TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman deleted messages to make man appear guilty of rape. Police never investigated his claims messages were edited. No charges for her of course.

johnwayne1

January 2, 2018
1636 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/02/man-convicted-rape-freed-after-sister-law-finds-deleted-facebook-messages-prove-his-innocence/995197001/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman deleted messages to make man appear guilty of rape. Police never investigated his claims messages were edited. No charges for her of course.
Author

johnwayne1

Upvotes 1636
Comments 54
Date January 2, 2018 8:50 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7npaa0/woman_deleted_messages_to_make_man_appear_guilty/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-deleted-messages-to-make-man-appear-guilty.908421
https://theredarchive.com/post/908421
Top posts by johnwayne1

Women and children.

212 upvotes
August 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

Ashley Banfield slams Ansari accuser in open letter on cnn

20 upvotes
January 17, 2018
/r/MensRights

Thankfully men lost no money during the pandemic.

15 upvotes
April 29, 2021
/r/MensRights

Because men don't deserve better lives?

1 upvotes
August 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

"every male patient"

1 upvotes
November 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

"every male patient"

1 upvotes
November 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Gaarsh 158 points159 points160 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There has to be some accountability for this shit. She deserves to do time!

And how do you know that there are no charges put on her?

[–]magicalraven 58 points59 points60 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They didn't even mention her name in the story but mentioned his full name multiple times.

[–]johnwayne1[S] 76 points77 points78 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because there is no mention of ramifications other than chief saying thye have to evaluate their procedures for evidence review.

[–]Pz5 129 points130 points131 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She needs to be held accountable, especially since there is now direct evidence she misled police during their investigation and she filed false charges. She is a criminal.

[–]BullshitFreeZone 105 points106 points107 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But women can't be criminals they have a bright future

[–]Krissam 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

she misled police

That's a very nice way of saying "tampered with evidence at best, manufactured at worst"

[–]thwml 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe the crime you're describing is known in the UK as "perverting the course of justice". And the maximum sentence is life.

[+]wrekd1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The public should know who she is. We need a shame site for this. The government will do it for sex offenders but not for liars about sex offenses.

[–]thwml 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As far as I'm concerned, lying about a sex offense should be considered a sex offense.

[–]RingosTurdFace 65 points66 points67 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

“...Another factor in his conviction were edited messages that implied Kay had misled the woman about his age during their conversations...”

Yet if a man has sex with an underage woman who has lied about her age (telling him that she’s of legal age), he’s still guilty of sex with a minor:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/08/but-her-profile-said-she-was-18-jail-cell-judge-rules/

Just another utterly indefensible double standard between the sexes.

There’s a lot more of this kind of stuff (false accusations/miscarriages of justice against innocent men, etc) hitting the press now and even making front page news. I can’t help but feel we’re getting very close to a turning point with all this “feminist” bullshit and the general public’s tolerance for their lies a claims of “hatred against women”...

[–]johnwayne1[S] 40 points41 points42 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You're deluding yourself if you think we're near a turning point.

[–]WideExemplification 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah nah, i know i argued for men's rights in some sub because some women were like "women have it so much worse, rape and stuff!! that's why we can't be successful in business!" so i listed a bunch more problems men face.. and i think i was just downvoted to hell

[–]RingosTurdFace 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re probably right but ... previously discussion like this really only took place between small groups of likeminded fiends and in small pockets of the internet.

Now it’s regularly front page on Reddit and is making front page news in number of national newspapers here in the UK (or at least the stories on blatant miscarriages of justice regarding rape allegations) which is helping people start to see that at least one area that the “feminists” keep screeching about might just well be total bullshit.

Hell I can even say now that the “wage gap” is a myth to my friends without them immediately accusing me of hating women, etc, etc” (as they always used to).

The views we share just feel a lot more mainstream than they ever used to. More people share them and we’re more connected than ever. In all the years I’ve cared about this, I’ve never seen it more prevalent than it is today and that gives me some hope...

[–]meeselbon573 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

“Turning point,” ha ha. You sound like me from five years ago. You, my friend, have a lot more red pills in your future.

