Close Call
An apparent good Samaritan, who took a drunk girl in out of the rain and gave her a bed in his house, got accused of rape, and convicted, too, despite a lack of evidence that he'd had any sexual contact with her. His conviction was just overturned. Again, we need to have prosecution of those who falsely accuse people of crimes, or there is no deterrent to it.
Imagine how this man's life has been upended by this prosecution. How much it cost him, in time, money, psychic energy, friends, respect of people who know him, and more. Chances are, much of that can never be replaced.
via Deirdre
How do you convict someone of rape when there are only two witnesses to the crime and the lack of evidence supports the accused in the first place?
Patrick at December 14, 2009 2:52 AM
Presumption of guilt Patrick. Presumption of guilt.
Robert at December 14, 2009 4:18 AM
Women don't lie about those things, you know.
That's how it happens, Patrick.
brian at December 14, 2009 5:35 AM
A man should have to be start-staring-insane to take a drunken teenage girl into his home and expect any other outcome.
God forbid I should come upon a similar situation. I'd call the law from inside my car and wait for them to arrive. I wouldn't even get out of the car.
To do anything else is to invite exactly what happened to the scotsman: false prosecution.
Bill McNutt at December 14, 2009 6:57 AM
I hope this story gets more air time.
On fox and friends this morning: A flight attendant claimed a guy was being abusive and belligerent. The guy said he asked her for an orange juice. She called him upfront and wanted him to sign a paper saying he was out of line and he was being warned. He refused. He made a good point. If she was intimadated by his behavior why we she call him away from the other passengers to talk to him alone? The lady who was sittoing behind him said he was talking softly and couldn't even hear what he was saying. She said she could only hear the flight attendant.
My guess is she was going to file some kind of fake emotional disability or wanted time off over the holidays. She tried to use this poor guy as a means to her ends.
David M. at December 14, 2009 7:00 AM
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a woman would undergo all of the trouble, shame, publicity, etc. of making an accusation, and enduring a trial, if it didn't really happen.
I know women do it frequently enough, but I just can't wrap my mind around it. Is victimhood really that fun?
I mean, I guess I can see the (albeit twisted) logic in the following scenario: woman is cheating on her guy and makes up the "He raped me" to save face with her SO, but to accuse a stranger? What could possibly motivate that?
other Beth at December 14, 2009 7:02 AM
"For the life of me, I can't fathom why a woman would undergo all of the trouble, shame, publicity, etc. of making an accusation, and enduring a trial, if it didn't really happen."
What are you talking about? What shame are you talking about? She has no shame about making a lying accusation against a man. We're all just pigs anyway. And there are plenty of quisling White Knight idiot men who want to show how manly they are by running in to slay the evil dragon.
Publicity? Rape shield laws - and they have them in Britain too - protect even false accusers form any publicity at all, because as soon as they make an accusations they are labeled victims, even withoput any proof that a crime occurred of which they could be victims.
Enduring a trial? She's the accuser, she can damn well show up so the accused can face his accuser.
"Is victimhood really that fun?"
Not for a person with a healthy mind like you, but look around you and see how many people get off on victimhood. It's their claim on people to get them to care for them.
Here's a blog that concentrates on this kind of crime: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Note that the last two posts are about a man making a false report.
Jim at December 14, 2009 8:40 AM
Other beth,
In this story, the 15 year old girl was drunk off her ass, and there was DNA from 3 men other than Mr. Uttley found. This comes across as a flagrant attempt to keep from getting in trouble with parents (the article doesn't state such, but this is a common reason False Rape Accusations, FRA's are filed).
There are also a lot of these stories that are about attention. And playing the victim gets a lot of attention these days. Rape victims even more so.
Add to the mix, that very few false accusers suffer any form of punishment, and you have the current legal mess we are seeing, people filing FRA's on a constant basis, as a cover, usually, for thier own bad behavior.
Bill above stated it very well. But I wouldn't have even bothered to call the cops. I would have left her passed out in the ditch.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 14, 2009 8:46 AM
Copy all. I hadn't thought of the parent angle, but you're right, she was just 15.
