May 24, 2012

"Former high school football standout exonerated in rape case."

The L.A. Times reports:
[Advised by his lawyer to] take a plea deal rather than having the "he said-she said" case go to trial... [Brian] Banks pleaded no contest to one count of forcible rape, was incarcerated for about six years and had to register as a sex offender.

In a movie-worthy twist, his former accuser got in touch with him via Facebook after he left prison. The two eventually met in person.

According to court papers, she admitted to him she lied but later refused to tell prosecutors the same thing lest she have to give back the $1.5 million she and her family won in a civil suit against Long Beach schools.`
ADDED: "I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back."

88 comments:

Scott M said...

Every once in a great while, a man will come across an article that makes a man want to pick up something and smash it. It's extremely rare, but this one almost did it.

Now...walk through the gate at midnight.

Scott M said...

Where's the follow-up? Where is the reporting on the legal problems the accuser now faces? No ability to sue the state on the guy's part because he got the plea deal?

Petunia said...

If what Mr. Banks is saying is true, someone needs to be prosecuted for fraud, have to pay back the money, and go to jail herself.

Someone also needs to be sued by Mr. Banks in civil court.

Karma.

Chip S. said...

Wanetta Gibson explained she wanted to “let bygones be bygones.”

Well, OK then.

campy said...

Women never lie about rape (unless they're recanting).

Franklin said...

"Now...walk through the gate at midnight."

I GoT it!

MadisonMan said...

I hope for two things: One, that he can now live a productive life, even with the HUGE challenge of missing out on ten critical, vital years.

I hope also that he can forgive the woman who falsely charged him, effectively taking away his future.

She and her family face a whole lot of trouble in the future.

MadisonMan said...

I see he is training still for a football career. Getting into the NFL would be the ultimate feel-good story. The screenplay writes itself.

But I agree with ScottM -- where is the followup in the story about what the accuser now faces?

Nathan Alexander said...

It would be evil and wrong to interpolate anything from a single data point...

...but what if it isn't actually a solitary data point?

Mary Beth said...

Now...walk through the gate at midnight.

A woman has no honor.

Christopher in MA said...

Why do we not know her name? This disgusting creature needs to have the rest of her life made a living hell.

As far as "revenge," the cynical side of me suspects this wench (for lack of a more obscene epithet) has been advised or has already taken steps to insulate herself from either being prosecuted for fraud or sued in civil court. But it would be sweet justice if Banks sued her into dumpster-diving, hooking-on-a-cold-Seattle-street-corner poverty.

David said...

Perhaps the woman could provide him with a four year scholarship to the college of his choice and restitution for his lost earnings while in prison. His lawyer could chip in for a nice car and a down payment on a house. Her lawyer in the damages suit might want to come up with a thoughtful gift too.

Blessings to this young man, who still has a lot to overcome.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

The issue of retribution is really sticky. If the false accuser is charged with a crime and goes to jail for the same sentence as he got. That would be fair.

But if that happens, the next false accuser will never recant and the man stays in prison.

Thoughts?

yashu said...

Horrible. How is what this woman did not evil? As evil-- nay, much more evil-- than most rapists (excluding the murderers).

Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

His lawyer played smart, I think. He very likely wasn't going to win that trial if it was just he-said, she-said.

Which is a whole other problem.

campy said...

But if that happens, the next false accuser will never recant and the man stays in prison.

Thoughts?

Let's give her another $1.5 mil to reward her for recanting.

PatCA said...

This is a terrible story. I have to think that this kid was told to plea out because he was black or poor. Yes, we have to know more, but it stinks.

At least the girl had a glimmer of decency in her. I guess spending that million didn't totally assuage her guilty conscience.

Darcy said...

This is outrageous and incredibly sad.

Until lying rape accusers start getting serious jail time - how about double what they cost their victims? - they will keep lying with very little fear.

edutcher said...

Now that we've proven the War on Women is a crock, let's move on to the War on Men.

This is another example of how the Demos and their womyn's auxiliary, the feminists, have created a system where all a woman has to do is go to the cops (or Gloria Allred) and she can make a million bucks simply by ruining a man's life.

Screw same sex marriage; that's the real civil rights issue.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Sex is too risky at that age.

Unwanted pregnancy
Unwanted STD
Unwanted Rape accusation
Unwanted reputation (Rush)
Unwanted STD.. oh I said that already.
Unwanted Post Sexual Situation PSS

There is so much unwants you have to skirt to get a little want..

