# Wanetta Gibson Courageously Comes Forward; Admits Her Rape Accusation Was False (Not) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 7, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446 "2012-06-07T23:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/61 "2012-06-09T16:18:41Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I wasn’t saying there was a law, I was saying there oughtta be. I have to confess between a rape victim publically humiliated or a man’s reputation ruined I don’t feel too concerned about whether the new organizations are getting their juicy details. > > So, then what? Got any better ideas? As a general rule, proceedings in a criminal court are matters of public record. Secret trials are not exactly in keeping with our theory of government, although I suppose that’s been undermined recently to the point where we’ve gotten used to it. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/62 "2012-06-09T16:33:07Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > As a general rule, proceedings in a criminal court are matters of public record. Secret trials are not exactly in keeping with our theory of government, although I suppose that’s been undermined recently to the point where we’ve gotten used to it. Is there any way they could release all details of the case except the actual names? I know jack shit about the legal system; I’m just trying to brainstorm ways to avoid these kinds of problems. I don’t believe the way these cases are handled now is a benefit either to the alleged victim or the accused. I would also echo the concern of someone upthread that someone can be convicted based only on the alleged victim’s testimony. If true, that’s a problem. We require physical evidence for other crimes, I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be required for rape. And I say that as someone who feels society is strongly biased against rape victims in general. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/63 "2012-06-09T16:36:21Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > As a general rule, proceedings in a criminal court are matters of public record. Secret trials are not exactly in keeping with our theory of government, although I suppose that’s been undermined recently to the point where we’ve gotten used to it. Does something being a matter of public record mean that news agencies are necessarily entitled to report on it, or simply that individuals are entitled to find out ? I’d like to think that there’s a middle ground between secret trials, which are obviously dangerous, and a level of reporting that is humiliating at best for the victim, and potentially dangerous for someone found not guilty of the crime. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/64 "2012-06-09T16:45:00Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Does something being a matter of public record mean that news agencies are necessarily entitled to report on it, Pretty much, yeah. What else would it mean? That the public could observe the proceedings as long as they never spoke of it? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/65 "2012-06-09T17:02:03Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Pretty much, yeah. What else would it mean? That the public could observe the proceedings as long as they never spoke of it? That someone could contact the court and find out the results of the proceedings. There is a difference between speaking about something and publishing it. I’m not advocating this level of control of the media, just wondering whether it’s a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/66 "2012-06-09T17:48:27Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I would also echo the concern of someone upthread that someone can be convicted based only on the alleged victim’s testimony. . In this case, though, it seems to me that the issue wasn’t whether her word alone would be enough to get a conviction or not, but that he was given the choice between 5 years behind bars or an insanely longer sentence if he dared to plead his case. I really dislike the concept of plea bargains, but then it’s probably in large part a cultural thing. However, even accepting the concept, having to pick between a guaranteed 5 years sentence and rolling the dice for either 0 or 40 years can’t be a good thing. Either the crime deserve a sentence in the 5 years range or it deserves a sentence in the 40 years range. That the lenght of it would change so drastically depending on whether you’re pleading your case or not (as opposed to depending on the actual circumstances of the case) makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/67 "2012-06-09T23:27:03Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I would also echo the concern of someone upthread that someone can be convicted based only on the alleged victim’s testimony. If true, that’s a problem. We require physical evidence for other crimes, I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be required for rape. It is true. But we don’t require physical evidence for other crimes. A robber can be convicted on my testimony that he robbed me, and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/68 "2012-06-09T23:47:43Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I wasn’t saying there was a law, I was saying there oughtta be. I have to confess between a rape victim publically humiliated or a man’s reputation ruined I don’t feel too concerned about whether the new organizations are getting their juicy details. > > So, then what? Got any better ideas? You’d need a Constitutional Amendment to allow the government to prevent media organizations from releasing the names. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/69 "2012-06-10T00:49:15Z")
Could someone give a couple quick points on why the courts couldn’t handle such cases the same way they do for juveniles? ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/70 "2012-06-10T14:51:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is true. > > But we don’t require physical evidence for other crimes. > > A robber can be convicted on my testimony that he robbed me, and nothing more. Ok, I did not know that. But would a case with that little evidence be all that likely to go to trial? Are we saying that the way things currently are is the way they have to be? In all honesty, I would be more inclined to believe a rape victim’s testimony than not believe it. That might be problematic in the cases where the “victims” are oughtright lying. Damn, I wish people weren’t so horrible to each other. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/71 "2012-06-10T18:52:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Here’s what an [earlier LA Times article](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/woman-who-recanted-rape-claim-likely-to-keep-750000-settlement.html) had to say:The same story says it’s also unlikely that she’ll have to repay any of the money she won in the settlement from the school. > [@billfish678](#): > > That seems even more fucked up than the rest of the story. Not so much its the biggest injustice here (far from it) but more of “how the hell does she get away with THAT?” It wasn’t a civil judgment. It was a settlement. The whole point of a settlement (generally) is that the defendant doesn’t admit liability. If it turns out they _weren’t_ liable, well, they said so all along and they were free to go to trial. Some states have statutory provisions governing restitution for insurance fraud, but the school was probably self-insured and unlikely to fall under any of the statutory provisions anyway. A bigger problem, as noted above, is that she has no assets and the school would have to spend additional money to litigate with nothing to recover. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/72 "2012-06-10T19:04:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It wasn’t a civil judgment. It was a settlement. The whole point of a settlement (generally) is that the defendant doesn’t admit liability. If it turns out they _weren’t_ liable, well, they said so all along and they were free to go to trial. Some states have statutory provisions governing restitution for insurance fraud, but the school was probably self-insured and unlikely to fall under any of the statutory provisions anyway. > > A bigger problem, as noted above, is that she has no assets and the school would have to spend additional money to litigate with nothing to recover. Ahh, that makes some sense. Still sucks though. Well, I guess we can at least hope in the long run she’s fucked up her life more than she did his. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/73 "2012-06-11T20:36:47Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Women who falsely accuse and be proven so should pay for it. That’s a horrible horrible thing to do. It makes me furious. > > But women who do make an accusation of rape and a jury finds the person not guilty? They should be protected. Like [this woman](http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19571621?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com). I can sue anyone for anything but that doesn’t mean that it will go anywhere. I don’t get to prosecute you for rape, the district attorney has to do that and they have prosecutorial immunity. That lawsuit is going nowhere, it will be dismissed out of hand. > [@AqualungBats5th](#): > > For the woman who actually did lie? Fuck no. I’m not defending her. > > But, and no intention to necessarily suggest **Inigo** wasn’t really joking, that particular idea is very often put forth completely in earnest. So you’ll forgive me for being humorless about it. The problem with all your outrage is that 10-20% of the accusations of rape are false. These cases often never make trial because the cops or prosecutors can usually figure out that the woman is lying but being falsely accused with rape isn’t a black swan event. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/74 "2012-06-11T21:35:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The problem with all your outrage is that 10-20% of the accusations of rape are false. These cases often never make trial because the cops or prosecutors can usually figure out that the woman is lying but being falsely accused with rape isn’t a black swan event. You really think one out of every five rape accusations is a lie? Cite. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/75 "2012-06-11T21:46:48Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You really think one out of every five rape accusations is a lie? > > Cite. Seconded. I’ve always read that false rape accusations are pretty rare, and no more common than false accusations of other crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/76 "2012-06-11T21:47:38Z")
[https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt](https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt) > [@](#): > > Commentary by Peter Neufeld, Esq. and Barry C. Scheck Mr. Scheck Is Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Education Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law New York, New York > > … Powerful proof for this proposition lies with an extraordinary set of data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since it began forensic DNA testing in 1989. Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have “matched” or included the primary suspect.1 The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26-percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/77 "2012-06-11T21:54:11Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Seconded. > > I’ve always read that false rape accusations are pretty rare, and no more common than false accusations of other crimes. [False accusation of rape - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape) lists lots of different studies. They show anywhere from 1.5% to 90% false rape accusations. Throw out the obvious outliers, and in the middle there you will find something like 10% to 25% false accusations. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/78 "2012-06-11T22:01:04Z")
I think one needs to note the difference between “I was raped (and its true) and I/we think its this guy (who it isnt)” and “I was raped (and I wasn’t) and he did it (which he obviously did not)”. The second is most likely lower than the first but I also think the second is a bit higher than many people would like to think it is. Common? Probably not. Rare? No. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/79 "2012-06-11T22:02:01Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > [https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt](https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt) That is pretty remarkable (or horrifying). Those examples seem to include both false accusations and cases of mistaken identity. Not that it matters to the falsely accused, but I draw a distinction in my mind, at least, between women who intentionally lie about being raped by someone they know and women who get a false “hit” on a stranger in a photo lineup and then become convinced it’s the guy. ETA: sniped. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446/80 "2012-06-11T23:11:31Z")
Well, look at it from her side. Its a bad side to begin with, but Banks has already been cleared. What more would giving up $750000 do for him? Nothing really. What about the school? Over the last 5 years, its probably not a whole lot. Yes, she lied and she SHOULD return the money, make a full apology, and admit that she lied. But personally I may not want to return the money either. I would find some way to rationalize it so that I can keep it, figuring it won’t do the other parties much good. Especially if she spent it already and can’t return it [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wanetta-gibson-courageously-comes-forward-admits-her-rape-accusation-was-false-not/624446.md?page=5)