TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Article defending Alice Sebold after she falsely accused a man of ra ping her. He served 16 years. All she had to say was “I’m sorry”.

Bbqwings23

December 9, 2021
315 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecut.com/amp/2021/12/dont-blame-alice-sebold.html
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Article defending Alice Sebold after she falsely accused a man of ra ping her. He served 16 years. All she had to say was “I’m sorry”.
Author

Bbqwings23

Upvotes 315
Comments 96
Date December 9, 2021 7:39 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rcpdjs/article_defending_alice_sebold_after_she_falsely/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/article-defending-alice-sebold-after-she-falsely.1087757
https://theredarchive.com/post/1087757
Top posts by Bbqwings23

Reported this tweet i came across the other day. Twitter refused to take it down. hmm i wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed…

1391 upvotes
January 18, 2022
/r/MensRights

Article defending Alice Sebold after she falsely accused a man of ra ping her. He served 16 years. All she had to say was “I’m sorry”.

1 upvotes
December 9, 2021
/r/MensRights

Article titled 'Don't Blame Alice Sebold' after she falsely accused a black man of r @pe. He served 16 years.

1 upvotes
December 9, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Bbqwings23[S] 79 points80 points81 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This article defending her, titled 'Don't Blame Alice Sebold' basically says its not her fault because Black people look the same.

““Use Sebold as a mirror”

The entire article is trying to absolve Sebold of any and all responsibility while in the same sentence sweeping her casual racism under the rug.

[–]Angryasfk 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But feminism is all about “empowering people of colour”; and LGBT and “non-binary” and all that. So of course there can be no racism casual or otherwise involved./s

[–]MensRightsBrit 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"No, alice isn't racist, the police are! Not to forget that ALL black people look the EXACT same!"

Feminists will go to such extreme extents to make sure that women can't be considered the discriminatory ones in any situation.

[–]WingsofSky 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Must be horrible to live a life of no accountability and lies. But all you have to do is shed some tears and the penalties go away.

[–]pillchangedmylife 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Deep down unless someone is rotten to the core .. a life of accountability must suck

[–]TorchwoodCaptainJack 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She deserves prison time for lying to the police and in court. It doesn’t matter why she did it but she ruined a mans life because of it. LOCK HER UP

[–]slipkid223 44 points45 points46 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

"With their heavy boots, their loaded guns, their eager bloodthirst, detectives and police descend upon the scene, rounding up as many Black men in the area as they can find and arresting 20-year-old Anthony Broadwater, who seems to fit the description of the man she described. The description: Black, tall, with wide and flat features."

​

See it's the evil White Man and his racist police that locked up the Black man, not her who accused and identified the wrong Black man.

Women are never accountable. Ever. It is ALWAYS a Man's fault

[–]frustr8tion 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yah. She pointed at him in court of her own free will and said it was him.

[–]Angryasfk 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes indeed. They should have only rounded up the white men, racists!/s

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It’s not all her fault. The cops and the DA are at least culpable, especially once she couldn’t pick him out in the lineup! But she’s not some “innocent and naive” victim of the process either.

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

In defense of the police and DA;

A direct rape claim, when the claimant is insistent they can identify the attacker, is pretty much always probable cause for arrest and trial, even if the accuser has failed a lineup. Sometimes people just have a hard time with faces.

AND IT WAS REVEALED DURING THE INITIAL TRIAL THAT SEBOLD FAILED THE LINEUP.

The police did their job and made sure the judge knew about that.

IT WAS ALSO REVEALED DURING THE INITIAL TRIAL BY THE HAIR ANALYST THAT HAIR ANALYSIS IS NOT 100 PER CENT RELIABLE.

""“But even with that testimony, you cannot say positively, based upon, say a reasonable degree of chemical certainty, that the defendant is the person?” Justice Gorman asked.

“No, sir, I cannot,” Kaszubinski (the hair analyst) said.""

Source on both claims:

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=6082

They did their job and presented the case warts and all. In the end, the Judge, like so many other people, believed Sebold. She is a very talented fiction writer, I'm sure that helped.

And to be honest, the case is, even now, mostly a he said - she said.