These cases don't just destroy the lives of the falsely accused men, but they also throw shadows of doubt on actual crimes.
It's a very sad commentary on society when someone who tries to do "the right thing" ends up in trouble.
other Beth at December 14, 2009 9:13 AM
Right. And you'll notice that the article Amy linked to still doesn't name the false accuser, even though it does name the falsely accused.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2009 9:31 AM
This guy was at least an idiot, if not worse. I would have some sympathy if he had immediately called the parents or the police.
A man that invites a 15 year old incapacitated girl into his home without notifying anyone likely has ulterior motives. Perhaps he wants to be number 4. Perhaps he doesn't thing she will remember anything.
Give me a break.
Jen at December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
Jen: "This guy was at least an idiot, if not worse. I would have some sympathy if he had immediately called the parents or the police."
The article wasn't very clear, however, an article from 2002 says:
"He picked her up and carried her to his home. He also invited the 14-year-old boy who had shared the cider to join them.
"The boy later staggered, hysterical, to his home after hearing the girl's cries for help. Police found her in the house in Lochend Gardens, Edinburgh. Uttley denied the charges..."
If that article is accurate, he never did call the police, instead, the boyfriend arranged for them to be called. Really innocent?
bradley13 at December 14, 2009 10:28 AM
The whole thing sounds rather fishy if you ask me. No man is his right mind would invite a drunk 15yo girl into his house w/o even thinking of immediately notifying her parents or the police.
Crusader at December 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Not old enough to consent but old enough to point a finger at someone and destroy their life.
Lobster at December 14, 2009 11:41 AM
'A man that invites a 15 year old incapacitated girl into his home without notifying anyone likely has ulterior motives. Perhaps he wants to be number 4. Perhaps he doesn't thing she will remember anything.
Give me a break."
Yeah Jen, all men are evil and are pedophiles and are guilty until proven innocent, and no men are decent or do decent things. Please, piss off with that BS, OK? Thanks.
Lobster at December 14, 2009 11:44 AM
Yeah Jen, all men are evil and are pedophiles and are guilty until proven innocent, and no men are decent or do decent things.
That isn't what is being said. If I were to invite a strange, intoxicated, minor young man to stay with me overnight, would you see that as fishy? Wonder about my intentions? Especially when I didn't call the police or attempt to get the kid to call his parents or anything else? An adult isolating an intoxicated minor overnight in their home when they have no previous relationship is a fishy thing to do. If it isn't fishy, it is stupid, because the person most vulnerable is the one with the most to loose. That becomes the sober adult every time.
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 11:50 AM
think that when you have "DNA" form 3 other guys in you, you mightn't be looking for a scapegoat, or someone to blame? Who's the most convenient? The guy whose name you actually know.
OTOH, if she was that drunk, perhaps she just knew that something had happened, and not when or who. Again with the most convenient. The miscarriage of justice thing, is all about the police not following the leads to where they go with DNA and other evidence... or the LACK of evidence.
I guess I'd be all for sheltering in place and calling the police or parents. The days of going to the neighbors house when in trouble, or being the neighbor to go to, are kind of over, methinks.
SwissArmyD at December 14, 2009 11:51 AM
I wouldn't have a fifteen year old of either sex in my house, even if they were stone cold sober and selling cookies.
Steve Daniels at December 14, 2009 11:56 AM
I wouldn't have a fifteen year old of either sex in my house, even if they were stone cold sober and selling cookies.
And sadly that is the smart thing to do. I would help a kid out as much as I could...in public around witnesses.
-Julie
JulieW at December 14, 2009 11:59 AM
I don't go anywhere near women I don't know.
Last week I saw a woman in a retail parking lot that couldn't get her car started. Automatically I started to get out of my car and go help her.
Then I came to my senses. She could say I damaged her car in the process of helping her. She could ask me for money and if I told her to fuck off- she could claim anything and I would be considered guilty until proven innocent.
I got back in my car and drove away.
David M. at December 14, 2009 12:40 PM
You've got it right. Help strangers as much as you can in public (and hopefully around witnesses). This protects everyone.
