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.
“So, therefore if the DA obviously has sufficient or insufficient evidence for a conviction, they don’t need to go to the grand jury.”
So question is why was the evidence in support of a rape conviction significantly more compelling than the evidence in support of a false rape accusation? I don’t think that it was and no one here has made a convincing case for it, but nice try trying to confuse matters.
Ah, the ostrich defense, well good luck with that.
So, at least in my state, they tend to expedite the process when an accused can’t make bail. Holding people in jail costs the state a fair amount of money, and despite your paranoia, they are generally against falsely imprisoning folks.
Just because the video went viral and she regrets what happened doesn’t mean she consented either. In fact, the release and popularity of the video has no bearing at all to whether or not she was raped.
Jo: I advocate treating it the same way also.
No, you don’t. Because the ways in which you advocate prosecuting, “false accusers” is greater than the ways in which you advocate for treating false accusers of other crimes.
The rate of false accusation is equivalent between crimes. The rates of prosecution for false accusation are equivalent. So there isn’t a “problem”. You, however, aver there is, and that prosecution of “false rape accusations” needs to be more vigorous.
QED, you wish to treat them differently.
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.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I’ve been too intoxicated to give informed consent on things, and still been able to function. It’s for this reason that car dealers aren’t allowed to ply you with drink when you are shopping. Yeah, it’s legal, but the contract becomes vulnerable to challlenge because (drumroll) one can be intellectually impaired before one is physically incapable.
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.
No, you want to assume she’s a liar, and toss her in jail.
Then this is something we agree on. Was I supposed to send you a cookie?
Did I ask for one? You asked made a rhetorical point (in a way meant to discredit me/feminists). I told you you were wrong. I confess, most people who are made to look a bit foolish don’t offer me cookies for it, but if that’s what floats your boat….
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?
Nope. See above where you are making a point (and doubling down with the overheated, rhetoric in this paragraph), that women who “cry rape”, need to be put under special scrutiny.
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.
Tell me why her accusation of a crime ought to get less credence than any other? (see again, your categorising rape as being in need of greater prosecution of false claims, and your, apparent, assumtion that any accusation the police don’t charge needs to be presumtively treated as, “false”).
Let me assume that the quote is genuine.
How noble of you to accuse me of dishonsty in a left-handed way.
But, since you doubt me: 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.
As to your hurt feelings that I said man… his argument is plainly that MEN can’t get a fair shake. If you think that means he’s talking about WOMEN… well we never thought intellect was your strong suit.
I will say FUCK YOU women don’t get a pass because they’re women.
Aw… you has the hurt fee-fees. When women are treated as any other victim of any other crime, then I might (just might) think there was something to the “false rape” issue. If you could show me that significant numbers of men were being harmed.
But until then, men don’t get a pass when accused of crime, just because the vicitm is a woman, and “all” he did was “make a mistake” about consent.
Jo: 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.
1: Not really an apology.
2: You can wait to respond.
3: You can pay attention
4: Not accepted.
5: I have no idea what you mean by, “giving female rapists a free pass.
6: When people accuse me of being a liar, I react to it.
7: Since you’ve been consistently dishonest in other areas, I have no reason to really take you at face value.
Jo: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.
Not my job. That you aren’t willing to make yourself aware before you pontificate, and accuse a class of people of generaly criminality is your fault.
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.
You see, shit like this is why people don’t trust you.
How sure does she need to be? What happens if he is the rapist and the DA drops the case? Then he files a charge against her, and for having the courage to face him, and the bad luck to lose she gets to go to jail.
Then you say: 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.
Which is substantively different. That’s evidence of willfull dishonestly. It shows intent. It’s not equivalent.
And this is the only crime you care this much about.
So, to quote someone, take your rape-suporting ideas, fold them ’til their all points and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
And now I am likely to be late to work.
