The Great BUZZFEED ‘Vulnerable Women’ Hoax

VennerRoad By VennerRoad, 1st Jul 2018 | Follow this author | RSS Feed | Short URL http://nut.bz/2ig4sv5q/
Posted in Wikinut>News>Politics

In the UK, rape victims are being hounded by the police while their tormentors are being let off. At least that is what “BuzzFeed” and Lisa Avalos would have you believe.

The Great BUZZFEED ‘Vulnerable Women’ Hoax (1)

The people who run BuzzFeed are so far off the planet they even published the ludicrous Steele dossier that claims Donald Trump is in the pockets of the Kremlin. Lisa Avalos is a feminist academic who lies every time her lips move. Her claims and the claims adduced in this article hardly need debunking, but they will be debunked all the same. If BuzzFeed goes bankrupt after losing its current libel action, this article has been archived. Let’s go through it now.

Vulnerable women are routinely being prosecuted and imprisoned for making false rape claims, it says. Which brings us to the first deconstruction of their semantic silliness, namely vulnerable to what? Vulnerable means unguarded, open to attack, being exposed. A shoplifter who is caught stealing on CCTV can be said to be vulnerable to prosecution, does that mean we should feel sorry for her? (We will return to CCTV in due course).

A vulnerable witness can be one who is better off keeping his mouth shut. When Satpal Ram stood trial for the murder of Clarke Pearce, he did not take the stand. He was advised by his legal team that if he did so he would be vulnerable in cross-examination. He accepted that advice, and was convicted, but the trial outcome would have been no different if he had testified, because he would still have had to explain stabbing his victim in the back with an illegal weapon, gloating over him as he lay dying, then fleeing the crime scene with the flick knife in his hand.

So let us ask what vulnerable means here? It can mean liar, and does for many of these women, but it is used by the authors to imply that whatever they have done, they are first and foremost victims, therefore they deserve sympathy and compassion, help and understanding, not punishment. Let’s take a closer look.

Not all the photographs at the top of the page are recognisable, but most are, from the International False Rape Timeline. Here are some in no particular order:

The black woman (in the second row) is Temitope Adenugba, then a student. The woman two places to her right (ie to your left) is Rhiannon Brooker. The woman immediately below Brooker is Eleanor de Freitas; we will deal with those two at length shortly, but first Miss Adenugba. According to the local press, in October 2006, she made a false allegation of rape, apparently against a boyfriend or former boyfriend, for which she received an £80 fixed penalty notice.

Three years later she accused a fellow Nigerian of rape. This guy was a cleaner, much older than her, and had loaned her money. Doesn’t a false allegation of that nature warrant prison time, especially as it was a second offence? She also claimed to have been abused - sexually or otherwise - as a child, but, we are told, she was showing early signs of schizophrenia, ie she is still a victim. Pathetic.

Returning to the photographs, to her right is the rather fat-faced Elizabeth Jones, who at age twenty-two had made a staggering eleven false rape claims since she was just thirteen! In February 2013, she received a sentence of a mere 16 months. Another vulnerable woman?

The woman immediately below Eleanor de Freitas is serial false rape accuser Jemma Beale, who was given a ten year sentence in August last year. On his conviction, one of her victims had received a seven year sentence. Beale’s sentence appears to be the longest ever given a false rape accuser in the UK. Her family claim she is innocent, and have set up a website about the case. Don’t believe a word.

The woman to the right of Eleanor de Freitas, after the big block letters THE ACCUSED is false rape accuser and convicted fraudster Syeda Ali. On December 23, 2010, she pleaded guilty to sixteen counts of fraud and one of perverting the course of public justice. Although only thirty years old, she had been married no fewer than four times; her false rape allegations - plural - were clearly part of her fraud plot and probably also to work her ticket as a mental patient. Read her appeal judgment and see if you can decide which is which. Note that three men were arrested due to her lies.

Immediately below Syeda Ali is the blonde, baby-faced but toxic Rebecca Palmer. She had sex with a slightly younger soldier, and when he broke off the relationship, she cried rape. She was said to have had him arrested more than once, and to have used fabricated documents to back up her lies. That is what is known as an aggravating feature of an offence.

