CONWAY, AR – A Conway woman is charged with filing a false police report after telling police she was raped by an acquaintance.
Police say the report was filed on Tuesday by 28-year-old Jessica Cherry. In it, she tells police she was taking a shortcut home near 701 1st street when someone she was familiar with asked to pay her for sex. According to Cherry, when she refused she was raped.
Police say that Cherry changed her story several times in subsequent days. They interviewed the alleged rapist, and he told police that Cherry offered to have sex with him in exchange for crack.
On Friday, according to police, Cherry admitted she had sex with him in exchange for drugs, but was in pain afterward. Police say Cherry told them “he did me wrong” and she reported the rape as a way to get back at him.
She is currently is jail, being held without bond and a parole hold.
Link: http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Conway-woman-arrested-for-filing-false-rape-report/fN1qhz2_ckGKWgnXP2mmaA.cspx
Monday, October 3, 2011
Woman arrested for filing false rape report
CONWAY, AR – A Conway woman is charged with filing a false police report after telling police she was raped by an acquaintance.
Police say the report was filed on Tuesday by 28-year-old Jessica Cherry. In it, she tells police she was taking a shortcut home near 701 1st street when someone she was familiar with asked to pay her for sex. According to Cherry, when she refused she was raped.
Police say that Cherry changed her story several times in subsequent days. They interviewed the alleged rapist, and he told police that Cherry offered to have sex with him in exchange for crack.
On Friday, according to police, Cherry admitted she had sex with him in exchange for drugs, but was in pain afterward. Police say Cherry told them “he did me wrong” and she reported the rape as a way to get back at him.
She is currently is jail, being held without bond and a parole hold.
Link: http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Conway-woman-arrested-for-filing-false-rape-report/fN1qhz2_ckGKWgnXP2mmaA.cspx
Police say the report was filed on Tuesday by 28-year-old Jessica Cherry. In it, she tells police she was taking a shortcut home near 701 1st street when someone she was familiar with asked to pay her for sex. According to Cherry, when she refused she was raped.
Police say that Cherry changed her story several times in subsequent days. They interviewed the alleged rapist, and he told police that Cherry offered to have sex with him in exchange for crack.
On Friday, according to police, Cherry admitted she had sex with him in exchange for drugs, but was in pain afterward. Police say Cherry told them “he did me wrong” and she reported the rape as a way to get back at him.
She is currently is jail, being held without bond and a parole hold.
Link: http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Conway-woman-arrested-for-filing-false-rape-report/fN1qhz2_ckGKWgnXP2mmaA.cspx
What is "history"?
What is "history"? And what is involved in historical research and knowledge creation?
We might begin by attempting to specify the meaning of the word. Consider this: History is the sum total of human actions, thoughts, and institutions, arranged in temporal order. Call this "substantive history." History is social action in time, performed by a specific population at a time. Individuals act, contribute to social institutions, and contribute to change. People had beliefs and modes of behavior in the past. They did various things. Their activities were embedded within, and in turn constituted, social institutions at a variety of levels. Social institutions, structures, and ideologies supervene upon the historical individuals of a time. Institutions may have great depth, breadth, and complexity. Institutions, structures, and ideologies display dynamics of change that derive ultimately from the mentalities and actions of the individuals who inhabit them during a period of time. And both behavior and institutions change over time. "History" is the temporally ordered sum of all these facts.
We are interested in understanding history for a couple of reasons.
We are interested in knowing how people lived and thought in times and settings very distant from our own. What was it like to be a medieval baker or beadle or wife?Understanding the first kind of thing has a lot in common with ethnography or interpretive research; we uncover what we can of the circumstances, actions, and symbols of a group of people, and we try to reconstruct their mentality and their reasons for acting as they did.
We are interested in the concrete social arrangements and institutions that existed at various points in time. We would like to know how marriage or tax collecting worked in rural Ming China.
We are interested in the dynamics of change -- the reasons for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the reasons for a rash of peasant rebellions in 18th-century China, the reasons for the occurrence and characteristics of the Industrial Revolution.
We are interested in quantitative assembly of historical data -- population, economic activity, other kinds of social data.
Understanding the second kind of thing requires careful study of existing records that permit inferences about how basic institutions worked. Examples include bodies of law, charters, manorial records, and the like.
Understanding the third kind of thing has to do with identifying dynamic causal processes of the sort that the social sciences study -- why legislatures tend towards certain kinds of institutions and behaviors, why bureaucracies tend towards rigidity, why people are susceptible to extremism. This second kind of question pays attention to both internal reasons for change and external reasons -- an internal dynamic towards dynastic instability and an external shock imposed by sudden climate change, for example.
