Well, this is depressing. The Raw Story is reporting that
An Ohio University sophomore has deactivated her social media accounts and is afraid to leave her house after she was falsely identified as the woman who reported she’d been raped in an incident captured on cell phone video by a passerby.
The student, Rachel Cassidy, now falsely accused of being a false rape accuser, has had her personal information — not just her name but her address, the name of her sorority, her social media accounts, even her Pinterest page — listed on a Men’s Rights site called Crimes Against Fathers. (I won’t link to it.)
The man behind Crimes Against Fathers? None other than the notorious Men’s Rights extremist and crackpot Peter Andrew Nolan — or, as he prefers to be known, for reasons I don’t fully understand, Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) . Apparently taking inspiration from Paul Elam’s Register-Her.com, Nolan’s site does what Register-Her only threatened to do: it actually releases the personal information of those it identifies as “Man-Hating Women.” He will even add names of women you don’t like to the list for a fee of $70 (Australian).
So far the site has several hundred women listed, most of them apparently women who have run afoul of Nolan or his most active lieutenant on the site, the pseudonymous “John Rambo” of “Boycott American Women” fame, either online or in real life. In most cases, luckily, the amount of personal information given out is relatively scanty and the number of people who’ve actually viewed the posts (which is listed on the site) has been small.
That’s not the case with Cassidy, whose life Nolan and “Rambo” have set out to ruin as thoroughly as they can. In addition to her personal information, the site has also dug up an assortment of pictures of her scraped from various sites on the internet.
And, unwilling to believe that she is not the woman in the video — and a false accuser of rape — the two have taken aim at those who’ve stepped forward to defend Cassidy. They’ve posted the personal information of Jenny Hall-Jones, the Dean of Students at Ohio University, for the “crime” of publicly saying that Cassidy is not the woman in the video, as well as several other women who’ve come out in support of Cassidy.
On Crimes Against Fathers, “Rambo” writes
[C]onsidering that women will always try to cover for their fellow women, and will NEVER hold their fellow women accountable, there is a very strong possibility that Jenny [Hall-Jones] is LYING and that Rachel Cassidy IS the girl in that video. This means that Jenny Hall-Jones is a CRIMINAL because she is covering up for the CRIME of making a false rape accusation. Therefore, she is a criminal and needs to be publicly exposed as such.
Neither “Rambo” nor Nolan has leveled similar accusations against Ohio University president Roderick McDavis, a man, though he too has said that the woman in the video is not Cassidy.
Men’s Rights activists like to say that Nolan isn’t really one of them. If this is the case, they should be willing to stand up and denounce his reprehensible actions, and the very idea of his Crimes Against Fathers “Man-Hating Women” directory.
EDITED TO ADD: I should note that Nolan’s site also has a “Name and Shame the IgnorMANuses” forum directed at alleged man-hating men, including Vince Gilligan (creator of Breaking Bad) and Nacho Vidal (the pseudonymous dude behind MGTOWforums.com). The list is considerably smaller than that of the Man-Hating Women directory, and none of the entries I saw listed any personal information that went much beyond links to Facebook pages.
Unless the charge would be rape, of course. Nope, it’s only rape accusers who must look purer than the driven snow before they can be released without being charged. Because, apparently, not being able to prove that you were indeed raped (or not being certain about what happened due to intoxication/trauma/drugs) is the true offence, here.
And it is actually entirely consistent with what we know that neither party in this particular scenario (the video’d incident) should be charged.
Based on the reported evidence, it is perfectly possible that
1. The woman was blackout drunk and so was unable to give consent, regardless of what she actually said.
2. The man did not realise she was blackout drunk and sincerely believed she had given consent.
🙁
It’s like Night of the Living Dead around here lately. Which old thread will come back next?
I’m tempted to necro some old threads myself, just so I can tick that “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” button…
Alex should be banned. It’s for his own good really, otherwise we’d just call him names and not-dox him.
Even worse, we would not-threaten him.
Alex has been banned. I’d say it really is, sort of, for his own good. He has some serious issues.
Of course we have to assume that things like a cop telling a victim “I own you” because in “an attempt to, “make sure [she] was telling the truth”, since, “fear of the unknown outweighs the fear of consequences,” isn’t ever going to happen.
(as an aside, that he was still on the force after being, several investigations, including this one According to the Internal Affairs report, Martin handcuffed his wife, roughed her up, lied to officers who responded to the scene about handcuffing her or being involved in a physical confrontation, and lied that his superiors had told his ex-wife she would be trespassing if she went to the house again. Charges were referred to the State Attorney’s Office and Deputy Martin entered a deferred prosecution program.
