A young mother who falsely cried rape, sending an innocent man to prison for nearly four years, will experience firsthand what he suffered -- she'll spend one to three years behind bars for perjury.
"I wish her the best of luck," said William McCaffrey last night of Biurny Peguero Gonzalez.
"Jail isn't easy."
McCaffrey, 33, of The Bronx, was locked up after Gonzalez accused him of raping her at knifepoint on a Bronx street back in 2005.
It was a lie she repeated to doctors, cops, prosecutors, a grand jury and the jury that convicted McCaffrey.
"What happened in this case is one of the worst things that can possibly happen in our criminal-justice system," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Solomon said as he pronounced sentence.
McCaffrey said he has some sympathy for Gonzalez and hopes she "doesn't go through what I went though.
"I was an accused rapist in prison," he said, adding that in prison, "rape is the worst crime possible."
All is clearly not forgiven.
A person who would "lie and paint somebody as a rapist is worse than a real rapist or a real murderer," McCaffrey said
He also blamed "the arresting officers, the prosecution." Everyone, he said, "wanted to believe the lie, the ADA [assistant district attorney] first and foremost."
Judge Solomon said, "It's hard to imagine why anyone could have done this."
It turned out Gonzalez robbed McCaffrey of four years of his life for the most trivial of reasons.
She'd been hanging out with a group of girlfriends when she accepted an invitation to get into his car.
After she returned, her pals were furious that she'd ditched them -- so she made up the rape story to gain their sympathy.
She will be eligible for parole in a year -- after serving a one-quarter of the time her victim was imprisoned.
Gonzalez was taken away after making a tearful apology to McCaffrey, who was not in court.
She also begged for mercy on behalf of her two sons, ages 3 months and 7 years.
"To Mr. McCaffrey, I am aware that nothing I do or say to him can bring back the years he spent in jail," she said. "I want him to know I will carry this guilt for the rest of my life."
Gonzalez, 27, had recanted her story last year after new DNA evidence proved she'd been lying and a priest to whom she'd confessed urged her to come clean.
Gonzalez had repeatedly insisted she was "110 percent" sure McCaffrey had raped her after they met in Inwood, in upper Manhattan, and she drunkenly accepted a ride.
"It was a complete and utter lie," Assistant DA Evan Krutoy told Judge Solomon.
Posting because this is the first time I can recall ever seeing a woman convicted for a false rape accusation. Its stuff like this that makes justice so much more difficult to figure out.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
...so if I read this right, he got convicted without any proof at all; just her word against his?
If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your style
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Thus Aristotle laid it down that a heavy object falls faster then a light one does.
The important thing about this idea is not that he was wrong, but that it never occurred to Aristotle to check it.
He served four years in prison while she gets three years tops, maybe only one year in prison according to the article. Seems the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Wait, how can new DNA evidence resurface only years later? How the hell does that work? Did they have the DNA evidence but didn't examine in back then, or was the diagnosis/results all wrong/mistaken, or did they just swab her cunt years later for genetic evidence (very unlikely )?
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN! Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Wait, how can new DNA evidence resurface only years later? How the hell does that work? Did they have the DNA evidence but didn't examine in back then, or was the diagnosis/results all wrong/mistaken, or did they just swab her cunt years later for genetic evidence (very unlikely )?
I'd guess the first one, they had the material on file but didn't bother analysing it/didn't do a full analysis/new methods allowed the lab to get a better picture of what happened, though it's just speculation, of course. There were murder cases in Poland where genetic material was secured on site decades ago, that are just now being solved because we can actually do DNA testing nowadays.
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. - NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
Aha. I see. But this case was fairly recent. So how can the DNA evidence be not tested when the case was ongoing? Why did it have to take a re-examination, after the poor man was already behind bars for years, for accurate conclusions? That just sucks. What the hell were they doing, then, when the case was still ongoing and when the evidence was first processed?
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN! Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
...the most trivial, pointless reason for ruining a man's life. Because she didn't want to piss off her friends. I hope she spent every day of those four years thinking of the innocent man she put away, but I have the feeling that anyone who does that and doesn't immediately retract the claim the day after is a heartless, selfish bitch.