Understanding the fourth kind of thing requires discovering data sources in the historical records and archives that permit estimation of things like marriage rates, grain prices, or church membership totals, and then analyzing and presenting these data in convincing ways using established methods in social science quantitative methodologies.
So historians can ask a relatively limited series of questions about time and change:
- Why did actors choose to act as they did during period P?
- How were actors shaped in agency and identity during period P?
- What institutions, structures, and mentalities existed during period P?
- What dynamics of change were inherent in institutions, structures, and mentalities of these sorts during period P?
- What contingent events and actions took place in period P that influenced the mentality, actions, and structures of the successor period P'?
- Historians discover factual circumstances about conditions of life, action, and thought (mentality) during specific periods.
- Historians identify changes in these conditions from one period to another.
- Historians identify the features of social relationships, institutions, structures, and ideologies during specific periods.
- Historians use a "path-tracing" methodology to discern how circumstances and actions in one period led to specific outcomes in a later period.
- Historians make use of the findings of the social sciences to identify social dynamics associated with specific kinds of social institutions, structures, and ways of thinking.
This description leaves out a great deal of what historians spend a lot of time on: formulating narratives that make sense, discovering unexpected causes or outcomes of historical circumstances, finding new perspectives on old historical questions, or just figuring out what is going on in an archival source (like the photo above), for example. I've tried to strip away those elements of the historian's work, in order to highlight the logic of the varieties of factual and explanatory claims that historians make. What I've described is abstract, of course, but it seems to capture the main elements of historical cognition. In an upcoming post I will ask how philosophy is relevant to this body of intellectual activity -- why, that is, we might want to have a philosophy of history.
What is "history"?
What is "history"? And what is involved in historical research and knowledge creation?
We might begin by attempting to specify the meaning of the word. Consider this: History is the sum total of human actions, thoughts, and institutions, arranged in temporal order. Call this "substantive history." History is social action in time, performed by a specific population at a time. Individuals act, contribute to social institutions, and contribute to change. People had beliefs and modes of behavior in the past. They did various things. Their activities were embedded within, and in turn constituted, social institutions at a variety of levels. Social institutions, structures, and ideologies supervene upon the historical individuals of a time. Institutions may have great depth, breadth, and complexity. Institutions, structures, and ideologies display dynamics of change that derive ultimately from the mentalities and actions of the individuals who inhabit them during a period of time. And both behavior and institutions change over time. "History" is the temporally ordered sum of all these facts.
We are interested in understanding history for a couple of reasons.
We are interested in knowing how people lived and thought in times and settings very distant from our own. What was it like to be a medieval baker or beadle or wife?Understanding the first kind of thing has a lot in common with ethnography or interpretive research; we uncover what we can of the circumstances, actions, and symbols of a group of people, and we try to reconstruct their mentality and their reasons for acting as they did.
We are interested in the concrete social arrangements and institutions that existed at various points in time. We would like to know how marriage or tax collecting worked in rural Ming China.
We are interested in the dynamics of change -- the reasons for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the reasons for a rash of peasant rebellions in 18th-century China, the reasons for the occurrence and characteristics of the Industrial Revolution.
We are interested in quantitative assembly of historical data -- population, economic activity, other kinds of social data.
Understanding the second kind of thing requires careful study of existing records that permit inferences about how basic institutions worked. Examples include bodies of law, charters, manorial records, and the like.
Understanding the third kind of thing has to do with identifying dynamic causal processes of the sort that the social sciences study -- why legislatures tend towards certain kinds of institutions and behaviors, why bureaucracies tend towards rigidity, why people are susceptible to extremism. This second kind of question pays attention to both internal reasons for change and external reasons -- an internal dynamic towards dynastic instability and an external shock imposed by sudden climate change, for example.
Understanding the fourth kind of thing requires discovering data sources in the historical records and archives that permit estimation of things like marriage rates, grain prices, or church membership totals, and then analyzing and presenting these data in convincing ways using established methods in social science quantitative methodologies.
So historians can ask a relatively limited series of questions about time and change:
- Why did actors choose to act as they did during period P?
- How were actors shaped in agency and identity during period P?
- What institutions, structures, and mentalities existed during period P?
- What dynamics of change were inherent in institutions, structures, and mentalities of these sorts during period P?
- What contingent events and actions took place in period P that influenced the mentality, actions, and structures of the successor period P'?
- Historians discover factual circumstances about conditions of life, action, and thought (mentality) during specific periods.
- Historians identify changes in these conditions from one period to another.
- Historians identify the features of social relationships, institutions, structures, and ideologies during specific periods.
- Historians use a "path-tracing" methodology to discern how circumstances and actions in one period led to specific outcomes in a later period.
- Historians make use of the findings of the social sciences to identify social dynamics associated with specific kinds of social institutions, structures, and ways of thinking.