But hey, it was understandable:
But wait, there’s more, what the Sheriff called, “leaving his post” was this:
Yeah, this was one cop, but it took a lot of other cops to look the other way and keep him on the force. I somehow doubt this was the first victim he did this too, and I wonder, if it hadn’t been a minor; and so had a social worker present, if any complaint would have been heard.
And to a culture which allows things like this, and gang rapes by football teams to go both un-punished in Missouri, and which; when finally punished in Ohio, sees outpouring of support and sorrow for the rapists, charges against the whistleblower who made the evidence public, and shaming campaigns against victim: to that culture you want to add additional bars to coming forward when someone is raped.
You are an immoral twit, and an evil person.
On top of all his other bullshit, I don’t think John understands Cassidy is not the woman in the video, which is the entire point of the OP.
Reading comprehension. It’s a good thing.
Sparky, I genuinely don’t think it matters to John and his ilk. They just want women punished.
cloudiah: Yes.
I’m just mildly curious as to whether its a case of the stupids, or the willfully stupids.
I’m going with latter. Particularly since you’ve explained to him, several times, how both criminally prosecutable (I don’t even know if that’s a word) false charges work, and the effects of excessive alcohol intake on the body. Both of which points were crystal clear to me.
Johnny wanted to be Troll of the Year last year and everybody laughed at him. I have a feeling all this necromancy stems from his desire to at least be in the running this year.
And that should be an automatic disqualifier.
@ David
“Yeah, I think Alex is taking a trip to bannsville. Partly because of this comment on Reddit, in a thread called “Without saying what IT is, why did you do it?” which seems to suggest he did something violent to an ex:”
How did he imply that? What makes you think it was violent? Zero regrets about what breaking up with her in spite of her threatened abuse? Threatening to expose her to her friends and family? I think you’ve started out thinking the worst and this is just confirmation bias.
@ pecunium
“titianblue is arguing for treating rape the same as any other crime; you, and Stacey, want to raise the bar, so that pretty much anything less than a voluntary confession; notarised in front of witnesses, has to be in the victims hand before we can assume she might be telling the truth.”
I advocate treating it the same way also. What you’re telling me though is that the reasonable doubt you have is based on the possibility that she might have been intoxicate enough not to be able to consent, but still be able to have complete control of her motor functions.
Note: I’m basing this on the statement that they walked to his house and that they weren’t in fact stumbling. That’s why I say there might be other factors that aren’t generally known, which may be exculpatory, but I based my opinion on what I’ve read not what I’d like to assume.
“While I (and others, notably who call themselves feminists, but I suspect that correlative, not causaitive) argue that the US, like Britain, needs to do away with plea-bargains,”
Then this is something we agree on. Was I supposed to send you a cookie?
“It seems an awful lot like you are heading toward the idea that rapists ought to be made a special class of the accused, with more protections against a lawful conviction than others.”
Where do you get this from? Tell me why is her denials of criminal intent more likely than a man? Is it because she decided to cry rape first and that’s like glue she can’t be touched? Is it because she’s a woman and you believe that women are just naturally included to goodness, while those evil, evil, men need to be punished at all costs?
So yes, can someone cut to the chase and explain why her denial of criminal intent should get more credence than a man’s denials.
“And amazingly I don’t see the Paul Elams of the world arguing for that. Nope, they say “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”
Yep, his idea of advocacy is to say, “even if a man is guilty, I’ll let him go”.”
Let me assume that the quote is genuine. First, he would be an idiot. Second, where did he say anything about a man? You can take that sexist, female perpetrated rape apology, turn that SOB sideways and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I don’t think you guys have read anything I’ve written on GMP and that’s cool, but if you choose to look I’ve told them of a time when I was younger and didn’t know that I shouldn’t accept an open drink from a stranger at a bar. I’m not going to get into details because it seems when MRAs say they were victimized, their veracity is called into question and the feminist who said it isn’t even admonished let alone banned. I will say FUCK YOU women don’t get a pass because they’re women.
@ cloudiah
“the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not drunk.”
That’s to get a conviction. He only has to prove that there is enough evidence to support a conviction to get a grand jury indictment (charge). He also doesn’t have to prove she was too drunk. That is what they call an affirmative defense, which means she has to prove it. I’m saying that there is enough to support a charge.
I’ve been throwing up, can’t walk a straight line, almost alcohol poisoned drunk before and still remember parts of my night. I’ve also been handed a drink and don’t remember anything that night from that point on even though I was lucid prior to that. Again, I’m only going on what I read, but I haven’t heard anything about drugs or drugs use. If she was alleging that he slipped her a drug because she left her drink unattended or something based on what she remembers, I’d have a different opinion.
@ hippodameia8527
“Johnny wanted to be Troll of the Year last year and everybody laughed at him. I have a feeling all this necromancy stems from his desire to at least be in the running this year.”
