We Need More Of This
A woman who falsely cried rape goes to jail for a year in the U.K. It's not enough jail time, but it's a start. From a story by an unnamed reporter in the Daily Mail:
Gary Wood was hoping for romance when he arranged to meet Natalie Jefferson after chatting to her online, but ended up facing a potential 10-year jail term.Instead 27-year-old Jefferson is beginning a 12-month jail term after detectives saw through her lies.
Mr Wood, 31, of Walker, Newcastle, said he was still baffled by her motives.
...Newcastle Crown Court heard how Jefferson, of Fellgate, South Tyneside, agreed to meet Mr Wood in Newcastle's Gateshead before going for a drink in nearby Jesmond.
But she received a phone call during the evening and claimed one of her children had been taken to hospital.
Mr Wood offered to go with her but she only let him travel on the Metro underground system part of the way with her.
Luckies, NewcastleFalse allegation: Jefferson accused Gary Wood of attacking her near Luckies wine bar in Newcastle, above
He phoned her later but was horrified when she told him she had been raped by a stranger.
It was a lie - but she had already called police claiming Mr Wood himself had raped her. Soon officers were on his doorstep to arrest him.
He said: 'I got a call saying the police wanted to speak to me. They didn't say what it was at first but when they came to my flat, the officer said, "I will be up-front with you - we have had an allegation of rape against you."'
Mr Wood was held in custody for three hours.
Jefferson - also known as Natalie Dawn Dodsworth - had alleged Mr Wood attacked her on January 7 near Newcastle's Luckies bar and even agreed to go to a rape crisis centre.
But she was arrested and charged with perverting the course of justice after investigating officers interviewed Mr Wood and witnesses, as well as studying CCTV, and grew suspicious about her version of events. In court Jefferson admitted the charge.
Robin Patton, prosecuting, said: 'It's quite clear she had concocted this account for no good reason at all.
The guy's just one of the lucky ones -- that the police saw through it, and that there was closed-circuit TV that disputed the woman's story. What if you're one of the ones who doesn't have evidence at hand to prove your innocence? What then? You could lose everything -- over a false accusation.
By the way, I think the false accusers should serve the same amount of prison time the accused would have, had the conviction gone through. This miniscule prison term of hers is not punishment enough -- or deterrent enough -- given the 10 years Mr. Wood could've gotten.
thanks, Deirdre!
I don't want to be a party-pooper, but we should be able to investigate a rape and heaven forbid be able to judge an accusation as false without requiring closed-circuit tv. Without the closed circuit tv would we have believed this guy? It's still no justification for the UK's over the top use of privacy invading cameras.
jerry at July 9, 2009 12:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/09/we_need_more_of.html#comment-1657626">comment from jerryIt's still no justification for the UK's over the top use of privacy invading cameras.
I thought about that, too.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2009 1:10 AM
seems to me that mr wood would probably disagree with you about that
theOtherJim at July 9, 2009 5:13 AM
The burden of proof should never be on the accused. Guilty until proven innocent has become the standard approach for accusations of rape. The solution is not violating people's privacy in case someone make a false allegation of rape (or any other crime for that matter). The solution is to put the burden of proof back where it belongs: on the accuser.
Gordon at July 9, 2009 6:34 AM
Seems to me, and I'm sure JulieA would agree with me that this man is a whiner, he should have got together with a bunch of other guys to punish this woman him self. Right Julie?
Thats better than sitting around whineing that government funded services(jail, shelters) need to be enforced equaly and equitably
lujlp at July 9, 2009 6:44 AM
There was another case in the U.K. where a man had secretly videotaped a sexual encounter with a woman. The woman, not even knowing about the tape, went to authorities and claimed he raped her.
The man had to tell the authorities about the secret taping and showed them the video.
Had he not secretly videotaped the encounter who knows what would have happened to him.
I found out about this on Glenn Sacks web-site.
One female commenter on that site couldn't get over why this guy wasn't being charged with secretly video taping her. She couldn't seem to care less about the false accusation.