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Aha. I see. But this case was fairly recent. So how can the DNA evidence be not tested when the case was ongoing? Why did it have to take a re-examination, after the poor man was already behind bars for years, for accurate conclusions? That just sucks. What the hell were they doing, then, when the case was still ongoing and when the evidence was first processed?
I don't know, man, I'll be the first to admit it's just a semi-probable theory. I'd have to know much more about the way criminal investigation is done to say anything actually substantial
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. - NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
hongi wrote:...the most trivial, pointless reason for ruining a man's life. Because she didn't want to piss off her friends. I hope she spent every day of those four years thinking of the innocent man she put away, but I have the feeling that anyone who does that and doesn't immediately retract the claim the day after is a heartless, selfish bitch.
From the rest of the story it sounds like her 'friends' may have been hitting/slapping her because they were mad. Still doesn't excuse it, but DAMN those are some shit friends.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
haard wrote:...so if I read this right, he got convicted without any proof at all; just her word against his?
Which is primary evidence by the way. Victim's give evidence that they've been victimised all the time. It's actually the most damning piece of evidence you can have other than direct physical evidence. Seriously, if we didn't know she was lying, who would you believe? Many women who are victims don't come forward because of this (it's a terrible thing to be raped; even worse to not be believed), and while its easy to blame the jury I'd rather lay the blame at the party that caused this: the district attorney, who always has the discretion not to prosecute if the case isn't solid.
mr friendly guy wrote:He served four years in prison while she gets three years tops, maybe only one year in prison according to the article. Seems the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
I know it doesn't seem fair, but she was convicted of perjury, which as a crime rarely gets this kind of sentence to begin with. She will have a criminal conviction for the rest of her life (if the law there works as I think it does) and to boot, it's not just any crime, but one that directly and forever questions her integrity. He on the other hand has his freedom, which nothing else can compare to.
haard wrote:...so if I read this right, he got convicted without any proof at all; just her word against his?
Which is primary evidence by the way. Victim's give evidence that they've been victimised all the time. It's actually the most damning piece of evidence you can have other than direct physical evidence. Seriously, if we didn't know she was lying, who would you believe?
Well, not knowing anything about US legal system (less than nothing perhaps, considering TV...), I still thought there had to be some kind of collaborating evidence to actually sentence someone. Still, I'll concede that without more information than in the linked article, its hard to tell, for example, what result the medical exam had. (Bruising from being slapped by friends?)
If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your style
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Thus Aristotle laid it down that a heavy object falls faster then a light one does.
The important thing about this idea is not that he was wrong, but that it never occurred to Aristotle to check it.
haard wrote:...so if I read this right, he got convicted without any proof at all; just her word against his?
Which is primary evidence by the way. Victim's give evidence that they've been victimised all the time. It's actually the most damning piece of evidence you can have other than direct physical evidence. Seriously, if we didn't know she was lying, who would you believe?
Well, not knowing anything about US legal system (less than nothing perhaps, considering TV...), I still thought there had to be some kind of collaborating evidence to actually sentence someone. Still, I'll concede that without more information than in the linked article, its hard to tell, for example, what result the medical exam had. (Bruising from being slapped by friends?)
I think you mean 'corroborating evidence', but think about how it sounds:
Woman- He asked me to go for a ride in his car and then he raped me!
Man- That's crazy. I asked her to ride in a car with me, and maybe we made out a little, but I didn't rape her!
DA- Don't you have... like... nine violent crimes on your record?
Man- Yeah, but this time I'm telling the TRUTH!
Honestly, how many of us would dismiss him as an unrepentant thug? I doubt he had a good enough attorney to make the case that there wasn't the phsyical evidence to support the crime.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
I think you mean 'corroborating evidence',
Yes, that one - thanks.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
but think about how it sounds:
Woman- He asked me to go for a ride in his car and then he raped me!
Man- That's crazy. I asked her to ride in a car with me, and maybe we made out a little, but I didn't rape her!
DA- Don't you have... like... nine violent crimes on your record?
Man- Yeah, but this time I'm telling the TRUTH!