Jen at December 14, 2009 2:12 PM
JulieW writes: "That isn't what is being said. If I were to invite a strange, intoxicated, minor young man to stay with me overnight, would you see that as fishy?"
Well, I'd view you as a good Samaritan if you dragged a drunk teenage boy out of the gutter and put him up for the night. But I get what you're saying. It's funny how our society is so quick to assume the worst about people who are trying to do good, while at the same time cutting break after break for people who are clearly abusing the system. It makes me ill.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2009 4:43 PM
I am glad that you might view someone as a good Samaritan that put up a kid, but we have to be careful. I once found a naked toddler alone on the street. I thought about taking her home where she would be comfortable until I found out where she belonged. I could wrap her in a blanket, put on some cartoons, and then call the police. But there is no way. Someone might think I was trying to kidnap her - and who could blame them?
One time, I let a couple of girls stay after school about a half hour to help me decorate my classroom door. The girls told me that they walked home and there was no-one waiting for them. The mother walked into the school crying hysterically. I have always made sure that I talked to a parent since then.
Can you imagine if your child disappeared ALL NIGHT?
Jen at December 14, 2009 6:59 PM
"He picked her up and carried her to his home. He also invited the 14-year-old boy who had shared the cider to join them.
"The boy later staggered, hysterical, to his home after hearing the girl's cries for help. Police found her in the house in Lochend Gardens, Edinburgh. Uttley denied the charges."
No one is stupid enough to think that letting a drunk passed out child stay in their house without anyone knowing is being a good samaritan. So, since no one is that stupid, you're left with evil intentions. Process of elimination.
momof4 at December 14, 2009 7:10 PM
Well, I'd view you as a good Samaritan if you dragged a drunk teenage boy out of the gutter and put him up for the night. But I get what you're saying. It's funny how our society is so quick to assume the worst about people who are trying to do good, while at the same time cutting break after break for people who are clearly abusing the system. It makes me ill.
Cousin Dave, well said.
Momof4,
See what Dave wrote. Not everyone in the world is evil trying to take advantage of a girl or boy.
That is part of the attitude that has gotten us where we are. Those who are willing to try to help, now say the hell with it, and the only people who pay the price, are those who need that help. Do we really need to get into the fact that you are likely to be abused by a family member, than you are a complete stranger?
E. Steven Berkimer at December 14, 2009 8:29 PM
Jim,
I meant to mention it earlier, but thanks for the link to my site. Some days, it gets really depressing, what we do. It's nice to have others support us, even if it is just putting a link up. Thank you.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 14, 2009 8:32 PM
"Yeah Jen, all men are evil and are pedophiles and are guilty until proven innocent, and no men are decent or do decent things. Please, piss off with that BS, OK? Thanks."
Actually Jen may have menat the exact opposite, that all 15 year-old girls can be lying accusers. Oh look up there where she gives basically that interpretation.
Jen goes on further with a story that points out how even the most innocent situation can put a parent into hysterics. I know I'd be pretty crazy if my kid had failed to show up for any appreciable amount of time. She's basically saying that innocence is no defense, and that's just simple prudence.
Steve, what you do is not what is depressing. What's depressing is the lowlife bigotry and superstition that drives these injustices. and oh look, we have an example of that above, don't we? Wouldn't it be wonderful to burn some of these bigots at the stakes they tie other people to?
Jim at December 15, 2009 9:26 AM
Jim,
Thanks. It's like the story that has been linked to and discussed here in the past, about the guy driving along who saw the toddler who had wandered away from the group. He knew what he could be accused of, so he did nothing. And the kid drowned. The hysteria and stupidity surrounding "stranger danger" got that kid killed. That man would have been happy to help, but knew he could end up in prison for years, and then on some registry for life, for trying to help.
I hope the idiots who keep screaming about how dangerous men are, are able to sleep at night knowing they are responsible for innocent people dying, and spending years in jail for trying to help.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 15, 2009 10:21 AM
"I hope the idiots who keep screaming about how dangerous men are, are able to sleep at night knowing they are responsible for innocent people dying, and spending years in jail for trying to help. "
Well of course they sleep soundly at night - not their kid, not their care. And they get to wallow in their self-righteous bigotries. Win-win all the way around for them, right?