This description leaves out a great deal of what historians spend a lot of time on: formulating narratives that make sense, discovering unexpected causes or outcomes of historical circumstances, finding new perspectives on old historical questions, or just figuring out what is going on in an archival source (like the photo above), for example. I've tried to strip away those elements of the historian's work, in order to highlight the logic of the varieties of factual and explanatory claims that historians make. What I've described is abstract, of course, but it seems to capture the main elements of historical cognition. In an upcoming post I will ask how philosophy is relevant to this body of intellectual activity -- why, that is, we might want to have a philosophy of history.
What is "history"?
What is "history"? And what is involved in historical research and knowledge creation?
We might begin by attempting to specify the meaning of the word. Consider this: History is the sum total of human actions, thoughts, and institutions, arranged in temporal order. Call this "substantive history." History is social action in time, performed by a specific population at a time. Individuals act, contribute to social institutions, and contribute to change. People had beliefs and modes of behavior in the past. They did various things. Their activities were embedded within, and in turn constituted, social institutions at a variety of levels. Social institutions, structures, and ideologies supervene upon the historical individuals of a time. Institutions may have great depth, breadth, and complexity. Institutions, structures, and ideologies display dynamics of change that derive ultimately from the mentalities and actions of the individuals who inhabit them during a period of time. And both behavior and institutions change over time. "History" is the temporally ordered sum of all these facts.
We are interested in understanding history for a couple of reasons.
We are interested in knowing how people lived and thought in times and settings very distant from our own. What was it like to be a medieval baker or beadle or wife?Understanding the first kind of thing has a lot in common with ethnography or interpretive research; we uncover what we can of the circumstances, actions, and symbols of a group of people, and we try to reconstruct their mentality and their reasons for acting as they did.
We are interested in the concrete social arrangements and institutions that existed at various points in time. We would like to know how marriage or tax collecting worked in rural Ming China.
We are interested in the dynamics of change -- the reasons for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the reasons for a rash of peasant rebellions in 18th-century China, the reasons for the occurrence and characteristics of the Industrial Revolution.
We are interested in quantitative assembly of historical data -- population, economic activity, other kinds of social data.
Understanding the second kind of thing requires careful study of existing records that permit inferences about how basic institutions worked. Examples include bodies of law, charters, manorial records, and the like.
Understanding the third kind of thing has to do with identifying dynamic causal processes of the sort that the social sciences study -- why legislatures tend towards certain kinds of institutions and behaviors, why bureaucracies tend towards rigidity, why people are susceptible to extremism. This second kind of question pays attention to both internal reasons for change and external reasons -- an internal dynamic towards dynastic instability and an external shock imposed by sudden climate change, for example.
Understanding the fourth kind of thing requires discovering data sources in the historical records and archives that permit estimation of things like marriage rates, grain prices, or church membership totals, and then analyzing and presenting these data in convincing ways using established methods in social science quantitative methodologies.
So historians can ask a relatively limited series of questions about time and change:
- Why did actors choose to act as they did during period P?
- How were actors shaped in agency and identity during period P?
- What institutions, structures, and mentalities existed during period P?
- What dynamics of change were inherent in institutions, structures, and mentalities of these sorts during period P?
- What contingent events and actions took place in period P that influenced the mentality, actions, and structures of the successor period P'?
- Historians discover factual circumstances about conditions of life, action, and thought (mentality) during specific periods.
- Historians identify changes in these conditions from one period to another.
- Historians identify the features of social relationships, institutions, structures, and ideologies during specific periods.
- Historians use a "path-tracing" methodology to discern how circumstances and actions in one period led to specific outcomes in a later period.
- Historians make use of the findings of the social sciences to identify social dynamics associated with specific kinds of social institutions, structures, and ways of thinking.
This description leaves out a great deal of what historians spend a lot of time on: formulating narratives that make sense, discovering unexpected causes or outcomes of historical circumstances, finding new perspectives on old historical questions, or just figuring out what is going on in an archival source (like the photo above), for example. I've tried to strip away those elements of the historian's work, in order to highlight the logic of the varieties of factual and explanatory claims that historians make. What I've described is abstract, of course, but it seems to capture the main elements of historical cognition. In an upcoming post I will ask how philosophy is relevant to this body of intellectual activity -- why, that is, we might want to have a philosophy of history.
War hero accused of awful sex crime is cleared because cell phone pictures contradicted accuser's tale
The information in this post is from news accounts. No one has been convicted. But a man arrested for a sex crime has been cleared.
Heath Kirk, 22, who lost part of his leg serving in Afghanistan, said that he and Danielle Marie Gates, 19, were on a date last week that included dinner, a movie, and consensual sex.
For reasons not revealed, Gates accused him of kidnapping him her and forcing her to have sex with him near the Alamo Quarry Market, a thriving San Antonio shopping and dining center.
