[Puffer Fish]

The story of a man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison because a woman was trying to get money

(You can also read another related thread discussion: "We need to STOP giving alleged rape victims any money" viewtopic.php?f=10&t=183066 )

The below is a summary of a long story. If you want to read the full story you can read it here, but it is very long: http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/falling.htm ( story is 8 pages long, with 50 more pages of commentary )

I've summarised the story down to just one page, trying to keep the most important facts.


Man falsely accused of rape

It was 1985 and James Donald Anderson was 24 years old. Anderson had checked himself into an alcohol treatment center, in Salem, Oregon, where he became friends with a young woman. On their last night there, they had sex. Anderson did not know it at the time but this would later turn out to be the biggest mistake of his life. It would not be until 3 years later that Anderson found out that he was wanted as a fugitive for first degree rape, after he was arrested on an unrelated weapons charge in Alaska.

It was not until 4 months after his arrest that Anderson had any idea why he was wanted for rape in Oregon. It turned out that woman from so long ago had claimed she had been raped so she could file a lawsuit against the treatment center for money. The attorney for the treatment center sent a private detective to the jail in Alaska to take Anderson's statement about what happened to use in court. When Anderson called the detective a month later, he was informed that the civil trial had already taken place since they last met, and that the woman had won her case. After serving eight months in jail in Alaska for the weapons charge, Anderson was extradited to Oregon.

Anderson's dad hired an attorney for him and he was released on bail, pending the trial. It turned out the woman who was accusing him had a history of filing false rape accusations. At one point she had even accused her own brother. Unknown to Anderson at the time, the woman had severe emotional issues and was a drug addict. She had been kicked out of the detox center for not being willing to enter long term treatment. The attorney told Anderson he believed she was a desperate, homeless woman, who had wanted to get back at the treatment center by suing them. After the woman won $24,000 in the civil trial, a rape crisis counselor put pressure on her to proceed and get the man who raped her convicted.

The "victim's" testimony in the civil trial was very convincing, and there was a flood of tears. The attorney told Anderson that the rape crisis councilor had likely coached her on her testimony and rehearsed with her how to squeeze as much sympathy out of a jury as possible and cry on cue.

The trial began on November 27, 1989.

Unbelievably, the judge refused to allow Anderson's attorney to bring up the woman's prior history of false rape complaints, citing Oregon's Rape Shield Law (despite the fact that the law should not have prevented this evidence from being introduced).

The trial took place in the night. The judge had a crowded calendar and refused to reschedule. Anderson remembers that the jury was tired and looked like they just wanted to go home. Eight of the twelve jurors were women over fifty years old. Anderson noticed two of them appeared to have dozed off at one point in the long trial.

On the witness stand, the young woman told jurors that Anderson had ripped off her clothes, dragged her to the floor, and violently raped her. She testified that she tried to fight him off, but he was too strong. She claimed to have locked herself in a bathroom and cried all night. This testimony greatly differed from earlier reports she had made to police, and also contradicted witnesses who were workers at the treatment facility at the time. But the stream of crocodile tears was enough to convince the jury.

The judge sentenced Anderson to 10 years in prison.

Fortunately, 6 months later at a parole hearing, he was able to convince a Parole Board that he was not guilty. At this hearing he was able to show evidence to them that he had not been permitted to show during the trial. The Parole Board did not have the legal power to release him but was able to reduce his prison time to only 4 years.
However, only a month after the hearing, frustrated that he had to serve time in prison for a crime he did not commit, he escaped from prison, was recaptured 18 months later, and was sentenced to additional prison time for the escape.

[pugsville]

The story of a man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison because a woman was trying to get money

(You can also read another related thread discussion: "We need to STOP giving alleged rape victims any money" viewtopic.php?f=10&t=183066 )

The below is a summary of a long story. If you want to read the full story you can read it here, but it is very long: http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/falling.htm ( story is 8 pages long, with 50 more pages of commentary )

I've summarised the story down to just one page, trying to keep the most important facts.


Man falsely accused of rape

It was 1985 and James Donald Anderson was 24 years old. Anderson had checked himself into an alcohol treatment center, in Salem, Oregon, where he became friends with a young woman. On their last night there, they had sex. Anderson did not know it at the time but this would later turn out to be the biggest mistake of his life. It would not be until 3 years later that Anderson found out that he was wanted as a fugitive for first degree rape, after he was arrested on an unrelated weapons charge in Alaska.