The main reason I'm convinced the whole thing was a charade is because of Sebold's non-apologetic apology. If she really thought this guy raped her, she saw his face and KNEW it, why should his exoneration change her story at this point?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, non apologetic apology indeed! She presents herself as a “victim” of the system and some “unwitting observer” of what happened to Boardwater. That’s clearly misrepresenting the facts.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I love the way our resident male feminist (although he says he isn’t ) keeps claiming the police “fabricated the evidence”. And that she was somehow duped by them.

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Logic is a rare choice.

[–]TheSnesLord 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

An unloaded crossbow on the table does not do any damage. It requires someone to pick it up, load it with an arrow and fire it to cause damage.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’d agree with that. She told the police he was the rapist in the first place. However her failure to pick him in the lineup should have given some doubt.

[–]TheSnesLord 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget, she fired the producer of the film who sought clarification of her inconsistencies between the major parts of the book and the script.

I think it's clear that she knew what she was doing. She intended to continue the lie, and she sought to profit off the situation while also keeping Anthony Broadwater in jail to validate her lie.

She's a nasty piece of work.

[–]aigars2 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Real question. How many more innocent men are in prison?

[–]isthebuffetopenyet 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All "isms" are a race to the bottom, who can be more offended by everybody else.

The hope for people who just want everybody to get along, normally people in the middle, is that the "isms" fight among themselves and leave the rest of us to get on with life and fixing the planet.

[–]Underthirst 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The mental gymnastics to not hold this woman accountable. Incredible.

[–]SD_TMI 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I want him to sue her for time served and the damage she did to his life.

Fuck these false accusations and harsh penalties all based on what some woman says and can never be called into question over.
"Always believe a woman claiming rape"

has to be the worst bit of social policy (it's right next to blatant racism)

[–]Man_of_culture_112 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://i.imgur.com/wI0h7Nm.png

​

Something to make you angry. We need MRs. The worst part is that it is a black woman defending this rich white women, I am a HADCORE Leftist but I will always break ranks with the left when it comes to women (WHITE women specifically), that's their blind spot and where very little thinking goes into.

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure all these people blaming "the system" would have been super understanding if the police had refused to arrest, the prosecutor had refused to prosecute, or the courts had found him innocent at the time.

At what point, exactly, was everyone else supposed to call her a liar if you aren't willing to call her a liar even now?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it was “the system” that made her tell the cops he was her attacker in the first place. The feminist writer seems forget that Broadwater has been cleared because the producer of the film version found big discrepancies between her “memoir” and the actual court records and smelt a rat.

[–]quietlurk10 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have an ounce of the accountability they demand from everyone else challenge (impossible)

[–]ResidentEvil1619 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn, and written by a black woman, too. I've long said that black women are the enemy to black men.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember watching The Color Purple.

Feminism only feins support for black guys, mostly so they can conflate racial prejudice with “women’s issues”, and to get black guys to be part of the chorus for pushing quotas and “affirmative action”. In truth it’s women who score from “affirmative action” with black guys mostly getting the crumbs. A big win for the feminists. They get the likes of Al Sharpton and black protestors on their side, and get the vast majority of the positions, and likely the majority of those go to well to do and well connected women!

[+]BacanaHeaven -13 points-12 points-11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a distinction between a false accusation and a false conviction, you know.

[–]frustr8tion 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. And she made a full accusation. She was asked if the man who rated her was in the courtroom and to point him out. She said yes and pointed him out.

She did not know it was him. She lied. She knows it.

[–]dontpet 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wait. This isn't clear to me. She wrote a book about the experience and he used that to get out of jail?

[–]Angryasfk 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No. A film version was being made for Netflix, and the original producer noticed the book didn’t actually match the court records. He then hired a private investigator and came up with the goods. Broadwater always protested his innocence.

[–]dontpet 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Damn. Hopefully the movie includes this latest stage.

Having said that, I expect any movie producer would have her as the hero overcoming challenges. The last thing they would want to do is point out that an innocent man went to prison with her false testimony. not very heroic.

This kind of thing wrecks my day. But thanks for clarifying.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Apparently Netflix has dropped the project.

[–]dontpet 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To bad. I expect it would be an interesting project to have that subject exposed. Get into how a person could make a false statement or whatever happened. That has been done previously I think, but not on rape charges that I'm aware of.

Oh! There was a film on this in the 50s I think about a black guy. Probably more.