The Great BUZZFEED ‘Vulnerable Women’ Hoax (2)

The woman two places to the right of Jemma Beale, with the stud in her face, is Sharlene James. If she looks rough, that’s because she is. Her two year sentence was probably a reflection of her criminal record. A woman who is convicted of shoplifting can expect a fine. For her tenth such offence she is looking at serious prison time.

Immediately above Syeda Ali, is Emma Jones, who is presumably no relation to Elizabeth Jones. A mother of four as well as a heroin addict, she faked a rape with physical evidence. Her crime led to the arrest of one man then another, both totally innocent. But for CCTV evidence, she might never have come clean, and even worse, an innocent man could have been convicted of rape. Sorry luv, but you don’t get extra points for drug addiction.

Next to Rebecca Palmer is serial false rape accuser Leanne Black, who received a mere two year sentence for her fifth offence. Is that ultra-lenient or what?

Immediately above Elizabeth Jones is Gail Sherwood, and immediately below Rebecca Palmer is Layla Ibrahim. I have identified two or three other women from this spread, and could probably identify the rest with sufficient time and effort, but we will stop with these two. The cases of Sherwood and Ibrahim have been discussed here previously with particular reference to the claims of Lisa Avalos.

Both Eleanor de Freitas and Rhiannon Brooker have also been discussed here, and no reasonable person can doubt they both lied, tragic though the final outcome was for the former. However, Lisa Avalos is not letting either of these cases go; last year she published a lengthy polemic in The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, a curious title for a supposedly academic magazine. Her article is called Policing Rape Complainants: When Reporting Rape Becomes a Crime, it covers inter alia Sherwood, Brooker and de Freitas.

The Sherwood allegations have become increasingly bizarre, so much so that we are now supposed to believe the police failed to investigate her multiple rapes effectively because they were in on them! With de Freitas though she goes over the top with her innuendo against Alexander Economou, whom she doesn’t identify, and pretends his name is not public knowledge. At page 487, she writes:

“Many of these women also experienced other forms of disadvantage. Previous physical or sexual violence was a factor for many victims, including Reedy, D.M., Patty, and Hicks-Best, while Sarah and Rhiannon Brooker were victims of domestic violence at the time they were charged. Gail Sherwood and Patty both suffered from visual disabilities that affected their ability to give descriptions of their assailants, while Eleanor de Freitas, discussed below, had mental health issues. Nearly every Actual Victim and Likely Victim case that I have examined features women affected by one or more of these vulnerabilities. This suggests that police target such women for false reporting charges because it is an easy way to close a case with little chance that the affected victim will complain.” (Citations omitted)

No, Rhiannon Brooker was not a victim of domestic violence; she made it up, all of it, including the self-inflicted injuries. And poor Eleanor had “mental health issues”. Don’t we all in this increasingly mad world? Many serial killers have “mental health issues”, that doesn’t excuse or even mitigate their behaviour. And it is not the police who target such women for false reporting, it is the women who report falsely, and thus bring prosecution on themselves. How can we be so sure of this? Because most of those prosecuted are caught out and/or admit they lied. And because real victims fight back; they also report promptly. The current rubbish being peddled by the likes of Avalos is that victims, or survivors as they are to be called, are so traumatised that a) they freeze, and b) they delay reporting for days, months, years, or even decades. All the credible evidence suggests that the vast majority of genuine victims resist in some way or another, and that they report promptly. And that’s before we mention CCTV and other forensic evidence.

Avalos is so far off the planet that in May it was reported she had volunteered to testify as an “expert witness” for Nikki Yovino. Yovino, who is white, had sex with two black students in a bathroom at a party, then cried rape. Her story kept changing in what was clearly a case of instant regret sex. Okay, young men should be extremely wary of this kind of offer, but the sex was consensual. What would Avalos say? Undoubtedly she would conjure up the chimera of rape trauma syndrome to explain away Yovino’s behaviour. Alas, that ship has now sailed, because Yovino has since pleaded guilty agreeing to a sentence of a year in prison, which as the lawyer for the two youths she falsely accused pointed out, pales into insignificance when compared to what they would have received.