[–]obliviious 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you replied to the wrong person.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Leave him alone he’s already been red pilled so much...

[–]Mild111 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This shit could be 50 stories a day and they will still make YouTube videos saying

"Listen and believe. Women would never lie about rape. There is literally no reason to."

[–]derpylord143 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ehh, not entirely accurate for the uk. Had your linked case occurred here (with the same ages), its very likely that he would have a defence. If they are under 13, certainly its impossible to raise a defence, but if they are 14/15 and you have a REASONABLE belief they are legally aged, then you can raise a defence AFAIK

See here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 and here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/5

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but she shot her defense to hell by falsifying the evidence to make it appear as of she had that reasonable belief. Under any other circumstances she would have zero credibility and would be found guilty of whatever applicable rape law she violated.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but you missed my point. his linked case, was about a man who had been lied to about the "victims" age and saying that there was a discrepancy in the law (women being treated differently) because if a guy lies he gets in trouble a women lies the guy gets in trouble is the point he was making. I merely pointed out that was the case he linked, to occur in the uk, like the case this thread is about was, then it would not have turned out the way he said it had.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really, I understood that he linked to a US case where there is strict liability for statutory rape. His broader point still stands IMO because even if the UK provides the possibility of a legal defense, I don't think the woman in this case had any credibility so the idea of a defense is a moot point for her. There's a similar double standard in both countries; it's easy to conflate the two because of that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

GO check out the xfiles writers ama. Feminists in there are complaining SCULLY(fictional character) doesn't have a desk. Like wtf...

[–][deleted] 86 points87 points88 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I was reading through this on /r/news .

You know what is annoying me?

Can anyone here tell me her name?

I can tell you his name. His name is used over and over in the article. Names of all kinds of people in the article. Prosecuter, defendants sister that found the evidence - all kinds of names.

She is not named.

[–]Ted8367 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

It's UK law. The stated aim is encouragement of more accusers.

[–]johnwayne1[S] 57 points58 points59 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He should accuse her of rape

[–]Gaarsh 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well not rape, but defamation at the least. False accusation, and tampering with evidence... I dunno about over there, but around here, what she did is breaking multiple laws

[–]ICEKAT 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately impossible in Britain. Only men can rape.

[–]johnwayne1[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you being serious. Is that the law?

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not surprising when you define rape to be anything that a woman claims didn't make her feel special for the rest of her life for whatever reason happens to suit her in this particular moment.

[–]EvrythingISayIsRight 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

UK law defines rape with use of a penis, so that rules her out.

[–]doklaan 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Encouragement of more false accusers.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

TLDR: It's as far as I know a matter of the British news papers attacking people who came forwards, calling them sluts etc. This arose from different societal views before the law was published, and so to judge the law, one has to also consider the climate before it was released, not just its actual result. Here I might add, they were both toxic in my view.

I say first, sorry about length. Secondly, I have no intention of starting any arguments with people, I am merely relaying what I remember about the topic from my studies.

I believe that it was possibly justified back in the day. The climate was very very different, and one people today probably wont consider. Back in the 1980's supposedly (I read some parliament debates on the topic, which raised this argument), there were cases of newspapers who were belittling and shaming victims of rape, based on past sexual encounters. They would get ex's, one night stands etc. to comment on them, make them seem like sluts that sort of thing (one can only imagine how bad it would be today with social media...) The truth of this is probably there. I know of one case that is similar, that basically said a woman was too fat to be raped (they were in a car and supposedly it would be too cramped to pull off, in the authors view). As such, I wouldn't be surprised if it was accurate.

I know that around the 80's and 90's there was a sort of paradigm shift in perception of sex crimes, in particular rape.

Before that paradigm shift, if you look at the studies pretty much all of them are focused on the maximum extent of possible false accusations (and saying it may be lower), this lead to issues (they often had small sample sizes, in small areas, with dubious methods (lie detectors - I personally would be very intimidated by one, and quite possibly would retract an accusation even though it were true due to the stress - I also have to doubt their accuracy here, stress levels are very likely to be all over the place considering the very likely recent events and recalling certain parts are likely to be more stressful than others, thus so would heart rate and other factors a lie detector might study). So I have my doubts about their accuracy, but you'll need to do independent study and make up your own minds.