Well, other people have already responded mostly covering what I would say, but I want to add this:
A DA can often get an indictment from a grand jury even when they have a weak case. That’s not the point. Most DAs will not take a weak case to a grand jury for 2 reasons: (a) it would be a waste of scarce resources to proceed to trial when there’s little chance of conviction, and (b) DAs care about their conviction rates, because those have an effect on their future careers. They are political creatures. The fact is, you do not have access to the facts of this case, so all you can do is speculate. Oddly enough, all of your speculations are putting a thumb on the scales of justice against the woman. It’s a pattern. We’ve noticed it.
This is anecdata, not evidence. As I’ve said multiple times, there are numerous scientific studies correlating heavy and/or binge drinking with memory loss, even when no drugs are involved. Pardon me for believing scientific research over John Anderson’s assdata.
And if you’re seriously saying that people who in good faith make a mistaken witness identification should be punished, all I can say is fuck off. Lawyers get to challenge witness identifications (for good reason, they are notoriously unreliable — those studies can and have been used by defense attorneys at trial) vigorously and juries evaluate them. Why not punish judges, prosecutors, and jurors if a conviction is later determined to be unwarranted? WHY DO YOU ONLY WANT TO PUNISH RAPE VICTIMS FOR BEING WRONG?
John, you keep arguing like Cassidy is the woman in the video. She is not. Nolan doxxed her, and then doxxed the people who came forward to say that Cassidy is not the woman in the video. There’s nothing a little reprehensible about that, it’s plain old reprehensible.
The OP had nothing to do with that video your going on and on about. It had to do with Nolan putting out the info of women he didn’t like.
Again, reading comprehension is a good thing.
Read pecunium’s response to you, also. Ze has pointed out all your bullshit regarding the video.
@johnnie boy
Nope. Trying to get you to exercise a little intellectual honesty so that I don’t have to wait through your trash. Since that was obviously expecting too much, I shall pull on my waders.
You are so determined that this must be a false rape accusation that you cannot even admit to the possibility that it is not. It is painful to see you so frantic to hold tight to that conviction. For your own well-bring, please consider walking away from this thread.
I don’t know but I do understand the implications of this, which you blatently do not. It is most likely that it did not go to the grand jury because if it had, I’m sure both you and Mr Nolan would have made a big stink about it. If it did not go to the grand jury, this means that the DA did not want to prosecute the woman, either because the DA did not have enough evidence or, more likely, because the DA believed that the rape accusation WAS NOT FALSE.
If it did go to the grand jury (unlikely but we’re apparently playing at “what ifs”, today) the grand jury must have concluded that there was not enough evidence to bring a prosecution for a false accusation. So you going on and on about how this is definitely a false accusation is at odds with the evidence held by the DA and presented (or not) to the grand jury. All the evidence we are not privy to. Like the woman’s statement, the man’s statement, witness statements, physical evidence.
But hey, you obviously know better than the DA dealing with the case and/or the grand jury viewing all the evidence, right?
Takes a deep breathe, hoists waders up a little further, wades out into the next layer of bullshit;
Firstly, unlike you, we don’t presume to know either the DA’s job nor the grand jury’s better than they do. Secondly, the alleged rapist wasn’t charged. The DA took the evidence against the alleged rapist (including all that stuff we aren’t privy to – see above) to the grand jury, the grand jury said there was not enough to make a case. This does not mean that there was no rape. It does not mean that either the DA or the grand jury thought the woman was lying. It means that there was insufficient evidence to proceed against the alleged rapist.
It does however imply that the DA thought there might be enough evidence to charge the rapist but the grand jury disagreed with the DA. Not looking like the DA thought the woman was making a false accusation, is it? More like the DA believed her but couldn’t prove it in a court of law. You know, the DA, the one with all the statements, any physical evidence, all the stuff you haven’t seen.
So there was no charge made. There was no over-charging. And you are just ranting in an embarrassingly stupid way.
And, by the way, Pecunium never said that “only feminists are against overcharging”. Pecunium wouldn’t be so bigoted as to suggest that no one but feminists would care about matters of social justice. Nor would he misquote someone to twist their words and accuse them, as you just have – “It seems overcharging is limited to people filing false rape claims.” – bullshit!