[–]Man_of_culture_112 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://i.imgur.com/rzrzl7o.png

[–]Historical_Button445 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sue her, the NYPD, the DOJ and the film company for all profits made due to her life destroying lie…

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -17 points-16 points-15 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That's not what any of the dozens of reports I've read said. They all aid Broadwater was not the man she identified.

Do you have a source for this claim?

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Are you seriously trying to make this argument?

Okay, technically she falsely accused two other guys.

First, some random innocent black guy walking in the park who was probably neither Broadwater nor her rapist (assuming any rapist even existed), then another innocent black guy who was in the lineup next to Broadwater.

Then she perjured herself on the witness stand by claiming she could positively identify Broadwater as the man she falsely accused.

Ultimately, Broadwater was the one who ended up in prison because of she made false accusations against "a man". As was stated in the original post. It doesn't matter which man or men she falsely accused.

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The man she originally accused may have been her rapist. We will never know because police falsified evidence and told her they are sure this was the guy.

[–]Angryasfk 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Falsified evidence, or used evidence which is no longer regarded as reliable? Which is it?

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More false accusations. The police did NOT falsify any evidence and they did NOT tell her they were sure this was the guy.

Why are people so desperate to distort reality? Is it that hard to accept that ONE woman is a racist and misandrist?

[–]DraganTehPro 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it that hard to accept that ONE woman is a racist and misandrist?

Yees, because it goes against their narrative of "all women good, all men bad"

[–]Angryasfk 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She identified him in court, after NOT picking him out of the lineup.

The article is utter bilge. It even refers to the hair analysis as “DNA evidence” which has it is not. Nor is DNA evidence regarded as “junk science” (not yet anyway). The references to “CRT” her parents’ “casual racism” and the claim that the police are “incompetent” and “only exist” to “imprison as many black men as possible” all glides gormlessly over the fact that Seebold said she was raped by a black man! Who were the cops supposed to investigate and arrest? Chinese Americans? The Korean guy that runs the local store? Dragnetting all the white male students? How about another white woman? From the sounds of it, the fact he was black is about the only significant description she was able to give.

Another thing missed by this article is that the conviction was overturned because the producer noticed “discrepancies” between her memoir and the actual trial records. This is why he hired a PI and was able to prove the guy innocent. Funny how that was glossed over. Oh but feminism is all about “empowering” “POC”, BLM, “defund the police”, CRT, patriarchy and all that! And of course loosening rules of evidence in rape cases could never, ever result in guys like that being railroaded because feminism is all about the above, and only 2% of women lie, so it doesn’t matter anyway and all that. And if women swear that some guy raped them when they don’t really know and think these guys all look the same, well they’re not at fault at all. It’s everyone else’s fault: the cops, the Judge, the jury, the woman’s parents, the town and university. Everyone is at fault, except her! The unjustly condemned is likely partly at fault for being a man as well! We were asked what it was like to be the same sex as Donald Trump remember!

What a pile of garbage.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -39 points-38 points-37 points 4 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link

Sebold was violently raped. Months later, she saw her rapist and reported this to the police.

Police could not find the man she reported so they went and arrested Broadwater for no reason.

The police then falsified evidence and told sebold that they had physical proof matching Broadwater to the rape kit done when she reported her rape.

Sebold, upon hearing police had conclusive physical evidence, testifies against Broadwater.

I can tell you now, if I got raped and I was 90 percent sure who my attacker was, and police told me they can prove it with physical evidence...I'd testify.

[–]TheSnesLord 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can tell you now, if I got raped and I was 90 percent sure who my attacker was, and police told me they can prove it with physical evidence...I'd testify.

So you're willing to not be sure and risk putting an innocent person in jail. We get it.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -11 points-10 points-9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most people in jail were convicted on physical evidence. Do you want to let them all out because you aren't sure?

[–]tenchineuro 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sebold was violently raped.

To be fair, we don't know that. Women do lie about rape for many and sundry reasons.

  • In the 60s a female student got so caught up in a take back the night rally that she falsely accused a man who had never met her to feel part of the crowd.
  • A woman accused the police officer who was driving her to the station after being arrested that he had raped her. Dash camera footage proved that she lied.
  • A woman got angry with an Uber driver and accused him or rape. Dash cam footage also proved his innocence.

It looks to me that she might have lied about being raped because she planned to monetize it, which she did successfully do after the trial.

