Posted on 07/30/2010 5:58:51 PM PDT by naturalman1975
THE lynching of Theo Theophanous - the Labor minister falsely accused of rape - just became even more shameful.
This week the Australian Press Council took an axe to The Age, which first let loose the defamation that cost Theophanous his job, his reputation and much of his savings.
In October 2008, the paper published on its front page an "exclusive interview" with a woman who claimed she'd been raped by Theophanous, a friend, in his State Parliament office.
.....
Now she'd defy Theophanous's threats: "I'm prepared to stand on the steps of Parliament with a banner saying, 'I want justice'."
Four days later, the Sunday Age followed with a devastating profile of Theophanous, which used largely anonymous sources to portray the minister for major projects, industry and trade as a violent, lecherous, light-fingered and treacherous shonk, who'd use moral blackmail to hush his victim.
Already alarm bells should have rung in the skull of any reader with even a skerrick of a brain or a sense of fair play.
As I wrote that same month, why was the "accuser ... given every protection and the accused almost none"?
Theophanous had not even been interviewed by police, let alone charged, yet was already named and savagely shamed on the front page of The Age.
So toxic is the mere accusation of "rapist" that within days he was forced to step down as minister, and a year later, career shredded, quit Parliament.
Yet his accuser (let's call her Helen) had her anonymity protected by The Age - and still does today, even after being found by a court last year to be an "entirely unreliable witness" at times barely "clinging to reality, if not her sanity" as she made claims lacking "credibility, reliability and truthfulness".
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...
But he is not a rapist and he did not deserve this.
Rape victims need to be protected - but when that allows false accusations to be made with no consequences for the liar, and extreme consequences for the man accused, something needs to change.
“but when that allows false accusations to be made with no consequences for the liar”
I realize this is about Australian laws, but there’s something terribly wrong with allowing media to print or broadcast allegations of criminal conduct against anyone by “anonymous sources”.
Perhaps this isn't the best place for Mel Gibson to relocate.
naturalman1975,
Are there not laws in Australia with which to charge any woman who makes unsubstantiated rape charges?
If so, why was this woman not prosecuted?
“Perhaps this isn’t the best place for Mel Gibson to relocate.”
I’m not sure. Mel may be better off if he does. Another good example of being tried by the Media.
You forgot Al Gore!
From the article, it looks like she's not mentally competent, and hasn't been for a long time. A better question is why nobody in a responsible position realized it.
Thanks. I had not read the article (with dial-up one could grow old waiting for full articles to come up).
She’s almost certainly committed perjury, but it seems to have been decided that charging her might prevent genuine cases from being reported. Personally I think that can be addressed by charging her, and making it very clear why in her case it’s justified - this isn’t a woman who made an accusation that could not be proven because of a lack of evidence - this is a woman who a judge said explicitly that she was unreliable and untruthful.
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the vagina show specific signs of rape vs consensual sex?
It’s a shame that true justice will not be served in this case. I have always thought that false allegations deserve punishment.
Not necessarily - consensual sex can be very rough (there are people who like it that way) and rape sometimes isn’t violent in that way - somebody forced to submit at gunpoint may not struggle for example. Injury is certainly something that is looked at as possible evidence, but doesn’t necessarily mean that much, nor does the lack of it.
And in this case, the allegation was that the rape had occurred years before.
From the article:
He kept finding inconsistencies, you see. For example, he had to ask Helen to change the date of her alleged rape from June or July of 2000 to October of 1998.
He told her she also had to change her claim that she’d rung a girlfriend after the rape, since her phone records showed she’d rung a former boyfriend instead.
And could she explain having been found guilty in 1994 of making a false statement in claiming social security? How about an excuse for having falsely accused a former boss of “sexual harassment”?
Asked in court why he’d been so credulous, the detective said: “It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ...
Oy vey!
Am not familiar with this case beyond what I’ve read.
Generally speaking, sexual abuse or rape, in an “adult’s case” (compared to a young child’s case) can often be hard to prove e.g. whether it was forced or consensual sex. Especially, if a man and a woman are married or in a relationship.
I’d suggest, apart from motive to lie or rape, looking into & examining personal & family backgrounds of both parties involved i.e. Theophanous, and “the woman”, over the yrs, might shed more light.
Many behavioural patterns & trends of an individual can be determined before they commit a crime (perjury, rape, etc...) , and can continue for years.
can be determined = and/or can determine, predict future tendency and/or behaviour.
You're right -- when I got a computer and dial-up access, I was 51. Now I'm 62! Damn! ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.