20 Months? Is That All?

A woman who twice falsely cried rape against an ex-boyfriend has been jailed for 20 months.

Yup. Twice! They let her off the first one, of course:

Beverley Brandreth, 20, first lied that he had raped her in February 2010 when she said she was pregnant and it caused her to lose her baby.

That allegation fell apart when it was discovered she was not pregnant at the time but prosecutors advised that no charge be brought against her.

She pushed her luck too far, though:

Last November she made a second claim to police that he had dragged her into woods where she was beaten unconscious and raped, and he threatened to kill her if she reported the matter.

Her lies were unmasked again when the victim later proved he was in a DVD store with his new girlfriend when Brandreth claimed he attacked her.

He proved..? Isn't that the police's job?

We are spared the defence's babble in the local paper, but the Beeb helpfully adds it:

In court, defence lawyer Rebecca Tanner said Brandreth was "a complicated young woman, someone who has complex needs and a complex psychological profile".

She got what she 'needs'. Well, not enough of it, but still...

We get the same old boilerplate from the police, of course:

Det Con Chris Aunins said her claims "make a mockery of the experiences suffered by genuine victims".

"In investigating this false claim, officers wasted countless hours interviewing witnesses and on paperwork when they could have been dealing with a genuine emergency," he said.

"Not only that, but the man she alleged was responsible had to spend time in a custody cell, wrongly accused of an offence he did not commit.

"Unfairly, he has been put through a tremendous amount of stress when he is completely innocent."

And is that all her fault? Or...might some of it be yours?

H/T: Curmudgeon via email

The Truth Might Set You Free....Eventually.

Prosecutors said Coast made up the sexual assault after her parents caught her looking at pornographic websites in 2007 when she was 17.

She then allegedly made up a story of prior sexual abuse to explain her behavior.

And, unfortunately for a friend, named him. He did four years behind bars...

Mr Montgomery, who lost more than 100lb during his time in prison, was given a conditional pardon by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell.

He had always maintained his innocence throughout his incarceration.

Mr Montgomery was freed in time to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family at his father's home in Vale, North Carolina.

Lucky, lucky man...

His accuser has now recanted her story and has been charged with perjury.

I hope the penalty for perjury is at least four years.

H/T: Mark Wadsworth via email

Oh Yes, My God Yes!

Greenland, of Folkstone, Kent, screamed, 'Oh no, my God no', as the sentence was passed.

She maintained her innocence throughout her trial, but her account of what happened on the night in December last year was rejected by the jury.

Quite why she thought she'd be believed when the prosecution had access to the phone records, we'll never, ever know:

The court heard the following morning they woke up at 11am and had breakfast together before leaving.

Mr Traversi said: 'On the way home she asked if they would be seeing each other again... and he gave a half-hearted response.'

Later in the day, Greenland texted him saying: 'Hi Nick, just to say had a lovely night. Sorry about the sick and I do hope that you do not think that I am some kind of tart for sleeping with you.

'I would like to see you again and really do hope you do me. But if you don’t want to I won’t mind. Of course, it would be nice...'

Mr Mouna replied that he 'quite liked my single life', adding, 'I am quite happy to meet up with you and do it again with you'.

She replied: 'No, thanks for all that. I have just been used. Thanks a lot.'

She didn't help much by cranking up full 'Fatal Attraction' mode:

Hours later, Greenland took an overdose of tablets and vodka and was rushed to hospital.

She had texted Mr Traversi saying: 'Well I hope you sort your life out because at the moment I feel like ending mine. I have got vodka and pills I just hope I don’t wake up.'

I think I feel the most pity, though, for her poor defence brief, who really didn't have much to work with:

Paul Hogben, defending, said Greenland 'couldn’t cope with rejection.'

Gosh! Ya think..?

H/T: Mark Wadsworth via email

Gosh, I Wonder Why She Didn’t Turn Up To Fight Her Corner?

A hairdresser has failed in a bid to force her former employers to pay her wages – while she was in jail.