[–]lasciate 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

Among the many things wrong with what you said she didn't testify that she was "90 percent sure" in court and if she had he would have had a good chance of being acquitted. Unless you meant that you would lie on the witness stand.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -17 points-16 points-15 points 4 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

If I was 90 percent sure, and police told me they had physical evidence confirming it. I would go to 100 percent real fast. Wouldn't anyone?

[–]Bbqwings23[S] 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

no…. you’re playing with someones life here.

[+]EnvironmentalWar4627 -14 points-13 points-12 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever been violently raped? Could you remember every detail about that person's face?

Obviously not. Physical evidence is what rules the courts. And it's why this man was convicted.

[–]tenchineuro 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Obviously not. Physical evidence is what rules the courts.

Not in rape trials.

And it's why this man was convicted.

So they convicted an innocent man with physical evidence? Pray tell, what physical evidence did a man she'd never met leave at the scene of the crime?

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you not even bother to read the article? The cops faked a hair match to a hair pulled from the day of the rape.

[–]Angryasfk 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you bother to read the article? Even the author didn’t claim that the cops “faked a hair match”. She did claim the hair analysis they cited is now regarded as “junk science”. This is not the same as faking it. The author is so ignorant that she even referred to this as “DNA evidence”.

The article is just a feminist snowjob. Sebold might be an innocent rape victim, but she is far from an innocent bystander in the railroading of this guy. The article makes it sound like some guy of random race raped her and the cops randomly rounded up a black man because they’re racist. The truth is that she told them it was a black man who raped her, and later that he was on the street. She actually chose someone else in the lineup. She is culpable.

The reason why this feminist is whitewashing the whole proceeding is likely so they can continue to lower the bar for evidence in rape cases by dismissing this as a “cops are racist” case and ignoring her culpability which demonstrates the danger in “guilt by accusation” which is where feminists are pushing us.

[–]lasciate 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Unless you meant that you would lie on the witness stand.

If I was 90 percent sure, and police told me they had physical evidence confirming it. I would go to 100 percent real fast.

Ah so you did mean that you would lie.

Wouldn't anyone?

The "justice" system and witness testimony in a nutshell.

[–]Angryasfk 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She clearly wasn’t “90% sure”. She picked someone else out of the lineup. Was she “95% sure” it was him? What a sick joke.

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

If I said 'I think Sylvester Stallone was in rocky'. I'm not lying. If I looked it up and confirmed on IMDB that he was in rocky and I said 'I am sure Sylvester Stallone was in rocky'. Am I lying? Obviously not.

My suspicions were confirmed by evidence.

You're desperately grasping at ways to blame this woman. Why?

[–]No_Fap_is_My_Life 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Fuck you feminist bitch or a simp idiot ! Why not put you in jail for no reason then ??? How will it feel ?

Is there any evidence she was raped ? And how the fuck can no one see the rapists face when he is banging her ? And if he used violence to tie her up and hide his face, he would have used enough violence to have some permanent scars on body, well where are those scars ??? IF i am wrong then I am very sorry please correct me... And well if it indeed happened as I said, did the police have the pics of those injuries ?

Now considering that nothing I wrote happened... Well still, how the fuck can you accuse any person... And how the fuck are all black men same looking ? Isn't this racism ???!!!

Long live humanity

I have no hope left in humanity

Especially when people start defending her... You all feminists shall die in hell a million times...

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a feminist. Just a regular person that blames the police that faked evidence more than the woman that picked the wrong guy because police told her to.

[–]TheSnesLord 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not a feminist.

Your constant deflecting away from women's bad behaviour and absolving them of any blame in this forum says otherwise.

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

I’d call bs on that. He claims there’s problems with feminism, but I’ve yet to see him name them, or support ANY point here. I suspect he’s a male feminist seeking brownie points with the sisterhood.

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

Care to provide a link to say they “faked evidence”? It isn’t in that article, or in others posted. They used a hair analysis that’s no longer regarded as reliable (but was then). I have yet to see a claim that they’d actually faked this. The only fake evidence was her ID given she picked someone else in the lineup. The cops and especially the assistant DA are responsible here as they should have seen her as unreliable, but they may have thought the hair strand evidence was “positive proof” too. They should have rethought the case when she couldn’t identify him. But she’s to blame as well.

[–]tenchineuro 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a feminist.