Do you ever post or comment over at Spearhead?
Jim at December 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Win-win all the way around for them, right?
Do you ever post or comment over at Spearhead?
Sadly, yes it is a win-win for them. And I do make occasional posts there. Haven't had time recently, but I expect to be able to get back there. Under the same name there as here.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 15, 2009 2:08 PM
See you there. I lurk there, and send links to my son.
Jim at December 16, 2009 2:18 PM
So a fifteen year old kid goes to a party and wakes up with a hangover (and probably impaired memory) in a strange man's house and obvious could tell that sexual activity had taken place. It's not unreasonable for her to have assumed that Mr. Samaritan was the one who was responsible.
I don't see any reason why she should go to jail in those circumstances. She's not like that chick who picked Gary Dotson out of a lineup, testified in court and got him a 20 year sentence, of which he served 8 years before she finally admitted she'd made the whole 'rape' up to hide the fact she'd had voluntary sex with her boyfriend.
He was damned stupid. I assume that Great Britain has some kind of 911 system. He should have called for an ambulance, not taken her to his house.
JoJo at December 16, 2009 2:53 PM
I'd like to add that the girl was raped, just not by the homeowner.
JoJo at December 16, 2009 2:55 PM
The more I think about this event, the worse it sounds. For all the 'good samaritan' knew, that girl could have been od'ing or suffering from alcohol poisoning. He was 35 years old, not 21, he was certainly old enough to know better than to take an incapacitated child to his home.
As for no evidence that he attacked her, I figure either he was interrupted by the cops or was smart enough to use and dispose of a condom.
JoJo at December 16, 2009 8:15 PM
"As for no evidence that he attacked her, I figure either he was interrupted by the cops or was smart enough to use and dispose of a condom."
Which is still all speculation. There was no evidence of foul play present on his part aside from trying to assist in a way which, in this day and age isn't very bright. Just like a poster had mentioned earlier, not every person who 'assists' has ulterior motives.
It seems the battle lines have been distinctly drawn; the only people willing to assist a woman who is under the influence or a very young girl is a pedophile as 'smart' people stay away. Self Full-filling prophecy in my opinion.
Amax at December 17, 2009 9:30 AM
He didn't need to 'stay away', he needed to call an ambulance for an unconscious child. The fact that his response to finding a minor lying on the ground unconscious, which could have been the result of a head injury or an overdose, was to pick her up, take her to his house and NOT get help tells me that he wasn't a 'good samaritan'.
Here's a recent case that proves my point:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-south-pasadena15-2009dec15,0,7886275.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29
"All people are in danger of overloading their ability to metabolize alcohol if they drink too much, said Dr. Kathryn Challoner, who specializes in emergency medicine at County-USC Medical Center.
But teenagers and young people whose bodies have not yet been conditioned to alcohol may succumb after consuming relatively modest quantities, especially if they drink quickly, she said. "
He was 35 years olds, certainly old enough to know the dangers to too much drinking.
JoJo at December 17, 2009 12:13 PM
He didn't need to 'stay away', he needed to call an ambulance for an unconscious child. The fact that his response to finding a minor lying on the ground unconscious, which could have been the result of a head injury or an overdose, was to pick her up, take her to his house and NOT get help tells me that he wasn't a 'good samaritan'.
Here's a recent case that proves my point:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-south-pasadena15-2009dec15,0,7886275.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29
"All people are in danger of overloading their ability to metabolize alcohol if they drink too much, said Dr. Kathryn Challoner, who specializes in emergency medicine at County-USC Medical Center.
But teenagers and young people whose bodies have not yet been conditioned to alcohol may succumb after consuming relatively modest quantities, especially if they drink quickly, she said. "
He was 35 years olds, certainly old enough to know the dangers to too much drinking.
JoJo at December 17, 2009 12:13 PM
So where is your proof in THIS case? I don't know this guy personally and I'm assuming you don't either. Does his actions suggest he had ulterior motives? Perhaps, but without proof he may simply have been a good samaritan who wasn't smart enough to realize the heap of trouble he would get into by 'helping' as he did.