David M. at July 9, 2009 7:07 AM
David M,
THis is more widespread than anyone seems willing to accept. Crid has a problem with my site, but everyone should come over an visit to see just how often this is occurring.
Gordon nailed it. The burden needs to be on the accuser and the state. Not on the defendant. In many of these cases, there is no physical evidence, it is based on the accusers word. And there needs to be more proof than that, IMO, to arrest someone and then allow their name to be splashed all over the media. There should be anonymity for all parties involved, until such time as a conviction is obtained.
The one thing that makes this case a little different from most, is that the false accuser is named. That normally doesn't happen.
E. Steven Berkimer at July 9, 2009 7:56 AM
Posted by: E. Steven Berkimer at July 9, 2009 7:56 AM
===========
Went there. Lots of good articles on your site. thanks.
David M. at July 9, 2009 8:47 AM
I disagree that false accusers should serve the same amount of prison time that the accused would have. The problem with this is such a law would not distinguish between three types of "false" accusers, being 1) an accuser such as Natalie Jefferson who made up deliberate lies to incriminate another person; 2) an accuser who unknowingly/unintentionally named the wrong person (ie identified the wrong suspect from a line-up) and 3) the accuser was actually telling the truth, but the accused was ruled to be innocent.
Such harsh penalties would serve as a huge disincentive for anyone to ever report rape. A better penalty would be to charge the accuser of perjury when appropriate and, if perjury could be proved, make them pay reparations to the defense and issue a public apology.
And for the record, I believe this should hold for any crime. If I accuse someone of, say, breaking into my house, and I'm wrong, I don't think I should be sent to jail unless I was deliberately lying.
Shannon at July 9, 2009 10:16 AM
> Crid has a problem with my site
No, I have a problem with Amy acquiring a reputation as a the champion of every bitter counter-feminist on the internet.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 10:33 AM
i have a slightly different take on punishment. the accuser should have to serve the same amount of time behind bars as the defendant did, if he was detained, should the accusation be proven to be deliberately false
the accuser should also have to pay the court costs associated with proving the accusation was false in court
and compensate the defendant for any lost income, past and future if he lost his job as a result of the accusation
and make a public apology in the media with the aim of mitigating or partially repairing the damage done to his reputation
theOtherJim at July 9, 2009 10:38 AM
Crid -
Is it possible that there any counter feminists who aren't bitter and are just trying to have a reasonable dialogue? Is it not allowed to discuss issues contrary to feminist dogma in your world? Does Amy's willingness to talk about these issues threaten you in some way? Just curious.
Curious at July 9, 2009 10:41 AM
> The problem with this is such a law
> would not distinguish between three
> types of "false" accusers
I got problems with that.
First, your quotation marks around the word "false" are manipulative. All the accusations you describe are false in the plainest sense of the word, and can send an innocent man to jail.
Secondly, you're too fascinated with interior conditions. As a rule, the law doesn't concern itself with forcing apologies. We're not raising children here, and the punishments the law provides are not about scolding. Furthermore you place too much value on intentions, as if these could ever be perfectly clear to the rest of us, or cleanly delineated anyway. You want to judge people on whether or not they mean well.
We ought to judge each other on whether we've behaved well.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 10:42 AM
> Is it possible that there any
> counter feminists who aren't
> bitter and are just trying to have
> a reasonable dialogue?
Watch who shows up... Sit back and watch these guys. They'll give Amy an "Attaboy!", and articulate nothing worthwhile thereafter. They aren't interested it dialog, they're here to be soothed. It's Amy's blog and she can do that if she wants, but it's no fun to read.
> Is it not allowed to discuss
> issues contrary to feminist dogma
> in your world?
We do it all the time. But—
I'm pretty sure that you, "Curious", are actually Berkimer, weaving a dastardly web of deception.... You have a lawyerly tidiness about putting links in blog-comment URL fields. But I went to Google, and sure enough, this is the topic that brings you (or Berkimer) out to play. Not so many comments about Palin or Obama or Iraq or Paris or gay marriage or any of her other stuff.