Coulda fooled me.

woman that picked the wrong guy because police told her to.

What do the police have to do with whether she could identify the man or not? If she positively identified him, that was a lie, The truth would be that she was not sure or that she did not know.

[–]No_Fap_is_My_Life 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow police telling a victim woman and she just agrees as it is, and takes a deep breath by accusing an innocent for a term of 16 years in jail ? Whereas simultaneously the rapist is roaming in open, probably waiting to prey on another woman isnt it ? The plot in porn is more believable than this story you are telling me...

And any sane person won't let what happened to them happen to others... There is a reason why police wants to catch rapists and asks questions on how he looks and has he had done this to any other woman, to catch them for the better... Letting him roam open whereas this poor guy serves in jail ? I ain't believing this story bro...

And where's the sadness in her face ? She is clearly LYING !!! She ain't even sorry for him 1% even...

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. But most people would do the same thing she did . Testify against the person that police made clear had raped her.

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cite?

[–]No_Fap_is_My_Life 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why the hell are we men paying so much taxes and working day and night to run this judicial system then, if this system has to be so pussy whipped ? Why ? WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS HAPPENING !!!

Yeah makes sense... Let's make a utopian dictatorship then, shall we ? Nope coz then why is a judicial system there the equalize the powers of media, legislature and executive, if all things could be done morally without evidence just based on society's notion ? Huh ?

Stop supporting her... These girls don't care... I am now highly skeptical if she was even raped or not... Probably not...

And the police ain't gonna do shit with her decisions, we all know they would be scared to get an allegation from her for rape (coz only words from a woman's mouth are needed to throw a man behind bars)

So police must be terrified... She was in full control of the decision, and why when she won the case, after sometime, she didn't show up anymore ? Or rather give some more clarification ?

And that too she kept silent for 16 years when our man was crying all day behind bars ? Wow very believable huh ? /s

This woman had clearly lied, and she ain't sorry about it anyway right now...

[–]Angryasfk 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference is that she did not pick him out in a line up. She picked someone else, someone whom the police obviously knew couldn’t have done it. It wasn’t that she though he looked a bit like the rapist but wasn’t 100% sure. She actually chose someone else. So your analogy doesn’t quite apply does it.

[–]tenchineuro 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

If I said 'I think Sylvester Stallone was in rocky'. I'm not lying. If I looked it up and confirmed on IMDB that he was in rocky and I said 'I am sure Sylvester Stallone was in rocky'. Am I lying? Obviously not.

And even if you were lying, no one's life and future are on the line. Now in a rape trial, that is not the case.

[–]EnvironmentalWar4627 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

So you believe physical evidence is not enough to convict rapists? You realize that means they would have to let out all the rapists in prison right?

[–]Angryasfk 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

So you think he’d have been convicted on the hair comparison alone? Or is it that the hair strand corroborated her sworn identification of him?

Her evidence was certainly considered necessary by the prosecution. She’s not solely to blame by any means, but she’s not innocent either. Nor was she an “unwitting participant”.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Her evidence was certainly considered necessary by the prosecution.

Her accusation is not evidence.

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

It is considered evidence, as it’s sworn testimony. That’s why perjury is a serious crime. Except in her case where apparently she was mistaken because “racist police and assistant DA” told her it was that man! Presumably they told her she was raped by a black man in the first place.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is considered evidence, as it’s sworn testimony.

It is not evidence or anything like evidence, it's what the DA needs to convince a jury happened in a trial.

That’s why perjury is a serious crime.

You don't know anything do you. Rape is a felony, in most cases perjury is a minor misdemeanor. And it's absolutely not a crime against the man falsely accused, he has no standing and no recourse. A false rape accusation is considered a crime against the state. In most cases it's not considered in the public's best interest to convict false rape accusers. In the UK it's considered 'wasting police time'.

DA” told her it was that man!

They have violated the law and 'tainted' the witness. The accuser is not party to the trial, at best she is a witness and DAs don't like to put witnesses on the stand.

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She made a sworn statement on court. That is considered evidence. Of course if it’s just a “he said/she said” situation it isn’t normally good enough for a conviction no matter how convincing they are. Additional corroborating evidence should be needed.

But sworn statements in court ARE evidence. A statement to the police or regular people in the street is an accusation. Statements to court, under oath are evidence. This is why there is cross examination (which feminists decry in rape cases) to test its consistency and validity.