It was not until 4 months after his arrest that Anderson had any idea why he was wanted for rape in Oregon. It turned out that woman from so long ago had claimed she had been raped so she could file a lawsuit against the treatment center for money. The attorney for the treatment center sent a private detective to the jail in Alaska to take Anderson's statement about what happened to use in court. When Anderson called the detective a month later, he was informed that the civil trial had already taken place since they last met, and that the woman had won her case. After serving eight months in jail in Alaska for the weapons charge, Anderson was extradited to Oregon.

Anderson's dad hired an attorney for him and he was released on bail, pending the trial. It turned out the woman who was accusing him had a history of filing false rape accusations. At one point she had even accused her own brother. Unknown to Anderson at the time, the woman had severe emotional issues and was a drug addict. She had been kicked out of the detox center for not being willing to enter long term treatment. The attorney told Anderson he believed she was a desperate, homeless woman, who had wanted to get back at the treatment center by suing them. After the woman won $24,000 in the civil trial, a rape crisis counselor put pressure on her to proceed and get the man who raped her convicted.

The "victim's" testimony in the civil trial was very convincing, and there was a flood of tears. The attorney told Anderson that the rape crisis councilor had likely coached her on her testimony and rehearsed with her how to squeeze as much sympathy out of a jury as possible and cry on cue.

The trial began on November 27, 1989.

Unbelievably, the judge refused to allow Anderson's attorney to bring up the woman's prior history of false rape complaints, citing Oregon's Rape Shield Law (despite the fact that the law should not have prevented this evidence from being introduced).

The trial took place in the night. The judge had a crowded calendar and refused to reschedule. Anderson remembers that the jury was tired and looked like they just wanted to go home. Eight of the twelve jurors were women over fifty years old. Anderson noticed two of them appeared to have dozed off at one point in the long trial.

On the witness stand, the young woman told jurors that Anderson had ripped off her clothes, dragged her to the floor, and violently raped her. She testified that she tried to fight him off, but he was too strong. She claimed to have locked herself in a bathroom and cried all night. This testimony greatly differed from earlier reports she had made to police, and also contradicted witnesses who were workers at the treatment facility at the time. But the stream of crocodile tears was enough to convince the jury.

The judge sentenced Anderson to 10 years in prison.

Fortunately, 6 months later at a parole hearing, he was able to convince a Parole Board that he was not guilty. At this hearing he was able to show evidence to them that he had not been permitted to show during the trial. The Parole Board did not have the legal power to release him but was able to reduce his prison time to only 4 years.
However, only a month after the hearing, frustrated that he had to serve time in prison for a crime he did not commit, he escaped from prison, was recaptured 18 months later, and was sentenced to additional prison time for the escape.

Random claims by some person on the internet.

Why should this extreme narrative of events be given ANY credibility?

[Puffer Fish]

Why should this extreme narrative of events be given ANY credibility?

The question is, why don't you want to believe it?

The man obviously admitted to many things and wasn't perfect.


There's more to this man's story too:

I already have served over four years in prison for a so-called date rape I did not commit. A crime I was convicted of with absolutely no evidence, only my word against my accuser's.
I escaped from prison once and received additional prison time. I view my escape as fully justified because I feel I am a political prisoner in the feminist controlled state of Oregon. Now, to add insult to injury, the Oregon Parole Board added 2 years to my prison term because I refuse to fully "confess" to a crime I did not commit and volunteer to enter "treatment" at the maximum security Ward 41B at the Oregon State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and predators.

My accuser was a former mental patient, drug addict, alcoholic, who had a history of falsely accusing men of sexual abuse and was falsely accusing me in order to file a 1 million dollar lawsuit (against an alcohol treatment center).

The judge overseeing my trial ruled that all this evidence could not be used in court because it could embarass the "victim," even though the only evidence of any crime was her word against mine. The Governor of Oregon has yet to rule if over 4 years out of my life is enough punishment for a crime I did not commit.

To make a long story short, I have rotted in prison for over 4 years because according to "feminist law" when a woman accuses a man of rape you cannot question her about her accusation or motives, even when there is no evidence of a crime. The so-called justice system is rigged to insure a conviction.

