it turns out, mostly effects men of color. Rape is a crime; it should be handled by the judicial system not college admins.

And, frankly, pague311 has a great point. This is a 10 year old story. And it mostly made the news as a sort of man bites dog story regarding race and class in the US. A bunch of privileged white kids were almost railroaded based on false accusations from a woman of color who was also stripper.
 
False dichotomy. In the words of Wolverine "Shutting the ◊◊◊◊ up is also free". You weren't required to respond.
I responded because the conundrum was interesting to me, and I liked my solution. "It goes without saying, but since we're here anyway, I have an alternative take on it" Is a reasonable way to engage on a discussion forum.
That being said, I really don't understand what the point of this thread is? Is the OP just looking for people to join in? Shall we all be butthurt at this event from 10 years ago? Is there seriously not a thread for the Duke thing already?
Sometimes people arrive late to the orthodoxy, but still want to participate in the initial debate as if it's still going on.
 
I responded because the conundrum was interesting to me, and I liked my solution. "It goes without saying, but since we're here anyway, I have an alternative take on it" Is a reasonable way to engage on a discussion forum.

I know, it was a joke and I've been wanting to use that Wolverine line for awhile now, but my wife seems to be upset when I bring it up in conversation.
Sometimes people arrive late to the orthodoxy, but still want to participate in the initial debate as if it's still going on.

Makes sense. I guess when I get that itch I just go find the original thread, but I'm not here to judge anyone. I have, I do, and I will continue to judge people, but that's not what I'm here to do.
 
Last edited:
I know, it was a joke and I've been wanting to use that Wolverine line for awhile now, but my wife seems to be upset when I bring it up on conversation.
Haha, fair enough. I've been watching a lot of court proceedings on YouTube lately. It's hilarious how often some judges tell defendants, "you have the right to remain silent; I suggest you use it."
 

She admits she completely lied when she accused the three boys of rape.

How does this affect the #MeToo movement?

How does this affect the concept that we should ×××ALWAYS××× believe women when they accuse someone of rape or sexual assault?
As has been mentioned, this case was already resolved before #MeToo went mainstream.

And I think this story is more about prosecutorial misconduct than a lying woman. What if the accused weren't mostly affluent white boys? What if the accuser was a pretty white girl?

Why would you focus on this story and not someone like Brian Banks? Is it because Banks actually backed the #MeToo movement?
 
... What if the accused weren't mostly affluent white boys? What if the accuser was a pretty white girl? ...

When #MeToo started and was discussed on this forum, I mentioned a Danish case where a boy, the son of immigrants, had been accused of rape by a judge's daughter, and convicted and sentenced to jail. He only got out when his brother recorded the girl admitting that she hadn't been raped.

At the time, some people here insisted that any accusation of rape should be believed, which is idiotic.
I'm with Matthew Best on this one:
Accusations should always be taken seriously.
Taking something seriously is very different from believing it.
The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge took the claims of psychics and dowsers seriously!
 
I don't think anyone here would argue that there are women who have lied about being raped or taken advantage of. It would be really stupid to say otherwise. I can't think of too many crimes that get reported where it's taken "seriously" but not "believed". I know you said they're "very different" but how does one take something seriously if they don't believe it happened?

It's a fine line to walk for sure.
 
If you want to argue with something someone said, quote it. Or at least attribute it. Don't just declaim something and leave it as your take on the beliefs of unspecified other parties.

Have you met theprestige before? lol. If it weren't for vague one-line quips he'd be out of material here at ISF.
 
I feel like posters are split evenly between "rape is bad" and "bitches need to STFU". Should we get a poll going?
 
... What if the accused weren't mostly affluent white boys? What if the accuser was a pretty white girl? ...

I don't think anyone here would argue that there are women who have lied about being raped or taken advantage of. It would be really stupid to say otherwise. I can't think of too many crimes that get reported where it's taken "seriously" but not "believed". I know you said they're "very different" but how does one take something seriously if they don't believe it happened?

It's a fine line to walk for sure.
By investigating the claim properly. The JREF investigated paranormal claims without believing in them.
But unlike the paranormal claims, many rape claims turn out to be true.
 
Last edited:

She admits she completely lied when she accused the three boys of rape.

How does this affect the #MeToo movement?

How does this affect the concept that we should ×××ALWAYS××× believe women when they accuse someone of rape or sexual assault?
#MeToo has never been about always believing every accusation. It's been a backlash against the practice of disbelieving damn near every accusation, or asking questions like, "well, what was she wearing?".
 
#MeToo has never been about always believing every accusation. It's been a backlash against the practice of disbelieving damn near every accusation, or asking questions like, "well, what was she wearing?".
True. This thread is yet another attempt by Herc to start arguments by presenting a case of False Balance.
 
This wasn't #MeToo. This was Tom Wolfe's Great White Defendant(s).
 
I'd argue it was the Aziz Ansari case that eventually derailed it. Where it really goes overboard is college title 9 cases, basically no due process to kick folks out of college, and it turns out, mostly effects men of color. Rape is a crime; it should be handled by the judicial system not college admins.
At one point in Title IX hearings, the requirement for cross-examination was removed. One rationale that was offered was that the cross-examination would force an accusing witness of having to relive the trauma of the attack. Such an argument presumes that the accuser is telling the truth; which is what the hearing is supposed to determine.
 
LOL. I'm a full-spectrum contributor. I do more than what you claim, right here in this very thread.
However one feels about whomever here, in this case it is true. The gratuitious reference to MeToo in recounting an event that occurred before the movement existed suggests a shaky argument, and it's worth pointing out.
 
Accusations should always be taken seriously.
Of course.