And who told you that perjury is a “misdemeanour”? It is a serious, criminal offence. I know that many left-liberals tried to soft-pedal perjury when Clinton was impeached, but that’s for political reasons. I guarantee you the same people would have been howling how serious a crime perjury is had it been used to Impeach Trump.

Perjury is not a misdemeanour. It is a felony under US law, and a statutory offence in the UK. Indeed in California it can carry the death penalty if the perjury results in a wrongful execution.

The problem with perjury is that it has to be wilful, which is why the prosecution rate is relatively low. But that is not an indication that it is not a serious offence. So why do you think you can claim I know “nothing”? If you’re on continental Western Europe you may just be unfamiliar common law jurisdictions. But if that’s the case you need to understand that in common law jurisdictions perjury isn’t a “misdemeanour” but a serious offence, and witness statements in court, and subject to cross examination are evidence. Not irrefutable evidence perhaps, but evidence nonetheless. I normally like reading your views and am somewhat amazed by this one. I do not support Sebold in any way and though I made that clear.

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just reread your last line. DA’s do not like to put witnesses on the stand! What are you talking about?

I’m sorry to say this, but I’m now quite sure in this case you’re the one who really has no idea what they’re talking about. Sebold identified Broadwater as her rapist in Court. Who do you think called her as a witness? Broadwater’s lawyer? If a dozen people saw some guy with a 0.308” rifle shooting people in the town square, and all came forward to testify that it was this guy who did the shooting, and then threw the rifle into a steel foundry, destroying it, do you think the authorities would refuse to prosecute because sworn witness statements aren’t evidence and the prosecution won’t call them? Come on!

The point about Sebold is that she gave false evidence, probably perjury (although it would have to be proven she knew at the time of trial she wasn’t sure that Broadwater looked like her rapist - it’s harder than proving rape), which seemed to be corroborated by forensic hair analysis (which was admitted wasn’t absolute proof at the time). The point is that an accusation needs additional supporting evidence to secure a conviction, or should need it. But the accuser’s sworn testimony is still evidence.

Go and do your own research please.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I just reread your last line. DA’s do not like to put witnesses on the stand! What are you talking about?

I mean accusers, once on the stand they are subject to cross examination.

The point is that an accusation needs additional supporting evidence to secure a conviction, or should need it.

In rape, an accusers unsupported claim is sufficient to put a man in prison.

But the accuser’s sworn testimony is still evidence.

Her accusation is not evidence that her accusation is true. The only thing that her accusations is evidence for is that she made an accusation.

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is enough to put a man away if she can convince a jury! That’s the whole point of the feminist “believe women” line - they want men convicted all the time solely on the word of a woman, any woman apparently.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They've gotten around that little detail with #metoo, which can be made anonymously.

[–]Angryasfk2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And they’ve also got around the problem of having to go to court by “courting” a lynch mob mentality!

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Her sworn statement isn’t evidence that the statement is true, that’s why there is such a thing as corroborating evidence. However it IS evidence from the standpoint of the court. The reason for cross examination is precisely to test the evidence, and allow the defence (or prosecution if it’s a witness for the defence) to respond.

Anyway the point is that it’s purely an accusation when she complains to the police. Her statement is admitted as evidence when it’s a sworn statement in a court and subject to cross examination.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However it IS evidence from the standpoint of the court.

Please, show me that this is true.

Then tell me what you claim it's evidence of.

The reason for cross examination is precisely to test the evidence, and allow the defence (or prosecution if it’s a witness for the defence) to respond.

Rape is the only felony where every effort is made to prevent the accused from raising an affirmative defense and the state really does not care that the woman lies on the stand.

In Canada they've broken due process for men accused of rape and outright prevent him from raising a defense. It's called Bill C-51. Here's Karen Straughan's summary...


  • This is the crux of C-51. The DoJ website said as much when the bill was proposed. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but in clear language it openly stated that the intent of the bill was to curtail a defendant's access to an affirmative defence.

  • The bill, when it passed, effectively changed the entire nature of sexual assault cases. In any criminal case, the prosecutor's client is the people (or in Canada, the head of state--the king or queen of England). The complainant or "victim" has no legal standing. They are not a party to the case, and therefore have NO rights as a party to the case. They are nothing more than a witness for the prosecution.

