Are you that naive? Evidence and witness testimony can be easily fabricated by authorities (happens all the time), especially when the authorities are out to get someone and have political and personal reasons to do so. What's your reasoning for believing these women's testimony other than made up fact by police?
Stop trolling. Crimes deserve investigations. This is in the best interest of the victim.
And no, I'm not believing anything just because somebody told so. Everything else is patological naivety, expeciall if the source has a bad track record.
Making a false police report in order to send police to someone's home is obviously wrong and should be easy to condemn.
Even this post you appear to be saying there's more to it than that. If you think she's lying you should gather evidence and post it rather than insinuating it.
EDIT: I mean, unless you called the police station to check the details you can either believe her version of events or believe someone else's version. I'm not sure why you'd go for that other person's version without very good evidence.
There are three accounts of what happened all supporting her account of what happened. There is absolutely no guarantee that the courts are a safer, or better way for her to make her accusation. It might be the opposite. Or the police won't care.
The fact that police can use subjective, undocumentable, unprovable (and undisprovable!) allegations as evidence is pretty damn bonkers. Especially given that the burden of proof is meant to be on the accuser.
It shouldn't matter whether these specific charges are made-up or not. At this point they're unproven allegations, and it's up to a court to decide whether they're valid or not.
It's important to realize that anytime you give the police power over people still facing trial, you give them that same power over anyone they can fabricate spurious charges against. That's why it's important to have things like warrants and pre-trial court orders, so that there's some accountability when the police detain someone over unproven allegations.
In the end, no amount of evidence will save you when they have it out for you because you're a man. There is the famous case of the German train conductor Ralf Witte and his friend, who were both falsely accused of rape by the friend's daughter. They were falsely imprisoned for a combined 10 years before the ridiculous verdict was overturned, even though the daughter was a known liar, frequently submitted contradicting testimony and they had alibi for several of the dates where the supposed rape took place. Among other things, the daughter claimed that Mr. Witte took her virginity, then later claimed that she had been enslaved in a human trafficking ring years earlier, directly contradicting her earlier statements. Any evidence not fitting the story that the judge and DA wanted to hear were simply explained away as the victim "misremembering".
Men and women both make up crazy stories all the time to attack other people. It's incontraverible evidence that makes it clear one side isn't lying. It seems like she has good evidence so it's not s/he said situation anyhow.
I don't know... it doesn't look like fake accusations to me. It was more like things that were there and US used for an entirely political reason, but the claim still seemed legit.
Also, it seems they dropped the charges due to a technicality: "Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice of his alleged crimes"
No, because it's a lie. Actually one of the victims just recently (after the arrest) reiterated her accusations and called for re-opening the prosecution.
Meta: This endless "do you have sources" plays right into the hands of liars. If you don't have real reason to believe that some crucial fact may be missing you shouldn't invite them to spew their nonsense. If they had something real, they would have posted it the first time. Asking them just lets them draw the "I'm just answering an honest question" card, thereby making it seem that now there are two posters discussing the issue. A well-known trick.
You know accusers in sexual assault allegations often withdraw their testimony due to the pressures of the case – especially in this case where the women were threatened, smeared and accused of being honeypots etc?
Most of the links in these comments aren't authoritative in anyway
Well this kind of anecdata if shared really has to come with details. Even if I knew and trusted you well I would need to hear about where the information comes from. There are huge gaps of detail to be filled in.
I am not saying that false accusations do not happen. I'm saying these kind of hearsay stories are not even evidence for the people that tell them.
Can you post the sources? As it stands you're saying one woman's sexual assault allegations are false and those of another are valid, even though both cases (as presented) are not much different from each other.
"In general, someone who makes a specific accusation that can be disproven if not true probably isn't making it up.
"
On what do you base this?
Honestly, i'd say that in court, the percent time people (be they cops, witnesses, you name it) make specific accusations that can be disproven, and are making it up, is in the 20-30% range, at least. These are on a witness stand, too. I'm just going by those things objectively disproven later (IE literally could not have occurred as the person says. Not "can't tell what really happened, video too fuzzy").
Outside of court situations with repercussions, i'd expect the number to be much higher not much lower.
"I know we can all recall specific times when this hasn't been true. But as a general rule it works, "
This is handwaving. Really.
This is "well, you might think it's wrong, but i'm telling you it's not with no data to back me up".
There's a reason "eyewitness testimony" has it's credibility judged by a jury, is not taken as fact, and is pretty much the lowest form of evidence there is:
it's because it's the most often wrong.
I agree that it if it is a fake incident, it would be awful and would disqualify real issues. I'm not sure what the background of this girl is (maybe she's an immigrant who's only heard bad things about the police, campus or otherwise? maybe she's terrified and just wants to put it behind her, instead of necessarily pursuing justice?) but I do think it would be better to give her the benefit of the doubt unless it's proven conclusively that she faked it.
I know that typically in courts the accuser has to prevent positive evidence, but this is a traumatizing time for minorities - let the court of public opinion at least not rush to brand her as a faker, at least in part because if it is real, doing so will only exacerbate her trauma.
reply