I was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison solely on the word of a deranged woman's accusation, who, in the past, told one of her many psychologists that she hated men and wanted to get back at them. This time, with the help of the local Rape Crisis Center where she was coached on how to act like a real victim, she succeeded in her demented revenge.

http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/ ... far07.html

[pugsville]

The question is, why don't you want to believe it?

The man obviously admitted to many things and wasn't perfect.


There's more to this man's story too:

I already have served over four years in prison for a so-called date rape I did not commit. A crime I was convicted of with absolutely no evidence, only my word against my accuser's.
I escaped from prison once and received additional prison time. I view my escape as fully justified because I feel I am a political prisoner in the feminist controlled state of Oregon. Now, to add insult to injury, the Oregon Parole Board added 2 years to my prison term because I refuse to fully "confess" to a crime I did not commit and volunteer to enter "treatment" at the maximum security Ward 41B at the Oregon State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and predators.

My accuser was a former mental patient, drug addict, alcoholic, who had a history of falsely accusing men of sexual abuse and was falsely accusing me in order to file a 1 million dollar lawsuit (against an alcohol treatment center).

The judge overseeing my trial ruled that all this evidence could not be used in court because it could embarass the "victim," even though the only evidence of any crime was her word against mine. The Governor of Oregon has yet to rule if over 4 years out of my life is enough punishment for a crime I did not commit.

To make a long story short, I have rotted in prison for over 4 years because according to "feminist law" when a woman accuses a man of rape you cannot question her about her accusation or motives, even when there is no evidence of a crime. The so-called justice system is rigged to insure a conviction.

I was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison solely on the word of a deranged woman's accusation, who, in the past, told one of her many psychologists that she hated men and wanted to get back at them. This time, with the help of the local Rape Crisis Center where she was coached on how to act like a real victim, she succeeded in her demented revenge.

http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/ ... far07.html

The internet is full of people ranting and this and that.

You want to believe this.

I mean i's illogical sloppy bullshit. For instance how does he know what she told he psychologists? He had some privileged access to her medical records? It's just illogical non-sense, full of obvious pieces of bull dust.

[Puffer Fish]

It looks like later, after the decision of the first Parole Board, another Parole Board reversed the decision and decided to add back 2 of the years to the sentence, and on top of that he still had to serve an additional 14 months for the escape.
(So altogether it looks like he spent 7 years and 2 months in prison, after having spent 8 months in prison in Alaska, although the story is not the most clear about this)


The man went on to write this:

I already have served over four years in prison for a so-called date rape I did not commit. A crime I was convicted of with absolutely no evidence, only my word against my accuser's.
I escaped from prison once and received additional prison time. I view my escape as fully justified because I feel I am a political prisoner in the feminist controlled state of Oregon. Now, to add insult to injury, the Oregon Parole Board added 2 years to my prison term because I refuse to fully "confess" to a crime I did not commit and volunteer to enter "treatment" at the maximum security Ward 41B at the Oregon State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and predators.

My accuser was a former mental patient, drug addict, alcoholic, who had a history of falsely accusing men of sexual abuse and was falsely accusing me in order to file a 1 million dollar lawsuit (against an alcohol treatment center).

The judge overseeing my trial ruled that all this evidence could not be used in court because it could embarass the "victim," even though the only evidence of any crime was her word against mine. The Governor of Oregon has yet to rule if over 4 years out of my life is enough punishment for a crime I did not commit.

To make a long story short, I have rotted in prison for over 4 years because according to "feminist law" when a woman accuses a man of rape you cannot question her about her accusation or motives, even when there is no evidence of a crime. The so-called justice system is rigged to insure a conviction.

I was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison solely on the word of a deranged woman's accusation, who, in the past, told one of her many psychologists that she hated men and wanted to get back at them. This time, with the help of the local Rape Crisis Center where she was coached on how to act like a real victim ...

In 1990, a few months before my first prison break, I went in front of the "old" Parole Board to determine how long I would actually spend in prison. Also in attendance was my so-called "victim" and her buddy from the Rape Crisis Center. I was allowed to present the Parole Board with all the evidence that was not allowed in my trial. They deducted 6 years from my prison term and declared:
the "victim" was not harmed in any way.
the "victim" was not threatened in any way.
the "crime" contained no violence.
the "victim" may have aided in the "crime."
Shortly after this hearing, I escaped from prison, only to be recaptured 18 months later and given more prison time.