Amartel said...

Pure evil. Note that the LA Times still does not name the accuser. It's like they're still protecting the identity of a victim. Autopilot knee jerk journalism.

WANETTA. GIBSON.

Wanetta needs to be named and shamed, imprisoned for six years, and then when she gets out she can pay him for the rest of his life. And give the civil case money back to wherever it came from. It's not hers and it's probably not his either.

Shanna said...

Damn.

This girl has done so much wrong.

David said...

This result was achieved by the California Innocence Project with assistance from students at California Western School of Law. Once again proving that all things good in the legal world do not derive from Harvard and Yale.

Patrick said...

Wrong thread. I certainly did not get a kick out of this story.

Amartel said...

"At least the girl had a glimmer of decency in her."

Magic Eight Ball says: doubtful. She probably contacted him on Facebook because once he got out of prison he looked like a meal ticket again.

bagoh20 said...

I can't even express how angry this makes me. To do that to a man for some money. To ruin his whole life. Don't forget she was willing to put him in prison for the rest of his life for some money.

Why did she do it?

1) She's an evil bitch.

2) She knew nothing would happen to her if it was found out.

So where really is the evil living?

Lem said...

This girl has done so much wrong.

I'm confused.

I thought the polls said lying about sex was no big deal.

Ken said...

Bill,

But if that happens, the next false accuser will never recant and the man stays in prison.

Thoughts?


How about in he said/she said cases, the one being accused goes free? How about placing the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused? When the fuck did a simple accusation with no forthcoming evidence not become reasonable doubt? Why are women simply believed to be angels, while men are lying thieving cads? Let's get this straight: many men are lying thieving cads and women are lying scandalous whores. Not thinking so will get you sent to prison for six years for simply pissing off a chick or so said chick can get $1.5M.

CatherineM said...

Let bygones be bygones?

There was a similar case in Long Island NY and the woman, after confessing to her priest that she lied and the priest encouraged her to turn herself in, was convicted for her crime and sentenced to serve the same time the accused served.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/justice_happened_things_system_solomon_JyyLFVitMM4bx63gpD1ouI

campy said...

How about in he said/she said cases, the one being accused goes free?

Oh come on, Ken.

bagoh20 said...

This is exactly why I had all my sexual organs removed and replaced with a pleasant and attractive pinwheel.

If I ever get accused of rape, I intend to do my great reveal in court in an extended and dramatic fashion on the day of final arguments.

Pogo said...

Men are disposable, always have been, made even moreso by feminism and leftism.

Kensington said...

"In a movie-worthy twist..."

Now that's some quality journalism right there.

Nathan Alexander said...

"Better that 100 guilty go free, than 1 innocent be convicted."

Except in the case of rape, where it is better than 100 men go to jail and have their reputations ruined, than have 1 woman not get a man convicted of rape on her whim, whether because she was actually raped, wants to get revenge, is trying to keep her boyfriend from being angry for her cheating on him, or wants to get $1.5 million dollars.

Hella awesome legal principle feminists have established, there.

Matthew Sablan said...

See, this didn't even go to a jury, did it? That's what bothers me. I honestly think that juries are unlikely to convict a man solely on a woman's say-so. But, I'm also an eternal optimist.

campy said...

Hella awesome legal principle feminists have established, there.

It works well for women.

Does anything else matter?

prairie wind said...

THIS is the way the system works. Don't worry about where the truth is, just get someone in prison. So the prosecutor charges him with everything possible, then offers him a deal that lets him avoid the felony plus the really scary sentence but leaves him with a felony plus the still scary sentence. Nobody in the court system gives a shit about guilt or innocence.

Michelle Alexander proposes that everyone turn down the plea deal and go to court. Make the prosecution prove something! When you take the deal, the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything. Think about all the people in prison who were not proven guilty in a court of law. Her idea is that if everyone went to court, the system would simply collapse because it isn't able to handle all the cases. Something like 90% of all cases never go to court.

Great idea except that the stakes are too high for individuals to risk making a choice that might benefit the group but do harm to himself. Would your choice be different from the choice this man made?

Prosecutors have too much power and until legislators are willing to make the right choice--for the group--and work to reduce prosecutorial power...we are all screwed. Yes, even you. Anything that damages liberty is bad for all.

Rliyen said...

Wow. Just wow.