Avalos has applied the same kind of twisted feminist logic to the de Freitas case:

“For the avoidance of doubt, by detailing how the police and CPS dealt with Eleanor de Freitas there is no intention of impliedly asserting Doe’s guilt.”

Yeah sure, and nobody knows his real name isn’t Doe either.

The Crown Prosecution Service was said to have ignored the best evidence in the case:

“the two-hour long, video-taped interview that Eleanor gave the police.”

No, that was self-serving, malicious lies. The strongest evidence was the CCTV that showed her shopping with Alexander Economou immediately after he was alleged to have raped her, but real evidence like this doesn’t count in the fantasy world of rape trauma syndrome and legal dominance feminism.

Alexander Economou has set up a blog about this tragic case in which he documents the truth and counters the spin of Lisa Avalos and her crowd. It has to be said, he took this false allegation very badly, but just as there is no “correct” reaction to a rape, so there is no correct one to a false allegation.

BuzzFeed’s approach to this case is far less partisan than that of Avalos; they actually spoke to Alexander Economou and quoted him. They also spoke to Paul Fensome, the man falsely accused by Rhiannon Brooker, but by the same token they have rubberstamped her lies. The Court Of Appeal documented these lies which are refuted by forensic evidence. Had Mr Fensome not retained all her text messages, he could have been behind bars for life, but like Jian Ghomeshi and many other men falsely accused of rape, he was saved by modern technology.

BuzzFeed continues:

“...prosecutors routinely fail to follow these rules as they send vulnerable women to prison.”

Nope, at least no more than in other and at times far more serious criminal cases.

“At least 200 women in the UK have been prosecuted for lying about being raped in the past decade”

And?

If accepted by a jury, a false allegation of rape, can put a man behind bars for the rest of his life. It can even drive him to suicide. The false allegation against teenager Jay Cheshire resulted in his suicide followed a year later by that of his mother. A professional person who is falsely convicted of rape will, after completing his sentence, have lost his livelihood as well as his good name. Even a conviction for a relatively minor sexual or indecent assault can have life-shattering consequences for many men. Bad acts must be punished, that includes the bad acts of women, especially when they trash the lives of other people. The real consensus is that false accusers are generally treated far too leniently. In October 2009, the Court Of Appeal ruled in dismissing the appeal against sentence of false accuser Jennifer Day that in the case of a false rape allegation, a custodial sentence is inevitable.

BuzzFeed again:

“Prosecutors went after teenagers, and women who reportedly had mental health issues, had experienced past physical and sexual assault, or were grappling with drug and alcohol addiction.”

Again, what does “mental health issues” mean? A psychopathic personality, victimhood, substance abuse...none of these is a get out of jail free card.

Not every madwoman who falsely accuses a man of rape with malice aforethought is prosecuted, and not every false accuser warrants prosecution. In this connection, we can cite two extremely disparate examples.

In September 2007, a 13 year old girl out after midnight told police she had been raped. The area was sealed off, but the truth soon came out, she’d got drunk, lost her phone, and made up the story to generate sympathy from her parents. The police took no action against her, though one should ask why they didn’t take some sort of action against the parents, because what parent worthy of the name allows a girl (or boy) of that age to drink alcohol and to come home unescorted at that time of night?

At the other end of the scale, Esther Baker, who is clearly a certifiable lunatic, made outrageous allegations of an historical nature against the MP John Hemming. They were so outrageous that the media should have exercised extreme caution, instead this demented female was given prime time coverage by Sky News. The police carried out a thorough investigation, and when eventually Hemming was totally cleared, it became clear there was more than enough evidence to charge Baker with something, but to Hemming’s understandable fury, they declined. She should most definitely have been prosecuted, because if her allegations had been less outrageous, who knows what would have been the outcome?