It is now 1995 and I should have been paroled from my unjust conviction and starting to do my 14 month prison term for the escape. However, the Parole Board in Oregon is "new and improved," reflecting political changes here in Oregon. The Parole Board now has only 3 members, 2 women and 1 minority male. White males are no longer allowed to serve, because this would be considered sexist and racist, even though the Oregon prison population is 70 percent white male and only 5 percent female.

One of the new members of the Parole Board even runs a Rape Crisis Center herself in Hillsboro, Oregon, when she is not giving men additional prison sentences to serve. Not that she would have any bias against men. Yeah, right.

A few weeks after I filed [papers] with the Governor's Office [petitioning the governor to commute the prison sentence], the new Parole Board retaliated by ordering that before they would parole me I must pass a State Psychological Exam to prove I am not a "danger to society." Well, I took their damn State Psych test and passed it. My father hired a psychologist from the streets and I passed his psych test, also. I went to see the Parole Board again on April 6, 1995, and presented them with these 2 positive psych evaluations, my college degree completed in prison, my excellent prison conduct (besides escape), and an outstanding "parole package" stating I had a job waiting for me and a place to live. My attorney was positive I would receive parole. The Parole Board would have no reason to deny it.

Think again. Not only did they deny it, but they added two years to my prison term. They stated that even though I had 2 positive psych evaluations, they did not have to consider them, and ruled that I: "(have) a severe mental and emotional disturbance that predisposes him to violent crime rending him far too dangerous for the safety of the community." Parole denied!

They had come to this conclusion with absolutely no evidence or anything that would suggest I am a "danger to society" and should remain behind bars. They also stated that in 2 years I will come in front of them again to see if I still have a "severe mental and emotional disorder" and should be given more prison time. I told the Parole Board I was done with them and would not see them again.

Because I refuse to confess to something I did not do, show "remorse" and apologize to my so-called "victim," and because of my pro-male activism in prison, my research into false allegations of rape, my organization -- S.A.F.A.R. -- and my outspokenness against Oregon's feminist movement, I am evidently to spend endless more years in prison.

http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/ ... far07.html
by James Donald Anderson, written in 1995


related thread discussion about one of the issues in this story:
"Man who has been in prison 28 years unlikely to be released unless he admits to murder" - posted in Law, Justice section, 15 Dec 2021
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=181370

That second parole board made him continue to serve another 2 years because he refused to say that he committed the crime.

[Pants-of-dog]

The question is, why don't you want to believe it?

Are you asking why it seems unlikely?

Well, the bit where the crazy homeless drug addict lady outsmarts and manipulates a judge and twelve jurors seems impossible, especially since there was no evidence except her testimony.

[Puffer Fish]

Are you asking why it seems unlikely?

Well, the bit where the crazy homeless drug addict lady outsmarts and manipulates a judge and twelve jurors seems impossible, especially since there was no evidence except her testimony.

Are you naive enough to believe they would not convict a man based only on a woman's testimony?

It seems your mind is in denial that stuff like this could happen. It's more comfortable to assume "the system" gets it right.

What part of this didn't you get? The judge WOULD NOT let the jury hear the whole story.
And the judge cited some stupid ill-conceived Feminist-inspired law to prevent the defense from telling the jury about the woman's history.

Wasn't even a "fair" trial.

But all of you in this forum think it's just fine and normal for a judge to not let the jury hear everything, judging from the responses in this thread:
"Jury was not allowed to breach jury rules"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182882
And guess what? The original title of that thread was "Jury was not allowed to read academic paper" but then a moderator in this forum changed it, without notifying me. (now too late to be able to edit first post or thread title)

You all have a fetish for big government and seem unable to believe government could ever get it wrong.

Half of society now wants to automatically believe the woman, without any reservations about the possibility she might by lying.

[pugsville]

Are you naive enough to believe they would not convict a man based only on a woman's testimony?

It seems your mind is in denial that stuff like this could happen. It's more comfortable to assume "the system" gets it right.