"I lied, but I don't want to give the money back."

That's unbelievable.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

The second article said that he would get 41 years to life if he lost at trial. That's fucked up. I can't blame him or his lawyer for taking 6 years.

How can a prosecutor be allowed to hang that type of time over someone but also be willing to take 6 years? The State has way too much power in that situation.

Maybe the maximum sentence should only be what the prosecutor offered in a plea. That way he can have his day in court and if he loses he only gets what the State offered. That seems a reasonable resolution.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@prairie wind

I like the idea of the State having to go to trial on all cases. They would then have to prioritize their cases and a lot if bullshit cases would be dropped.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Maybe the maximum sentence should only be what the prosecutor offered in a plea. That way he can have his day in court and if he loses he only gets what the State offered. That seems a reasonable resolution."

-- The deal, in a non-broken system, is: "Look, you're guilty, but don't want to admit it. Here are my cards. Save us the time, effort and expense. In exchange, you can plead no contest or whatever, but still go away." The reduction in sentence is supposed to be what you get for agreeing. The problem is the system is broken where they can hang sixty, seventy years over your head, then offer up ten to not have to do any work. I'd much rather go with what someone else posted: Force them to prove it. In court. I think I'd do that, though, I don't know if my resolve would buckle in the hot seat.

bagoh20 said...

The woman, and anyone she told who did not come forward should go to jail. That would stop this shit.

Paddy O said...

Was listening to coverage of this, and the announcement right after the hearing, on NPR in my drive into work today.

What struck me then was not just the accuser. Of course, she's evil, in every way that word bears meaning.

It's the defense attorney who urged him to plead guilty. No DNA evidence (part of her claim was that he ejaculated in her--but police found no evidence of this). The stairwell was on a distant part of campus, so while his accuser claimed he dragged her, he would have had to go through numerous public spaces. There was no evidence at all, and it sounded like a lot of what she was saying was easily proven wrong--making her testimony as a whole suspect. The Innocence Project guy said that's why they took this on--as they very rarely take on cases after the person is let out of jail.

It sounded to me like the case could have been very easily defended, and the Defense Attorney clearly just didn't want to do the work of defense.

That sounds negligent to me. What's the defense attorney have to say about this now? Some shame should go their way too.

bagoh20 said...

I agree there should be no 41 years or 6 years type of trade off. That's simply assuring that innocent people will be tempted to plead guilty. You don't need that much of an incentive to get a guilty person to plead.

It should be maybe 1/3 reduction in sentence, maximum.

Freeman Hunt said...

That's horrible.

t-man said...

If she refused to retell the story to prosecutors, how do they know that she actually said it? Was there a recording? A witness? I was puzzled by the lack of detail ("According to Court papers...") on how the Court learned of her statement.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It sounded to me like the case could have been very easily defended, and the Defense Attorney clearly just didn't want to do the work of defense. That sounds negligent to me. What's the defense attorney have to say about this now? Some shame should go their way too."

-- You say that, but they were looking at the guy having a fair shot at recovering after getting out of jail or ending his life. Mind you, yes, it seems like it would be easy to defend. But, what if the prosecution produced one witness who said: "Yeah, I saw the two of them going by. He had his arm around her, I didn't think any thing of it."

What if the medical examiner says that, in some cases of rape, the woman is confused and may not remember properly. Or, if even worse -- what if your client's defense is true? He had consensual sex with the woman, and his semen is found somewhere else (her clothing, etc.)?

It's a huge risk to take, when such an appealing reward is right there. I can't really fault the lawyer. He had no good decisions to offer his client, so I assume he offered them to his client, then did what the client said to do.

Freeman Hunt said...

Not that he's exonerated but the girl--how could one do such a thing?! How has she ever had a night's sleep since?

fivewheels said...

"I lied, but I don't want to give the money back."

That's unbelievable.


Sadly, not really. In my head I know (want to believe?) that women are not generally like this. People will say it's one in a million who is so selfish, cold-hearted, dishonest and evil. The more I live my life and see the women around me, though, the more I think it's more like 1 in 5.

Hey, it's still a minority. For now.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How has she ever had a night's sleep since?"

Probably on a bed of $1.5 million.

Jane said...

You know, there are so many risks to a young man having sex -- and yet the preaching is always targeted to women. A teen girl can choose to have an abortion. A boy can end up with 18 years of child support, or worse, in cases such as this.

campy said...