But "eyewitness testimony" should never be enough in itself to convict someone, and this is a perfect example of why. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

I also think anyone admitting or proven to have made such a false claim should get the same sentence as the accused would have gotten. Would cut down on that #### more than a little IMO.
 
Of course.

But "eyewitness testimony" should never be enough in itself to convict someone, and this is a perfect example of why. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

I also think anyone admitting or proven to have made such a false claim should get the same sentence as the accused would have gotten. Would cut down on that #### more than a little IMO.
No, each crime should get the sentence appropriate for it and it alone.

And no, it wouldn't "cut down on the #### more than a little".

According to RAINN, 31% of sexual assaults in the US are reported to the police (I'm inclined to believe the actual percentage is a lot lower, but that's the 'official' number, and it will do for this discussion). Of those, only 16% lead to an arrest. You can draw you own conclusions on what that means. Of those that do get arrested, 56% are convicted and 50% are imprisoned. Rape is notoriously difficult to prove in court. Even with strong physical evidence it often comes down to 'he said she said'. So a 56% conviction rate after arrest is pretty good. Compare that to robbery where only 13% of those arrested are convicted, or assault and battery where 16% are convicted. The police are obviously being a lot more cautious about 'getting their man' for rapists than other criminals.

Many people already don't report being raped due to fear of negative consequences. Far easier and less stressful to just put it behind you - and let the rapist get away with doing it again to other people. For example only 10% of male rape victims in the US military report it. In that environment, telling rape victims they will be given the same punishment as a rapist if they are not believed would have an incredible chilling effect. The perpetrator only has to threaten the victim until they recant (a common occurrence) and hey presto - the bitch goes to prison for reporting me! Rapists love your idea.
 
No, each crime should get the sentence appropriate for it and it alone.

And no, it wouldn't "cut down on the #### more than a little".

According to RAINN, 31% of sexual assaults in the US are reported to the police (I'm inclined to believe the actual percentage is a lot lower, but that's the 'official' number, and it will do for this discussion). Of those, only 16% lead to an arrest. You can draw you own conclusions on what that means. Of those that do get arrested, 56% are convicted and 50% are imprisoned. Rape is notoriously difficult to prove in court. Even with strong physical evidence it often comes down to 'he said she said'. So a 56% conviction rate after arrest is pretty good. Compare that to robbery where only 13% of those arrested are convicted, or assault and battery where 16% are convicted. The police are obviously being a lot more cautious about 'getting their man' for rapists than other criminals.

Many people already don't report being raped due to fear of negative consequences. Far easier and less stressful to just put it behind you - and let the rapist get away with doing it again to other people. For example only 10% of male rape victims in the US military report it. In that environment, telling rape victims they will be given the same punishment as a rapist if they are not believed would have an incredible chilling effect. The perpetrator only has to threaten the victim until they recant (a common occurrence) and hey presto - the bitch goes to prison for reporting me! Rapists love your idea.

No, each crime should get the sentence appropriate for it and it alone.
Which is all I'm saying.

We obviously disagree on what that is.

And no, it wouldn't "cut down on the #### more than a little".
And again.
 
Which is all I'm saying.

We obviously disagree on what that is.
No. I agree with what the law says, while you are arguing for something different. According to you, accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit is the same as committing that crime yourself. To make matters worse you include recanting in that. I suspect a large number of rape victims recant when they find out what they will have to go through if the case is taken to trial. You would have them given the same punishment as a convicted rapist, while the actual rapist goes free.

This case should never have gone to trial. Crystal Mangum didn't report a rape to the police, she mentioned it when they had her involuntarily commited to a mental-health facility. Whether she actually believed she had been raped or not, she was under the influence of drugs and not rational at the time. Problem is the police took it seriously so she felt pressure to stick to her story despite it being full of holes. They should have ended it there, but the prosecutor took it on as a political ploy - even though he had a shaky case and exculpatory evidence. Under those circumstances what was she to do? The number of witnesses who later recanted with tales of being pressured by the prosecution gives you the answer.

If you want someone to be punished it should be the prosecuter of this case who went ahead with it regarless of the evidence. Crystal Mangum should have recieved proper mental health care, and then maybe another tragedy would have been averted. But of course that didn't happen because nobody cares until a crime has been commited, and then the reponse is just to punish somemone. And we wonder why we still have so much crime (actually not as much as we used to have, but that's another story that doesn't get told).
 
For every Crystal Magnum there is a "Marie." There was a ProPublica article called "An Unbelievable Story of Rape" that takes place across two states and several years. She claimed to have been raped, then recanted after aggressive interrogation. She was charged with a misdemeanor. Some time later it became obvious that she had been telling the truth. There are a number of salient points that could be taken away from this case.

If we were to charge people for making false accusations, there will be wrongful convictions. One should also take into consideration that a penalty for making a false accusation might discourage someone from recanting and instead pressing forward, the results of which would be unpredictable.
 
Raping people is bad. Lying about rape is bad. Rushing to act before going through the required process is bad. None of that should be controversial.
That should really be it, innit?

A lot of things happened at that time. News got out. People are outraged. Somebody has to be held to account.

Witness accounts have to be trusted. Further investigation. Something iffy about it. Prosecutor up for re-election in a tight race.

She finally confessed to what most people already knew, and found god and that her apology is a way of giving the players' peace

“I hope that [the players] can heal and trust God and know that God loves them and that God is loving them through me, letting them know that they're valuable,” she said.

https://www.dukechronicle.com/artic...s-finnerty-seligmann-brodhead-pressler-nifong

Thanks Crystal for letting me feel that I'm valuable. I'm guessing she may be up for parole or something.
 
Back
Top Bottom