What part of this didn't you get? The judge WOULD NOT let the jury hear the whole story.
And the judge cited some stupid ill-conceived Feminist-inspired law to prevent the defense from telling the jury about the woman's history.

Wasn't even a "fair" trial.

Yeah well your that guy going off with just one side of the story. he pitiful unbelievable bleating of some guy on the internet. Have you considered at any stage that what is presented is not the whole story? The parts of inaccurate or just false?

Yeah some guy whinging about his conviction in prisons saying it was so unfair an he was unfairly convicted and innocent. Have you considered any other evidence what so ever other than this guy claims?

So what are you proposing that everyone in prison who claims to be innocent should be released?

But all of you in this forum think it's just fine and normal for a judge to not let the jury hear everything, judging from the responses in this thread:
"Jury was not allowed to breach jury rules"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182882
And guess what? The original title of that thread was "Jury was not allowed to read academic paper" but then a moderator in this forum changed it, without notifying me.

They are the rules of the jury system. This is how the system works. You seem amazed that the Judge would not allow a complete overturning of the established system of how the courts and juries work.

It is fine. It is Normal. It's explicit requirement of the rules of the system.

The alternative is convictions on secret evidence never presented in court.

[Puffer Fish]

related threads:

Take a look what a false rape accusation can be do
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182114

women get lots of money for sexual harassment
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180719

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you naive enough to believe they would not convict a man based only on a woman's testimony?

If that happened, it would be very, very, very unlikely.

So much so that your entire story is probably not teue.

What part of this didn't you get? The judge WOULD NOT let the jury hear the whole story.
And the judge cited some stupid ill-conceived Feminist-inspired law to prevent the defense from telling the jury about the woman's history.

Since the rest of your story seems unrealistic, why should I believe this part either? It also seems unlikely.

Can you shownthat this stuff actually happened?

[wat0n]

What part of this didn't you get? The judge WOULD NOT let the jury hear the whole story.
And the judge cited some stupid ill-conceived Feminist-inspired law to prevent the defense from telling the jury about the woman's history.

So your complaint is that the judge is applying relevant law? It may suck, but if it's the law then it's the law. Even more so if it has in fact survived constitutional challenge.

[Wellsy]

https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/activities/the-jealous-husband-or-why-conspiracy-theorists-are-always-wrong-even-when-they-are-right(9e9c6a90-3ec6-11dc-bee9-02004c4f4f50).html

Jacques Lacan said that a husband who is pathologically jealous from suspecting that his wife is sleeping with other men is still to be considered as a pathological case, even though his wife is in fact cheating on him. Regardless of possible factual evidence of the suspicion, it is the fanaticism in looking for it everywhere, which is of interest to psychoanalysis: Why does the guy invest everything into this one question? What are the fears that he avoids confronting through the obsession with every detail of her behaviour?

[Puffer Fish]

So your complaint is that the judge is applying relevant law?

If that is truly "relevant law", and is the proper interpretation of the law (open to some degree of debate), then there is something deeply flawed in the law; the law in this case didn't grant him a fair trial.

We're all okay with men being thrown in prison because supposedly they had the right to a trial, but what about when the jury wasn't allowed to hear everything the defense wanted to show them?

Anyone see the trade-off here? Being "Pro-Women" makes it more likely men will wind up wrongfully convicted.

[pugsville]

If that is truly "relevant law", and is the proper interpretation of the law (open to some degree of debate), then there is something deeply flawed in the law; the law in this case didn't grant him a fair trial.

We're all okay with men being thrown in prison because supposedly they had the right to a trial, but what about when the jury wasn't allowed to hear everything the defense wanted to show them?

This entire thread has been constructed on the evidence of one person. Nothing more than "he says" his account of events which you have uncritically accepted as the truth. You claim to be against his evidence standard many times, that one person unsupported evidence is conclusive.

Are you just throwing out any principle to go with the case you emotional respond rather than any application of principles or examine things critically


Surely if the defendant cannot be convicted on solely of the evidence of one other person they cannot be cleared solely on their own evidence either.

Yo have only his account of events and well it;s unlikely to be objective.

How do you know the man was "falsely accused" have you reviewed the evidence form the trail? SP far you have just taken one person account as the complete and utter truth in direct violation of principles you have repeated claimed,

DO yo have principles or do you merely have fixed attitude that one side is always right regardless of evidence?