> Does Amy's willingness to talk
> about these issues threaten you
> in some way?
Does it have to? Would it be OK if I was just bored to tears by it? Are you guys that needful of the floorspace in here?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 11:03 AM
Goddess:
By the way, I think the false accusers should serve the same amount of prison time the accused would have, had the conviction gone through.
- - - - - - - - -
That's the Biblical position.
Witnesses testifying falsely to incriminate another are given the punishment that the accused would have received, had the liars been successful.
Ben-David at July 9, 2009 11:32 AM
Thank you Lujlp for making my case about whiners better than I ever could.
JulieA at July 9, 2009 11:40 AM
Posted by: Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 11:03 AM
Does it have to? Would it be OK if I was just bored to tears by it?
==========================
And there's not a gazillion other web sites you could go to because your so bored?
David M. at July 9, 2009 12:31 PM
Shannon has a point about the different types of false accusation, but I don't think anyone is saying that the accuser should be punished for any of them except type 1 (deliberate lie).
I have no problem with the accuser being punished when outside evidence (like a video) proves she was lying, but if she comes forward and recants her accusation in the absence of such evidence, we need to give her a pass, or at worst a light slap on the wrist. If a false accuser faced serious punishment for admitting what she did, she'd brazen it out and stick to her story instead.
In most of the false-rape-accusation cases I've heard about, it was the accuser's confession that broke the case. It won't do anyone any good if we give false rape accusers strong incentive not to recant.
Rex Little at July 9, 2009 1:32 PM
Thank you Lujlp -JulieA
So you agree then that the guy was a hiner for expecting the government to to its job under the law then?
And Shannon, a woman who misidetifys a guy is not a false accuser, and a not guilty verdict is not proof of a false accusation.
A false accusation is just that FALSE, as in a deliberate lie
Seriously what about the english language is sooo damn hard? That why we have so many words, to clearly express our thoughts
lujlp at July 9, 2009 1:40 PM
" If I accuse someone of, say, breaking into my house, and I'm wrong, I don't think I should be sent to jail unless I was deliberately lying."
Yes, Shannon. And any false accuser law would have to eet the same standard. In fact perjury laws already do meet that standard. the problem is that accusers don't have to make sworn statements when it comes to rape, or many other crimes for that matter, so the lies go unpunished.
And getting someone sent to jail on a lie is a crime of violence. There needs to be a heavy penalty.
And as others have pointed out above, Shannon, you kind of missed the point about "false" accusations.
And by the way, someone who misidentifies a person is absiolutely not necessarily a false accuser. there was a concrete example of this recently. A woman identified a man, not quite positively, and he was convicted and served 10 years, in kansas I think. DNA evidence later exhonerated him. She feels huge guilt and they both tour the country doing soem kind of awareness traing.
She may feel guilt, but to my mind she is guilty of nothing. She identified someone to the best of her ability from an incident where she cannot possibly have gotten a clear view of him, but she gave the information she had. It was up to the prosecutors, not her, to decide the validity of that identification. Not her guilt at all.
Furthermore, someone making a rape complaint needs to be treated with the utmost compassion. Believing them once you get out of the room is another matter.
Jim at July 9, 2009 2:10 PM
"Thank you Lujlp for making my case about whiners better than I ever could. "
Really, Julie, or is that just substance-free snark that passes for wit in your airtight little circle-lick?
Jim at July 9, 2009 2:13 PM
"So you agree then that the guy was a hiner for expecting the government to to its job under the law then?"
Lujy!!! Such venom! You know better than to argue like this!
Gretchen at July 9, 2009 2:13 PM
Crid,
So you know, Curious and I are different people.
Bitter? I have nothing to be bitter about. And I'm not a counter-anything. I simply feel that there is an entire class of people (predominately men) who are having crimes perpetrated against them. And the people (predominately women) who are comitting those crimes are held to little or no accountability for those crimes.