Ummmm….

Miss Atkins' claims of constructive dismissal were thrown out by chairman Victoria Wallace on Tuesday at Ashford Employment Tribunal after she failed to turn up for the hearing, despite staff trying to contact her.

Ah. Not because they were patently absurd, then? Oh, well…

In written statements made to the tribunal, both Miss Atkins and her-ex boss said she took annual leave to attend her trial in December last year.

When she was found guilty at Canterbury Crown Court, Judge Adele Williams said Atkins had perpetrated a "dreadful crime".

But documents submitted to the tribunal show that Miss Atkins claimed her employer made assurances her job was safe before she was convicted.

Why would an employer say such a thing?

"I came home on June 27, 2012, and rang Mrs McDonald to ask if I could come back to work and the reply to that was 'no'."

Miss Atkins claimed in her statement she was thus owed backdated salary for the days missed while she was in jail.

She said: "I would like nine months' worth of wages, which is how long I was in prison for – as I thought I still had a job – which comes to £7,000."

Yes, I'm sure you would. I’d like a pony.

But Mrs McDonald said there was no agreement to keep a job open and that her business was stigmatised by her worker's conviction.

And, since ‘This Is Kent’ hasn't seen fit to mention what it was she was convicted of, we have to turn to Google (and thereafter ‘The Mirror’) for the details:

“My heart was pounding,” says Wayne.

“I was thinking maybe I was to be kept in custody until my trial. I asked the ¬policeman guarding me, he said he didn't know.

“Half an hour went by. Then another officer came down. He told me I was being released without charge because new evidence had come to light. As it sank in the relief swept over me.

“I went home to hugs from my ¬family. That evening an officer called me to explain what had happened.

"Police had learned that the night before Kelly had left her handbag in a pub and it had been handed in to a member of staff. It was the bag she said I’d stolen.

“Apparently, she’d reported being mugged for her handbag before she’d added that she’d also been raped.

"That was why the police were fairly sure she was lying. Days later I was told she’d been charged with perverting the course of justice, which she denied.”

Yup, she’s a false rape claimant. And false mugging claimant into the bargain. Failing at both  luckily enough  No real surprise she didn't try to shoot for ‘best of three’ then….

And I wonder who encouraged her claim to the Employment Tribunal?

Aren't You Forgetting Someone?

Detective Inspector Debbie Dooley said the case made 'a mockery of the awful experiences of genuine victims'.

She said: “As soon as we received this report we launched a thorough investigation and as a result we have established that no such offence occurred.

“To lie about being the victim of such a serious offence obviously causes undue alarm within the community and makes a mockery of the awful experiences of genuine victims.

“We treat all allegations of rape extremely seriously and our investigations into serious sexual offences are meticulous. We will always do whatever we can to uncover the truth and anyone who lies will be caught out and dealt with.”

Nice line in outrage, but if it's such an awful thing for real victims and the community in general, why the pathetic punishment..?

The woman, who had claimed she was attacked in an area of land behind a Heywood pub in the early hours of Monday, has been fined £80.

And aren't we forgetting someone else who didn't deserve this?

Police interviewed a man under caution who told them he'd had consensual sex with the woman who later admitted this was true.

Or doesn't his experience count for much?

H/T: Curmudgeon via email

So, Riddle Me This....

...if the feminist crackpots regard anonymity for men accused of rape as an awful idea, preventing further victims from coming forward, why the double standard here?

A television actor has been charged with the rape of a teenage boy. The star, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly attacked the 14-year-old at a theatre in the London area.

Is it because they think they've got all the victims already?

He is also accused of three other sex attacks and an "assault by beating" at a London school, Scotland Yard said.

Or is it because, if the 'Mail' is correct, the actor in question is only 17 himself?

But if so....doesn't that totally invalidate the crazy feminist's objection? Why should the age matter if the lack of anonymity is purely to encourage further victims?

I guess we might know in November, when he appears at court. They'll have to name him then, won't they?