On the other hand, after that point, the studies start looking at the provable cases (the minimum number as it were) and these have the flaws that they get mis-used as if they were the full extent of the issue, not the minimum provable number. Not to mention there are methodology issues here as well (some have no released methodology, or small sample sizes, others rely on judgement calls of a single individual who is bias to down play it). As such I have my doubts on many of these as well.

The police assumed they were lies (this is bad, they view no other crime like that, they view them as something to check, they were all possible but unproven). This very likely did lead to victims not coming forwards.

As such, the implementation was necessary to prevent young women, who were "liberating themselves" sexually, from being assumed as liars when they said they were raped, and their entire history being scoured for ways to attack them. we often point out that newspapers and websites can impact cases to the detriment of the accused, one then has to consider the same for the accuser, in a society far less accepting of accusations.

Therefore I am of the view that its not entirely unfair to have this. Though I would regard it as entirely unfair to not have it for accused and accuser...

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

History was proven right though. Rape shield laws are terrible. A woman's past is entirely relevant if it's her word vs his in a life-destroying accusation.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I have my doubts about how relevant her entire history is to the public. if a particular facet of her sexual actions is brought into question for the case, the police and defence can look into it, and it can be used. for example she says "I would never fuck a black man" and then they can get 5 black guys to say they had slept with her = relevant to case (police and defence can use). Saying "she slept with 80 guys and is a whore" in a newspaper... not really. Like I said, the accused ought also be provided with anonymity so that it doesn't harm him either. if they wish to have the name released, it has to be both accused and accuser AND it has to be proven to the magistrates that there is a strong likelihood of other victims coming forwards.

[–]TherapyFortheRapy 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All I'm earing from you, is that you don't give a shit about whether or not people are guilty or innocent--what should be the only actual question here. You just don't want anyone to be able to say mean things about accusers.

Fuck that. This 'paradigm shift' you mention--assuming that the rest of what you said wasn't just feminist made-up bullshit (almost everything they say is a lie, from superbowl myths, to how common rape is, to how wage gaps work, to 'rule of thumb' nonsense; I have to assume that it's all a lie)--clearly went too far. As I said, if the paradigm you mention was ever actually real to begin with.

I'm sure a feminist professor told you it was. But you weren't there, I wasn't there. Nothing I've seen from actual culture outside of feminist propaganda supports this notion at all.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

All I'm earing from you, is that you don't give a shit about whether or not people are guilty or innocent--what should be the only actual question here. You just don't want anyone to be able to say mean things about accusers.

Firstly, no, I am explaining why the press was banned from naming the accusers... That has little to no impact on whether someone is guilty or not, except by influencing juries before they reach court... Something we as a group ought be against... That impedes a fair trial after all. Not to mention, you failed to establish how her past is relevant to the public. Admittedly nor is the accused but as I said, he ought have anonymity as well.

Fuck that. This 'paradigm shift' you mention--assuming that the rest of what you said wasn't just feminist made-up bullshit (almost everything they say is a lie, from superbowl myths, to how common rape is, to how wage gaps work, to 'rule of thumb' nonsense; I have to assume that it's all a lie)--clearly went too far. As I said, if the paradigm you mention was ever actually real to begin with.

I agree said paradigm shift went to far, not arguing that (in fact that was entirely outside the scope of my views). of the studies predating the sexual offences act (2003) which gave auto life long anonymity, 11 out of 19 reported figures of over 15% (more than half). post 2003 you have 1 in 7 over 15%. https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.do?rid=4knhzbf60be9c15584024bce476b0a9164e81 <-- my spreadsheet of numbers oh and if there are more please share.

I'm sure a feminist professor told you it was. But you weren't there, I wasn't there. Nothing I've seen from actual culture outside of feminist propaganda supports this notion at all.

Nope, I actually got all of that when I was making a piece for the anonymity of the accused in rape cases... it was a free question we could choose whatever question we wanted. I then entirely independent research and was actually heavily against solely accuser anonymity.