Honestly, how many of us would dismiss him as an unrepentant thug? I doubt he had a good enough attorney to make the case that there wasn't the phsyical evidence to support the crime.
[/quote]
And I thought that's why you had laws and judges, so people did not get punished out of hand. As far as I know he didn't even have any history of sex crimes. The way you paint it, once you're sentenced the first time, accusation equals guilt.
If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your style
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Thus Aristotle laid it down that a heavy object falls faster then a light one does.
The important thing about this idea is not that he was wrong, but that it never occurred to Aristotle to check it.
Generally here in America if you are accused of a sex crime like rape you are guilty until proven innocent and unless you have a really really good lawyer you are usually going to get hit with the crime.
I am thrilled that she is answering for that. There seems to be this inherent sympathy and assumption of truthfulness that a woman garners when she accuses somebody of rape. The laws are designed to make the accusations as easy for them as possible and as difficult for the accused to fight as possible. Although made with noble intentions (like fear of retribution preventing people from coming forward who were legitimately raped or assaulted), it strikes me as the kind of thing that can be abused by people far too easily.
Gonzalez was taken away after making a tearful apology to McCaffrey, who was not in court.
She also begged for mercy on behalf of her two sons, ages 3 months and 7 years.
This is the slimiest shit I can imagine. Trying to weasel out of it using the same routine that landed her in the situation in the first place. At least nobody in the courtroom will trust her anymore.
A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'
'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'
I'm confused though - did she say at the end of the article that she actually thought he had raped her and now she's changed her mind? What the hell does that mean?
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of. - Benjamin Franklin
hongi wrote:...the most trivial, pointless reason for ruining a man's life. Because she didn't want to piss off her friends. I hope she spent every day of those four years thinking of the innocent man she put away, but I have the feeling that anyone who does that and doesn't immediately retract the claim the day after is a heartless, selfish bitch.
From the rest of the story it sounds like her 'friends' may have been hitting/slapping her because they were mad. Still doesn't excuse it, but DAMN those are some shit friends.
It only says they were "furious" with her. Too vague to even make that assertion. At most, it'd seem like she just got subjected into a whine-and-bitch fest.
EDIT: Ah, yeah, I missed the part about the slapping around claim in the article. Still, my point stands. This was a stupid reason. And claiming that and the sexual abuse when she was younger strikes me as bull. It sounds like she's making up justifications.
Fuck, I can't believe how casually and trivially this woman just condemned a man to the hell of prison for the stupidest of reasons. And sounds like she would've been content to let it stay that way, too, had it it not been for the new evidence. And she still gets less than the man's served sentence, let alone his projected sentence.
I believe perjury in the first degree (which false testimony is usually classified under) is a Class D felony in New York, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years and $7,000.
DA could probably also have tried her with a few other charges (2nd degree perjury for signing a false statement for instance) and easily brought the maximum sentence up to 8 years.
But even that wouldn't have made it right. This guy went to prison a convicted rapist. He must have been in Hell.
I love the part where she begs on behalf of her children. SURE lets leave her with the kids she's such a positive role model getting drunk and getting into strangers cars, repeatedly lying in front of judges.. at least it bothered her enough to tell her priest but I hope
I'm not saying shes a bad mother take her away from them, but its a pretty weak plea for mercy.
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Well I'm doubting that suing her in civil court will get him his legal fees back. Single mom with 2 kids banging random dudes doesn't scream Ms. Moneybags to me.
If I were him I would go for the ADA that prosecuted him and investigate whether all measures were taken to make sure the physical evidence was used in good faith. 4 years may have caused some advances in DNA testing, but surely not the 20 year time frames that you hear about normally in convictions being overturned. At least then he might be able to get the financial restitution that the woman would not be able to give him.
Going after the woman will also endanger the kids but as she is going to be in jail for a year, she would have to have other arrangements for her kids otherwise I would think they would become wards of the state. So you could sue her civiliy to ruin her, but that would just be for spite.
VRWC : Justice League : SDN Weight Watchers : BOTM : Former AYVB
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
)?
"
- PeZook