Right, hopefully this will be the last bit of sewage I need to wade through for a while:
So, Johnnie boy, did you really think we couldn’t see through your little “ifs” as you try to imply that all feminists of being false rape accusers? Or that you are being utterly lazy or totally dishonest.
Because it is fucking obvious that the DA has more evidence because (see above), zie has access to the police investigation. Zie has all the statements from alleged victim, alleged accuser, & witnesses (including, for example, witnesses to how much the woman had drunk, that evening, the behaviour of both of them earlier in the evening & after the events), and the alleged rapist’s criminal record. Zie may have experts telling zer of the possible effects of intoxication, of the psychological implications of the body language of the two people in the video. Zie may have physical evidence – so blood tests, clothing worn by the alleged victim, effects from the alleged rapist’s home. The list goes on.
And the anti-charging feminists have not blasted the DA because no charges were brought.
So apologise for implying that feminists would like to see innocent men convicted of rape. Because it is untrue and fucking insulting!
Nope, I’m telling you that is one of possibilities. But you know why I really believe she is not a false rape accuser? Because the DA apparently believed her. The one person with all the information, all the evidence, went to the grand jury because zie wanted to prosecute the man for rape. And in our culture, that would not have happened if the DA had thought the accusation was false.
And that, you illogical idiot, is also why there is no news of the DA going to the grand jury to try & get a false accusation charge brought against her -because all of the DA’s actions show that the DA was certain that there was no false accusation in the case.
All hail to the blockquote monster. And someone pass me a drink!
titianblue: But but but, random person on Internet knows way better than the DA about the merits of the case! Ze saw a video!
And are you partial to dry red wine? My father-in-law makes it himself, and it’s good and packs a real whallop. There’s a glass with your name on it. I also have vodka, tequila and Wild Turkey on hand.
Dry red wine would be perfect- that’s the sort of father-in-law to have. Cheers.
::hands titianblue a glass::
Well, he’s an asshole, but he does make good wine that he’s free with giving out, so I guess it evens out.
Cheers!
“Lawyers get to challenge witness identifications (for good reason, they are notoriously unreliable…)”
And it isn’t even just the stress of being victim to a crime — things like how much the assailant is “like you” (race, age, etc) play a role, as does changes in clothing (particularly related to masks and such). I kinda sorta did one of my undergrad studies on this, and yeah, witness ID’s are not great, and strongly subject to external influence (e.g. if a group is targeted // witnesses a crime, and one says something like “did you see how big his nose was?” then the rest will default to saying he had a large nose)
But it’s sorta less an issue with rape cases, simply because it’s a problem with stranger ID and most rape victims know their rapist.
Both of these comments directed to the person who, up thread, had disclosed being raped. Both of these comments directed at the person who did not make the original “rub the wrong way” comment, but was responding to it. That is shitty.
And the thing is, it doesn’t matter what you think about the evidence. The point is, you don’t have all the evidence. The DA does.
Around here? No, sorry, we’re not the evil fucks in this equation. I don’t know where you hang out, but that wouldn’t fly here.
Sparky, thank you, that made me fume a bit. And btw, I use ze/zir pronouns, pecunium uses male ones (I’m sure he won’t care that your erred on the side of caution, that’s just an FYI)
OFFS can this idiot be banned for being persistently tedious? Pretty please?
kittehs – I haven’t been following, but let me guess: rape apologia ass?
Argenti: I’m sorry, I hope I didn’t overstep any bounds. If I did, I apologize. I just now read shit-for-brains little whine about “sympathy based on ideology,” and based on those previous posts, it made me fume too and I got all, “Oh, no you don’t, asshole!”
I shall use he for pecunium from here on in, as he prefers.
No, you didn’t, thank you for calling him on that shit.
@ chibigodzilla
“Ah, the ostrich defense, well good luck with that. ”
Yet I’ve followed the thread and haven’t seen a single link to a case where an adult man has “cried rape” about being raped by a woman. So you think the lying defense will work? Why don’t you just use the penis defense like the other rape apologists? Obviously, if he has a penis he must have consented. You people are pathetic rape apologists. Oh sorry, rape apologists when the perpetrators are women and the victims men.
Tell me how men lie about rape again.