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem is you can't know beforehand which parts of her history might be relevant. Hell you might never know.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

The police and defence have unrestricted access, they simply cannot use there parts that aren't relevant in court, as it stands anyway, thats what I was trying to get across. I wasn't clear however. I suppose, what I meant when i said:

if a particular facet of her sexual actions is brought into question for the case, the police and defence can look into it, and it can be used

was that if they have a circumstance that it actually has to be relevant to be relied upon. it has to be of actual relevance to the case. The defence or prosecution make that call (then have to support that position).

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it has to be of actual relevance to the case.

In cases where it's her word against his, with no other corroborating evidence, then the quality of her word becomes relevant. If she had a history of lying or fantasizing, for example; not necessarily restricted to only sexual matters. Her anonymity would then prevent others who knew about her likelihood to lie (or not) from coming forward. This is an argument for neither of them to be anonymous.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually see where that argument is coming from and agree if I thought such cases ought go to court, but on the other hand, in the case where there's no evidence, the case ought be dropped because there is no evidence to prove the case.

[–]kartu3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Court is not "pubilc".

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Hence I distinguished between police defence/ prosecution and newspapers. (see a later comment where I explain what I meant a little better). Basically they can explore it all they like, so long as they only raise the parts that actually aid the proving of guilt or innocence. I can't see why any other sexual history ought be raised. I do believe sexual history is more tightly regulated in this respect (maybe it ought not be - I can see the arguments there) but I also see why we don't allow people to raise entirely non-relevant information. In this case, it can probably heavily impact a juries view of accusers so that's probably why such regulation is in place, alas thats outside the scope of my personal knowledge and is just a guess.

[–]kartu3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can't see why any other sexual history ought be raised.

Because someone who never sleeps on after first date is much less likely to lie about rape than someone who hardly has dates that do not end with sex.

It's exactly the same logic that is applied to the accused.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And I hold the same views there. The individuals past sexual activity should not be relevant unless its directly applicable to the facts. If its "he said she said" it shouldn't get to court. if its establishing base credibility, there are other methods of doing so.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was she questioned about the messages like he was? Did she commit perjury as well as evidence tampering? If so, she should be the one on trial right now.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's no criminal charges, but that man should be front and center handing her a couple of lawsuits for defamation and harassment.

[–]114dniwxom 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She's probably guilty of both libel and slander in this case, and provably guilty. Along with suing the shit out of her specifically, I hope he sues the shit out of the police who didn't do their jobs at all. I know this wasn't in the US but I thought the UK was also somewhere that a crime had to be proven for guilt to be assigned.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, that guy was 3 years in prison because that asshole wanted it that. You think that mans have privileges?

I hope i get political power one day to bring equality and justice to such things.

[–]AloysiusC 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There really are two classes of citizens:

1st class = Women

2nd class = Children

Some people might include animals as a 3rd class.

[–]njullpointer 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the recovered messages were shown to the appeals court, the judges in a ruling in late December said that the exchange undermined the woman’s account and supported Kay’s version.

"undermined"

concern

is "irrevocably destroys" a synonym for "undermines" now? Is "deliberate perjury" a synonym for "slightly misled" or something?

[–]Jefe710 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tampering with evidence isn't a crime???

[–]ARandompass3rby 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly not if you have a vagina

[–]NibblyPig 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

False reporting of a sexual assault is one thing, which feminists will argue stops people coming forward. I disagree, but even if we say OK then, perverting the course of justice is something entirely different to that.

The sad thing is that I'm gonna think 'yeah probably a false claim' the more often people yaknow... perform and later don't get punished for false claims. So it's just hurting themselves.

[–]Ymoh- 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like every feminist argument, this one holds no water either.

Prosecuting people who have been proven to have lied/tampered with evidence would prevent other people from coming forward and telling the truth when it is the truth??

Once again, Feminists are doing nothing but push men further down by conflating intentional liars with women who could not prove they were raped. Those are two entirely separate subsets of people and it takes a very special kind of intellectual dishonesty to fail to see the difference.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter