Scott Greenfield relates the case of a California woman who found it only too easy to engineer criminal charges over fictitious harassment. “Notice that it was left to the defendants to investigate? That’s because the police already had their perps in custody. … It really can’t be this easy for someone to hatch a scheme and use the machinery of the legal system to her own advantage.” [Orange County Register]
4 Comments
I predict that the claimed victim never pays the $50,000 in restitution.
There was no mention of an apology by law enforcement to the victims of the false charges. That would be like admitting that they didn’t do their job properly.
I see this headed in the direction of a suit against the false accuser and law enforcement with the deep pockets paying most or all of the tab at tax payer expense.
Court TV broadcast the Mark Chmura trial. A teenage girl accused the football player of raping her in the downstairs bathroom during an after-prom party. After testifying that Chumara held her on the floor and used his strength (he was a receiver in the NFL) to pry apart her legs for penetration, she was invited to enter a one-to-one scale of the bathroom that was constructed for the defense. She opened the door and said “This ain’t right. It’s much too small.” Obviously the rape could not have happened as she claimed. She seemed normal, and she was not the only girl/woman to falsely claim rape.
I think every “rape unit” of police departments and DA offices should be shown the Chmura trial.
” sending hundreds of threatening text messages – to herself. … she blamed the harassing text messages on an ex-boyfriend and his sister-in-law…”
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
“I think every “rape unit” of police departments and DA offices should be shown the Chmura trial.”
Doesn’t matter. The law (and society) has progressed to the point where the woman claiming rape is just about sacrosanct. I wouldn’t be surprised if 90%+ of all reported rape cases are false accusations.
But because of the fact that the woman is the “victim” and a man the perp, no investigation is necessary.
Her statement is all the evidence the law requires.
It’s only when the defense has a lot of resources (and clout with the court, most courts would have rejected anything like this as “potentially embarassing to the victim”) that they’re able to pull of something like this.
“Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.”
And it would have worked if not for that pesky store clerk giving out the actual sales records, “my privacy has been invaded, I’m going to sue them for every last cent they ever have”.