Back to BuzzFeed:

“Britain’s approach stands in stark contrast to that of the US, Australia, Canada, and other European countries. Women in these countries do not typically face prosecution – let alone prison – for lying about rape, state prosecutors and experts said, because it’s not considered to be in the public interest.”

How much research have they actually done? In the United States, all false reports of crime are taken seriously, and false accusers do face prison, again rightly so. We have just mentioned the Nikki Yovino case. Other American cases include (in alphabetical order) Melinda Denham, six months; Pansie Saddler, 2 years with all but 45 days suspended; Vanessa Stewart, 2 years; Karen Sypher, 87 months for extortion based on false rape claims; Jennifer Valenta, 32 months to 60 months.

Other countries also impose prison sentences for false rape allegations, as with the UK, such sentences are almost always extremely lenient in comparison with the sentences handed down to those convicted of rape, rightly or falsely.

The Duke Lacrosse case is mentioned here. Although she is not named, we are told Crystal Mangum was not prosecuted becaue of her perceived mental state. And the result of this...she went on to murder a totally innocent - and, one might add, decent man.

The Great BUZZFEED ‘Vulnerable Women’ Hoax (3)

Lisa Avalos is quoted again; this woman is either lying or delusional, quite likely both as with the defenders of Emma Humphreys. What we have here is another case of the Big Lie combined with the Woozle effect; eventually these women end up believing their own fake statistics, absurd factoids and baseless narratives.

In the wake of the Liam Allen scandal, Charlotte Proudman, another loony legal dominance feminist, wrote an op-ed for the Guardian in which she quoted Avalos:

“I vividly remember a friend of mine who was raped asking me whether she should report the incident because she might not be believed and she could be prosecuted. I felt angry by the stark reality that she could be re-victimised by a system that is supposed to support her and ensure justice is upheld.”

In the first place, did this friend actually exist? In the second place, do these women really understand what rape is? How about screaming “Rape!” at the top of your voice? If you’re afraid no one will hear, why are you so stupid as to go somewhere isolated with a man you don’t know or trust?

If the question of understanding what rape, or consent is, sounds frivolous, consider the aforementioned case of Liam Allen. He was charged with six counts of sexual assault and six of actual rape, all against the same non-victim. The case against him was dropped only when exculpatory text messages, literally thousands of them, came to light, but one is entitled to ask how he was ever charged in the first place. There is no suggestion that he and Miss X were living together, nor that he had any kind of malign influence over her, yet the police and the CPS were willing to believe that he had violated her on what appear to have been at least six occasions. A genuine rape victim doesn’t go back for more and keep going back. To do so implies consent.

It is difficult to take anything Lisa Avalos or women like her say seriously, but sadly the legal establishment does. Not mentioned in this article is that especially with historical allegations it is possible for a man to be convicted in England and Wales (but not Scotland) with absolutely no corroboration, on the mere word of his accuser. This is in fact the case in many jurisdictions; in Canada, the situation is even worse due to the corruption of the legal process by women like Avalos if not her in person. Very occasionally, women are also convicted of serious sexual offences with no corroboration, the case of Nora Wall being one of the most notorious. Many more women have stood trial, but jurors are understandably reluctant to believe most self-styled survivors, realising that genuine female sex offenders are extremely rare.

A lot more could be written in this vein, but the above should be sufficient to convince the reader that the two authors of this BuzzFeed article are not the investigative reporters they claim to be, rather they are advocates, or are at best parroting feminist advocacy.

While no one in his or her right mind wants to see women raped much less rapists getting away with it, fighting an imaginary problem with contrived narratives, fake statistics and outright lies does nothing to combat the real problem of rape. Simply encouraging women to take responsibility for their own actions is one positive way. Apart from the classic stranger rape, most rapes and false allegations result from women drinking too much. Posters warning against this are displayed by A&E departments; the one above is a humorous one, one of a series. Such warnings are condemned by feminist airheads as victim blaming. The only way to read that is they would rather see women raped than take sensible advice.

moderator Peter B. Giblett moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know

Comments

Add a comment
Username
Can't login?
Password