You actually came up on a google search for false rape. It caught my eye and I’m sort of surprised that people were coming back on a post this old. TOTY would be cool, but I’m willing to settle for baby steps at least more votes than David or at least one vote. Can I count on your support?
@ titianblue
“And it is actually entirely consistent with what we know that neither party in this particular scenario (the video’d incident) should be charged.
Based on the reported evidence, it is perfectly possible that
1. The woman was blackout drunk and so was unable to give consent, regardless of what she actually said.
2. The man did not realise she was blackout drunk and sincerely believed she had given consent.”
People like to point out that she wasn’t charged too, but I’m unsure that a false rape charge was ever presented to the grand jury. Do we know for certain that it was? Unless I missed something, people here don’t seem to be blasting the DA for bring a grand jury case against the accused rapist despite lack of definitive evidence and pecunium’s assertion that only feminists are against overcharging. It seems overcharging is limited to people filing false rape claims.
So if the DA didn’t bring a false rape charge to the grand jury, how does he have more evidence in the rape case and if he doesn’t why haven’t any of the anti-overcharging feminists blasted the DA for bringing the case to the grand jury? Let me guess the hope that he’d be convicted anyway even if he’s innocent.
@ pecunium
Sorry, when I read “Yep, his idea of advocacy is to say, “even if a man is guilty, I’ll let him go”.” I just read the words and didn’t notice the quotes. When people give female rapists a free pass, it sends me into a rage and sometimes I’ll react emotionally.
John Anderson | November 12, 2013 at 11:24 pm
@ sparky
“I actually do think it’s wrong. It probably classifies more as a misidentification than a false accusation”
sparky | November 13, 2013 at 11:44 am
“On top of all his other bullshit, I don’t think John understands Cassidy is not the woman in the video, which is the entire point of the OP.
Reading comprehension. It’s a good thing.”
Does anyone else get the irony? I agree about the reading comprehension. You might want to get some.
@ pecunium
“To my knowledge”
“Or that you don’t know everything (that’s without even going into confirmation bias/willful denial).”
Ok, I’m only saying that I’ve never heard of an instance where a man has falsely accused a woman of rape. If you want me to change what I know, the easiest way is to educate me. Go ahead, tell me how men lie about rape.
“But the possibility exists, right? So when she goes into the line-up she has to be extra sure, because if she’s wrong…”
Yes, the possibility exists. How sure do you think she should be 10%, 50%? Pull a number out of a hat? It’s only a man’s life. What does it matter if the wrong one is punished? The important thing is to punish someone. And if she gets it wrong, why bother to tell the jury she’s an unreliable witness? Maybe she could accuse 5 or 10 more guys. Hey, we might not get convictions, but we could subject them to an invasive forensics exam. That should teach them how a woman feels, right? Maybe we get lucky and find one that can’t make bail. We wouldn’t even need a conviction then. Holding him till the trial is a jail sentence already.
“But you don’t extend any level of reasonable doubt to her. Tell me, do you think the same of someone who says they were conned out of money?”
Yes, depending on the circumstance. If they said they were conned out of their last $50 and you see on a stores surveillance tape that they bought $50 worth of lottery tickets. I wouldn’t think they were conned out of their money even if they didn’t win anything. She wasn’t raped just because the video went viral and she regrets what happened.
Yep, we get the irony but it doesn’t lie where you think it does.
do stop JAQing off all over the thread.
Um, isn’t the grand jury supposed to be an impartial group that determines if there’s sufficient evidence to make a conviction likely? Like, the DA will take the case to them if the evidence is close, and the DA’s opinion may be biased from being too close to the case.
So, therefore if the DA obviously has sufficient or insufficient evidence for a conviction, they don’t need to go to the grand jury.
@ titianblue
“do stop JAQing off all over the thread.”
Yep, when you can’t refute a person’s logic, name calling should do the trick.
““This is rubbing me the wrong way but I can’t put my finger on it.””
”
So you come onto a feminist blog to preach at the regulars about false rape accusations, a regular tells you in the course of a thread that zie has been raped as a child and your response is:
a. Express sympathy or:
b. Make a smutty joke while misgendering them.
Way to go with the basic humanity fail, there, laddie.”
a, I get the impression that sympathy on this forum is predicated on whether a person has the proper ideology. Hell, that determines whether you’re even believed. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic to people who wouldn’t even believe me.
b. Anyone who thinks that referred to a child rape and not this post must think that the morality of child rape is so ambiguous that “I can’t put my finger on it.” and so lightly damaging that it should only be “rubbing me the wrong way”. Yes, you guys are more pathetic than I originally thought. I’m sire all the abused kids out there will appreciate it.