Kirk denied the claim and accused Gates of lying. Kirk and not Gates, of course, was arrested. He was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault.
How did the news media report it? It showed Kirk donning an orange prison jumpsuit, with the look of a young man who simply couldn't believe what was happening to him.
Here's how one news outlet reported his ordeal: "A man is locked up, accused of kidnapping and raping an ex-girlfriend. Police say Heath Kirk, 23, kidnapped a 19-year-old woman from a career college campus on Southwest Military on Tuesday. According to an affidavit, Kirk drove the woman to a field near the Quarry and sexually assaulted her. Kirk is now charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexual abuse.Man Arrested For Kidnapping and Sexual Assault."
Anyone reading that account would think that Heath Kirk committed a heinous sex crime. If the report had been accurate, it would have stated: "A man was arrested on the basis of a woman's claim that he kidnapped and rape her. The man denies the allegation and claims the woman is lying. Police are investigating."
Well, the story gets predictable from there. According to a news report: "Investigators believe that she was lying after Kirk produced explicit pictures on a cell phone that contradicted her story."
Once again, technology to the rescue. How many young men would be languishing behind bars on rape charges if it weren't for cell phone or other cameras? Why, the number we've reported on this site alone is staggering. (Remember the feminist writer blathering on about the Hofstra false rape case who declared that the young man who made the video that kept five falsely accused young men from serving 25 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit "is the most twisted" one of all. See here.) And how many innocent young men are languishing behind bars for crimes they didn't commit, only because there is no photographic evidence to prove they didn't do it?
Investigators conducted a second interview with Gates and determined she made false statements to detectives, prompting investigators to pursue a warrant for her arrest. A judge signed the warrant Saturday afternoon and Gates was arrested on charges of aggravated perjury, police said. According to the Texas Penal Code, aggravated perjury is a third degree felony, punishable by between two and 10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000.
It has to be a relief to Mr. Kirk. But it's impossible to undo the damage done to him.
SOURCES:
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_7630.shtml
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_7642.shtml?wap=0
http://www.ksat.com/news/29367645/detail.html
War hero accused of awful sex crime is cleared because cell phone pictures contradicted accuser's tale
The information in this post is from news accounts. No one has been convicted. But a man arrested for a sex crime has been cleared.
Heath Kirk, 22, who lost part of his leg serving in Afghanistan, said that he and Danielle Marie Gates, 19, were on a date last week that included dinner, a movie, and consensual sex.
For reasons not revealed, Gates accused him of kidnapping him her and forcing her to have sex with him near the Alamo Quarry Market, a thriving San Antonio shopping and dining center.
Kirk denied the claim and accused Gates of lying. Kirk and not Gates, of course, was arrested. He was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault.
How did the news media report it? It showed Kirk donning an orange prison jumpsuit, with the look of a young man who simply couldn't believe what was happening to him.
Here's how one news outlet reported his ordeal: "A man is locked up, accused of kidnapping and raping an ex-girlfriend. Police say Heath Kirk, 23, kidnapped a 19-year-old woman from a career college campus on Southwest Military on Tuesday. According to an affidavit, Kirk drove the woman to a field near the Quarry and sexually assaulted her. Kirk is now charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexual abuse.Man Arrested For Kidnapping and Sexual Assault."
Anyone reading that account would think that Heath Kirk committed a heinous sex crime. If the report had been accurate, it would have stated: "A man was arrested on the basis of a woman's claim that he kidnapped and rape her. The man denies the allegation and claims the woman is lying. Police are investigating."
Well, the story gets predictable from there. According to a news report: "Investigators believe that she was lying after Kirk produced explicit pictures on a cell phone that contradicted her story."
Once again, technology to the rescue. How many young men would be languishing behind bars on rape charges if it weren't for cell phone or other cameras? Why, the number we've reported on this site alone is staggering. (Remember the feminist writer blathering on about the Hofstra false rape case who declared that the young man who made the video that kept five falsely accused young men from serving 25 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit "is the most twisted" one of all. See here.) And how many innocent young men are languishing behind bars for crimes they didn't commit, only because there is no photographic evidence to prove they didn't do it?
Investigators conducted a second interview with Gates and determined she made false statements to detectives, prompting investigators to pursue a warrant for her arrest. A judge signed the warrant Saturday afternoon and Gates was arrested on charges of aggravated perjury, police said. According to the Texas Penal Code, aggravated perjury is a third degree felony, punishable by between two and 10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000.
It has to be a relief to Mr. Kirk. But it's impossible to undo the damage done to him.
SOURCES:
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_7630.shtml
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_7642.shtml?wap=0
http://www.ksat.com/news/29367645/detail.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)