Passionate about the issue, yes, but bitter? Nope.
E. Steven Berkimer at July 9, 2009 2:17 PM
> And there's not a gazillion other
> web sites you could go to because
> your so bored?
When a general interest website (advice!) is over run by slot-car enthusiasts or something, courageous men come to the feet and shout "No! No More!"
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 2:19 PM
> Passionate about the issue, yes,
> but bitter? Nope.
Great. Everybody's happy when passions are kept under control:
"Fanatic. One who can't Change his mind and won't Change the subject." »Winston Churchill
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 2:23 PM
Lujy!!! Such venom! You know better than to argue like this!
Posted by: Gretchen
Its not that I know better, it that I never get the chance. It is so rare that I can throw someone illogiacl words back in their face so immediatly and so on point.
Julie called men asking for funding for male shelters whiners for not raising the money themsleves(nary a peep about women using governemnt funds btw Julie)
And low and behold the very next day a man has the cops(another governement funded outfit) doing their job equitably
How could I not take Julie's innane illogical stance and apply it to this situation. It would have been immoral to let such a profound teaching moment pass her by
lujlp at July 9, 2009 2:46 PM
I don't think that a false accuser of rape should receive a prison sentence equal to what the man, were he convicted, would have received, since prisons are overcrowded already and it serves no purpose to put a non-violent offender such as in this case behind bars, but she should be made to pay restitution to the man for her accusation, either monetarily or via public service.
Robert at July 9, 2009 3:49 PM
Gotcha Jim-we're on the same page, just a question of semantics. I wasn't sure exactly what Amy had defined as a false accusation, but everything you said I agree with.
And lujip-I can't speak for Julie, but I personally cannot understand anything you say. Ever. Your "profound teaching moments" might be a little more profound if you used spellcheck occasionally.
Shannon at July 9, 2009 3:54 PM
Lujlp - Again, thank you for making my point more eloquently than I ever could.
And I highly doubt I have anything to learn from you. I don't like blamers or whiners. I like doers -- and as I noted in the post you selectively chose to quote from: The first women's shelters were safe houses established by other women, not the government, not a foundation. Are you working on one of those? What, no time? Too busy blaming women in general and feminists in particular for your woes?
Of course I think that false charges of any sort are abhorrent. And I absolutely believe men and women benefit from intentional liars being punished. It doesn't serve anyone well for rape charges to be considered suspect in every case because some women are evil at worst, idiots at best.
Now get back to hating on all women, guys. Accept no blame, take no action.
JulieA at July 9, 2009 4:04 PM
Trying to remember when it became Crid's website....
jerry at July 9, 2009 4:24 PM
The first women's shelters were safe houses established by other women, not the government, not a foundation - JulieA
So tell me Julie how did the oppressed, trapped below the glass celing, earning 60cents per dollar women afford to create such shelters?
With funds provided by men, Was I working on one? Yes, until I suggested some of the cottages we were looking at be set aside for men, at which point I was dropped from the group - at the behest of . . .
women, in case you couldnt guess.
And we are taking action, we are lobying for publicly funded services be distibuted in a gender nutral manner as demanded by local, state, federal, and constitutional law
How the fuck is that whiney?
lujlp at July 9, 2009 4:26 PM
Julie did you ever read Erin Pizzeys book?
pg.10 a man buys her a house for her to use as a shelter
And men supported her and defended her when taken to court
It was women who tried to shut her down and shut her up.
So please by all means tell us how men never do any good and how women were responsible for the creation of the shelter system.
But dont forget to mention that those women who took over from the REAL founders(men and women both) set up a system that would rather place a prebubecent teenage in jail if he has a penis rather than let him stay with the familly he depends on most in such a trying time. After all being male and almost as tall as a woman is good enough reason to throw him in kid jail right?
lujlp at July 9, 2009 4:37 PM
Lujlp -
I've got to get dinner on the table and tend to a sick child so you have my attention for a second, about what's deserved.