  • C-51 gives the complainant a right to a publicly funded personal attorney, and grants the complainant and or their counsel legal standing during rape shield hearings. I can't stress how important this change is. Even in states in the US where disclosure goes both ways, NOTHING like this exists.

  • As a prosecutor, you are not allowed to prep your witnesses, other than to give them a very basic idea of what to expect procedurally ("if cross examination gets rough, take your time, I'll object when I can, and you can always ask for a break"). They are forbidden from sharing ANY of the defense's evidence or strategy with their witnesses, because it risks tainting their testimony.

  • Even in civil trials where only a few thousand dollars is on the line, it's routine to exclude ALL witnesses (other than the parties to the case) from the courtroom until after they've given testimony, so they're not influenced by any evidence led prior to their turn on the stand.

  • C-51 effectively mandates the tainting of witness testimony. The fact that a civil court is more careful about this problem, even regarding uninterested witnesses, in cases where someone is accusing his neighbor of planting a tree too close to the property line, than the criminal law is in cases that often hinge entirely on witness credibility, is insane. If the complainant knows in advance every piece of evidence that's going to be brought to bear by the defence, she and her publicly funded personal attorney (who IS allowed to prep her) will certainly tailor her testimony to not disagree with that evidence.

  • Having to disclose directly to the complaining witness the existence, nature and implications of documentary evidence that may be led at trial to impeach her (as happened with Ghomeshi) is a fundamental violation of a defendant's right to a fair trial. In the Ghomeshi case, the defendant had scores of documentary evidence--texts, letters, a card from a bouquet of flowers, photos, emails--that completely contradicted the complainants' testimony. He was acquitted solely on the issue of the credibility and reliability of complainant testimony.

  • Keep in mind, the judge in his ruling said that the complainants' behavior (continuing to pursue Ghomeshi romantically after the alleged assaults, and even conspiring with each other) was not inconsistent with the behavior of genuine victims of sexual assault (more on this at the end). The only matter to be decided was whether he could rely on the veracity of their testimony, given that it did not match the only physical evidence led at trial.

  • Had this law been in effect when he was tried, all the complainants would have had to do is make up some plausible, feminist approved way to explain away the evidence--"I was confused. I wanted to convince myself that what happened didn't really happen, and pursuing him in that way was kind of part of that... I was trying to make it normal because I didn't want to admit I'd been victimized, blah blah blah..." and he would have been convicted.

  • There are other problems with C-51, but this particular section of it has come under scrutiny from two judges now, who have both said it violates a defendant's right to a fair trial.


EDIT: Here's an article that goes into detail...

  • https://nationalpost.com/news/liberals-sex-assault-trial-reforms-run-into-trouble-as-more-judges-find-charter-violations
  • Liberals' sex assault trial reforms run into trouble as more judges find Charter violations

[–]queen_of_england_bot1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

queen of England

Did you mean the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Australia, etc?

The last Queen of England was Queen Anne who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.

FAQ

Isn't she still also the Queen of England?

This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.

Is this bot monarchist?

No, just pedantic.

I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

bad bot

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok. The State letting perjuring women off the hook in rape trials is a decision by the authorities. It’s got nothing to do with whether a sworn statement in court is considered evidence.

Karen Straughan’s comments expose what’s wrong with that Canadian law. Her comments about excluding witnesses is precisely to avoid contamination of evidence!

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It’s got nothing to do with whether a sworn statement in court is considered evidence.

It may be testimony, but it's not evidence of anything.

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is “evidence”. In the case that was being discussed there seems to have 2 pieces of evidence: the “hair comparisons”, which were admitted as not being wholly conclusive, and Sebold’s identification of Broadwater as the man who raped her (all “darkies” look alike apparently). Doubtless the jury thought the hair strand evidence backed up her testimony. As for her being raped, she was subject to a “rape kit” at the time of the attack, which would (I imagine) show she was “unwilling”. However they didn’t do DNA matching at the time. So it couldn’t prove who it was by traces of semen.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is “evidence”. In the case that was being discussed there seems to have 2 pieces of evidence: the “hair comparisons”,...

We are talking about the accuser's testimony here and nothing else.

You claim that her testimony is evidence, tell me what it's evidence of.