Here you are coming up with all sorts of ways that this man is most likely guilty simply because he started off on the wrong foot by taking this woman home. Was there not another boy there with the accuser as well who later left the scene?
This is the reason why men and some women avoid kids and young adults like the plague. The courts have deemed this man innocent and you still aren't convinced, guilty until proven innocent, or more like guilty for the rest of your life no matter what the evidence states.
If proof comes out later that he did indeed do something to this girl, I will be the first to come on here and say you where right, until then I refuse to assume this man is guilty of anything other than being ignorant to the current state of gender relations.
Amax at December 17, 2009 12:49 PM
Amax,
Excellent response. But it won't change a thing. Sadly, there seems to be this need to completely villainize men when the try to do things to help someone who is in need of it.
But hey, to all those who want to find fault, just wait until your kid is in that situation, and someone doesn't help and your kid dies. When you stop and ask, "why didn't anyone help?", remember this.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 17, 2009 12:57 PM
Sorry, that should read:
villainize men when they try to do....
E. Steven Berkimer at December 17, 2009 12:59 PM
This is the reason why men and some women avoid kids and young adults like the plague. The courts have deemed this man innocent and you still aren't convinced, guilty until proven innocent, or more like guilty for the rest of your life no matter what the evidence states.
I am of the mind that we should all be innocent until proven guilty...and this man was not proven guilty. However, he was proven STUPID for the following:
* He took two minor children into his home for the night and didn't demand that they call their parents.
* He took a minor girl who was passed out and didn't seek medical attention for her. Her condition could have been caused by and resulted in many horrible things. The gentleman was of an age where he should have been aware that someone who is unconscious needs medical treatment.
The man being proven stupid does not mean that he deserved what he received by any stretch, but it is sorta like the guys who gang banged the girl the bathroom and said that they were 'gentlemen'. They were no rapists, but you cannot say that they were gentlemen by any stretch.
-Julie
JulieW at December 17, 2009 1:58 PM
This is why I had said that he was ignorant of gender relations, first and foremost, and yes, now that you mention it, also ignorant in the proper protocols when dealing with minors. Very stupid, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. However, he assisted someone in need. I wonder what would have happened had he not intervened, funny no one thinks about that.
Amax at December 17, 2009 2:31 PM
Many thanks Steven B. and this is what worries me. So many who are eager to point the finger not realizing the consequences which will undoubtedly follow.
Amax at December 17, 2009 2:51 PM
Stupid? Maybe. How about a kind hearted person who saw a girl in trouble and tried to help her. The fact that someone IS still willing to do this type of thing, actually gives me a bit of hope. And based on what my website is about, hope tends to be in short supply.
What is the most galling thing to me, is all the people who focus, not on what crime was actually committed, but on a perceived lack of judgment on this mans part. Never mind he was helping someone in trouble, just jump all over him for things that no one here can know. He then gets accused of Rape..... of a child (I really think some of you ought to do a little research on how people who go to prison for sexually based crimes are treated, to get an idea of what possible lay in his future).
Thank you very much.
Want to bet the next person he sees laying in a ditch passed out, he will walk right on by? Anyone want to volunteer to be that person?
Very few of you are bothering to focus on the fact that this girl was 15, drunk off her ass, and falsely accused someone of raping her. Who exactly is the dumbass in this picture? And guess what? Odds are, she'll walk away from the whole thing, with not a bit of punishment.
Amax, it's the "It can't happen to me", syndrome. It disgusts me.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 17, 2009 8:00 PM
My apologies. I stated something wrong in my last post. I said:
Want to bet the next person he sees laying in a ditch passed out, he will walk right on by?
The story actually says:
The girl had been out with a 14-year-old male friend and both been "extremely intoxicated" after drinking cider.
She was unable to stand without help and was lying on the road in the pouring rain when Mr Uttley arrived on the scene and helped her friend to pick her up.