Where have I ever said men never do any good? Actually, I like men. You could say I love them. They've had my back all my life.
You, however, ALWAYS blame women for everything. (By the way, I don't think women are oppressed. I think people who allow themselves to be oppressed tend to be oppressed.)
I don't agree that teen boys shouldn't be allowed in shelters, but I understand it. They've seen abuse and, unfortunately, it can be an ugly cycle. (The most rudimentary reading will teach you that school bullies are often beaten or beaten down at home.) I recently took in a foster child on an emergency basis -- a boy and I've got girls. The agency was very reluctant to do so because of what he'd witnessed in his life. Truth is he was tough on my girls -- who gave up their room to him -- but with time was a tender sweetie. I wish him and all boys the best.
JulieA at July 9, 2009 4:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/09/we_need_more_of.html#comment-1657754">comment from jerryTrying to remember when it became Crid's website....
It's everybody's website who comments here.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2009 5:06 PM
Show me thre example from the last few posts where I've balmed women for everything
You wont be able too ofcourse but try.
Personaly I'm a misanthrope, I have no personal stake in gender roles, politics or bias. I've seen and experianced abuse from both sexes no one is better than the other, niether is exepmt from hypocracy and petty dealings.
Every group that gains power over another invariably become corrupted, some more so and quicker than others.
Pointing out anothers lies, hypocracy, and ways to correct them isnt whining
lujlp at July 9, 2009 5:14 PM
> Trying to remember when
What, we're not allowed to pester each other?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at July 9, 2009 8:05 PM
What, did everybody wake up in a crabby mood did they? lol
GMan at July 10, 2009 1:10 AM
But dont forget to mention that those women who took over from the REAL founders(men and women both) set up a system that would rather place a prebubecent teenage in jail if he has a penis rather than let him stay with the familly he depends on most in such a trying time. After all being male and almost as tall as a woman is good enough reason to throw him in kid jail right?
Really. You would think that since feminists care so much about everyone they would be concerned about boys over the age of 12 not being allowed into shelters. Or if they can't bring themselves to think about it that way then they could at least come from the angle of thinking about an abused mom (because as far as come of them are concerned only women are bused). Imagine a mom that has several children but since one of her sons is over 12 she has to solve the dilemma of staying at shelter and letting the 12+ son go into foster care/jail or having to fins some other form of sanctuary in which she can keep all her kids with her.
But back on topic am I the only person bothered by people constantly saying that the REAL victims of false rape claims are the women (notice how they usually genderize it by saying "women" and not "rape victims") in an effort to totally erase the actual victims of the false claims?
Danny at July 10, 2009 6:50 AM
Gman - I know, right? I'm in too awesome of a mood today to jump into this!
Took the boat into work (love taking the boat); getting out an hour early (thank you, boss!) and get to walk over to visit the Tall Ships; then going for an early dinner in the North End w/ my love for some delish Italian...why ruin the fun by presenting an intelligent, rational argument that will no doubt be twisted into something completely different and used to call me a man-hater or a woman-hater or some shit like that?
The sun is out for once in this fuckin' place! MY ABUSIVE FATHER IS OUT OF MY LIEF! LIFE IS GOOD!!!!!!
Gretchen at July 10, 2009 7:03 AM
Several things need to be changed in rape accusations.
First is that an accusation is almost as damaging as a conviction to a mans life and reputation. If the accuser is hidden from the press so should the accused. It is basic fairness, since until the trial is over they should be seen as equals.
2nd do not take things to court with just hearsay or he-said/she said evidence. Eye witnesses are actually the worst piece of evidence, they bring in so many prejudices, that their word is often worthless.
to little Rex "It won't do anyone any good if we give false rape accusers strong incentive not to recant."
The incentive is to stop the false accusations in the first place, before the trial, before a reputaion is ruined. True this incentive would also lessen recants, but I'd rather the false accusation never happen than it be recanted later.
Joe at July 10, 2009 8:16 AM
Leave a comment