[–]Angryasfk1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I give up. It’s what she claimed happened. Proof beyond reasonable doubt should mean additional evidence (and substantial stuff) to back up her statement. But her testimony and that of any other witnesses is considered evidence. The Straughn passage you quoted actually supports this! And you seem to forget that I’m implying her perjured “evidence” means she has a central role in this miscarriage of justice.

[–]tenchineuro1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But her testimony and that of any other witnesses is considered evidence.

Her testimony is just that, testimony. And in the case of rape her unsupported claim is enough to land a man in prison for life.

I’m implying her perjured “evidence” means she has a central role in this miscarriage of justice.

That is technically true, but in most places DAs don't think it's in the public's best interests to convict women who lie about being raped, they say it will make real rape victims less likely to come forward (a feminists talking point there).

But there sometimes some limits. In the UK they pay victim compensation and one enterprising women turned this into a business proposition. The UK has been having budget problems, and after 15 false rape accusations and almost a million pounds spent, they finally put a stop to it, though they must have known much earlier.

  • https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4313763/woman-falsely-accused-rape-15-men-is-jailed/

  • TWISTED LIAR CAGED ‘Attention-seeking’ woman cost taxpayers £900,000 after falsely accusing 15 men of rape after lies exposed

  • A SERIAL rape accuser who claimed she had been sexually assaulted by 15 men in three years has today been jailed after her sick lies were finally exposed.

  • A judge slammed Jemma Beale as a "convincing liar" and "manipulative" while sentencing her to ten years behind bars. The 25-year-old claimed she had been seriously sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine, all strangers, in four different encounters over the space of three years.

  • She was found guilty in July at Southwark Crown Court of four counts of perjury and four counts of perverting the course of justice.

  • Sentencing her today, Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith said: "This trial has revealed, what was then not obvious, that you are a very, very convincing liar and you enjoy being seen as a victim. "The prosecution described your life as a 'construct of bogus victim hood'."

  • Prosecutor Madeleine Moore told the court police spent 6,400 hours investigating Beale's claims at a cost of at least £250,000, and the trial cost at least £109,000.

I really don't thing a great many women have any problem lying to or about men, the few cases where a woman recants usually happen after they find religion.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you believe physical evidence is not enough to convict rapists?

No, no evidence of any kind is required, her unsupported word is enough to put a man in prison for life.

As for hair analysis, it's snake oil like most forensic techniques.

And even if it was in some aspect useful, that's destroyed here...

  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
  • FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades
  • The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

There is no peer reviewed research backing any forensic technique that I'm aware of, not even fingerprints.

[–]lasciate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You lack a basic understanding of how court cases work. Eyewitnesses are not supposed to make "best guesses", speculate, or use reasoning to create their testimony. They're there to recount their experience. Not what they came to believe after the fact.

In your Rocky analogy you admit that you consulted IMDB. The 'prosecutor' would then ask: "that would be the internet movie database website editable by anyone with a computer?" shredding your 'testimony' entirely. Also, it would be more like:

"I saw Danny Devito play Rocky, that's him right?" [points at picture]

"That's Joe Mantegna ...and he wasn't in Rocky at all. This is the guy who played Rocky" [points at picture of Stallone]

"Yeah I know Sylvester Stallone played Rocky."

You didn't know it was Stallone when you were watching the movie, which is what you were asked.

In real life she didn't testify that she was only "sure" (laughable since she knew she had already identified three different people by then) because the police told her so. She lied and said that was what she perceived and how she perceived it on the day and time of the alleged crime in a calculated move to secure the conviction.

[–]WomenHavItHarder 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

they went and arrested Broadwater for no reason.

That’s not true, the man she saw on the street was Broadwater. He greeted a police officer behind Sebold but she thought he greeted her so she assumed he was her rapist. She later reported him to the police and the police officer who was greeted by Broadwater confirmed the man they were looking for was Broadwater. Broadwater was later arrested. The entire reason he was arrested was because Sebold identified him as her rapist. Ironically enough she failed to identify him in a police lineup.

[–]ohisama 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She thought he greeted her so she assumed he was her rapist!

Did I read that right?

[–]frustr8tion 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can tell you now, if I got raped and I was 90 percent sure who my attacker was, and police told me they can prove it with physical evidence...I'd testify.

She was asked if she recognised the rapist and to point out the man who raped her in court. She did not recognise him. She lied and committed perjury.

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