So, she wasn't passed out, just lying in the road, because her 14 year old friend was just as drunk as she was, and she couldn't stand unaided.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 17, 2009 8:08 PM
"Here you are coming up with all sorts of ways that this man is most likely guilty simply because he started off on the wrong foot by taking this woman home. Was there not another boy there with the accuser as well who later left the scene?"
She wasn't a woman, she was a 15 year old kid. He literally picked her up and carried her off to his home, didn't call an ambulance or the police or try to contact her parents, and when the police arrived, they were in a bedroom.
Since I refuse to believe that any 35 year old would be that stupid and naive to think that's how you help a child you find incapacitated, I'm going with the 'evil intent' theory.
"Want to bet the next person he sees laying in a ditch passed out, he will walk right on by? "
Maybe the next time he finds someone passed out he'll do the right thing and get help, not kidnap them.
JoJo at December 18, 2009 9:03 AM
And like I said before, guilty for the rest of his life AND you still haven't shown any decisive proof, other than he was a moron in taking this girl into his house AND THEN his bedroom. He wasn't the brightest, that point has already been established, yet you still are banging on about his intent. Did he send the young boy away, or did he leave on his own accord? Did the cops come in and find her pants around her ankles?
If this man was so bright that the authorities COULDN'T FIND EVIDENCE, would that not mean he has perfected his craft of disposing anything incriminating? Are there any priors on this man? Well?? Did he read up how to do this on the internet at all, get tips from 'pros' so to speak? Wouldn't they have been able to figure that out, by checking his browser history? Wait a minute, that would be EVIDENCE wouldn't it?
You can crow all you want about intent, but without the evidence to support it, it just proves he was an idiot, THAT'S IT. If I find my wife crying in another man's arms and flip on her for it, yet she then tells me that her business lost half their clients that day, the man is a happily married minister in town, and his wife, his family, and his kids all vouch for his character, what would it say about me if I still berated them about the hug? "MARRIED PEOPLE DON'T HUG OTHER MARRIED PEOPLE, he HAD to be up to something!!!
How is it that you are harping about how he picked up this girl and took her into her house and there is no evidence of foul play on his end, yet not saying ONE WORD about the fact that this woman is still alive to see another day? No evidence that he did anything afoul except for a HUGE faux pau in parental protocol, yet she was drunk in ditch with an inebriated friend. What would her chances have been if he hadn't intervened?
Steven B is right, there is no convincing some so I will stop beating my head on a wall. However, you may want to re-read some of Amy's prior blog posts, in one of them, I can't remember which one, there was a story about a young girl who died because of a man's inaction due to this very damning attitude that any man who assist's or touches a child has 'evil intent'.
The authorities don't arrive on the scene in time, everytime, and some people's lives could easily be lost in those crucial moments without the intervention of people. But due to attitudes which won't give someone a break after they have been proven innocent, more lives will be lost.
It's only a matter of time, the downward spiral is getting worse and no one is going to pay attention until it's far too late.
Amax at December 18, 2009 10:02 AM
"How is it that you are harping about how he picked up this girl and took her into her house and there is no evidence of foul play on his end, yet not saying ONE WORD about the fact that this woman is still alive to see another day? No evidence that he did anything afoul except for a HUGE faux pau in parental protocol, yet she was drunk in ditch with an inebriated friend. What would her chances have been if he hadn't intervened? "
I think that the fact that his response to finding a drunk teenaged girl was to cart her off to his bedroom instead of calling an ambulance tells us everything we need to know about his intentions. As for "the fact that this woman is still alive" may very well be due to the fact that her friend notified his mother, who notified the police.
You can't seriously equate the idiot who didn't do anything when he saw a TODDLER wandering the streets with the 'good samaritan' who hauled a drunken girl into his bedroom.
JoJo at January 8, 2010 9:12 AM
I laugh at the people who claim they understand the man's intentions; we have NO IDEA what his side of the story is.
How do we know if the man knew they were intoxicated? Maybe the man offered to call the police, but both the boy and girl told the man all they needed was a place to rest?
There's no way to know! Stop assuming!
looker at January 16, 2010 5:10 PM
Leave a comment