A young man can get the Brian Banks treatment without ever having met the accuser.

traditionalguy said...

He needed a defense lawyer.

As to people feeling entitled to money for hitting the lottery of life, I blame the lottery for creating that FUN.

If he could get her on tape admitting it, than he can still get a measure of justice.

lemondog said...

If she refused to retell the story to prosecutors, how do they know that she actually said it? Was there a recording? A witness? I was puzzled by the lack of detail ("According to Court papers...") on how the Court learned of her statement.

Videotape according to
CBS News

During a second meeting that was secretly videotaped, she told Banks, "'I will go through with helping you but it's like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don't want to have to pay it back,"' according to a defense investigator who was at the meeting.

Jay said...

And here I thought women don't lie about rape.

Never, ever.

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't understand how someone keeps up that sort of sin. It's one thing to convince oneself to do a terrible thing in a moment or a series of moments. But to spend every second of life knowing that you could undo the wrong you have done simply by telling the truth and to never have been overcome by conscience enough to do it, this is unimaginable. You have to choose evil at every moment of life to keep up the ruse. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

lemondog said...

She was 15 years old.

ABC News

"Gibson said that they were just playing around, being curious about sexuality, and that the adults got involved and blew it all out of proportion," according to legal documents. "She said the adults 'put stuff in [her] head.'"

fivewheels said...

Freeman, this is what "self-centered" means. If it's good for the woman, nothing else is a consideration.

I don't know anyone who's wrongly put a man in prison for personal gain, but I have known some who have lied, cheated, stolen, emotionally abused, sabotaged and pulled the whoops-birth-control-"failed" baby trap.

They're lesser sins than what this woman did, but it's still conscious wrongdoing that a non-self-centered person like you or me could not live with. They somehow can.

fivewheels said...

I shouldn't have made that sex-specific, BTW. I'm not saying it's equal, though.

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wyo sis said...

Besides all the direct evil and consequences of evil there is a societal damage. every time one of these false accusations comes out there is that much less belief available for the next case. How long will it be before people just say, there's a 50% chance she's lying and decline to do anything about it. Then the shoe will be back on the other foot with men getting away with evil. We can't go on forever playing victim politics with real crimes. Eventually no one is believed and everyone is unsafe.
We have to restore the idea of honor and truth. Shame could do a lot to restore truth. But, on one is allowed to experience shame anymore.

bgates said...

I honestly think that juries are unlikely to convict a man solely on a woman's say-so.

I served on a jury like that. The accused was not a good guy - multiple convictions of different sorts of things. The accuser was sympathetic - a minor dependent of the accused's girlfriend. We listened to the case, decided, "shit, this guy may have abused this girl" - and acquitted him, because we all had too much doubt to lock him up.

bgates said...

I lied, but I don't want to give the money back.

This woman has a bright future in California politics.

Iapetus said...

"He needed a defense lawyer."

Perhaps what he needed to defend him in the rape trial was a MALE attorney. He had an attorney. His lawyer was a woman. Strike two, Mr. Banks, strike two.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater said...

Nothing will happen to Wanetta. Pussy pass.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

The Crack Emcee said...

BWAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-AHA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!

God, I love people,..

Paul said...

I sure hope he was wearing a wire and recorded it all.

Send her to prison and TAKE that million.

Enzyte Bob said...

Our rape laws and evidentiary procedure in many respects rests on the presumption that a woman would never lie about something like rape. Furthermore, our rape laws are designed from the quaint old standpoint that taking away a womans chastity robbed her of something so meaningful and special, that we have to mete out harsh punishment to the male predator.

Turns out that women are neither particularly truthful, nor is there much chastity these days.

Another thing libs got wrong.

Shrikeback said...

If it's only her word against his, it should not even go to trial. That should be insufficient evidence to even be charged,

kmg said...

There is a website, register-her.com, that registers false rape accusers, female DV perpetrators, female child molestors, etc.

The existence of such a site is necessary since feminists have changed the laws to free women of these crimes, and enable them to file anonymous accusations.

What other crime exists for which the accuser gets to remain anonymous?

Anyway, keep the website in mind : register-her.com

kmg said...

If it's only her word against his, it should not even go to trial. That should be insufficient evidence to even be charged,

You are assuming that feminists have the same concept of justice as exists in the US constitution. The US constitution has been around for a lot less time than primate mating dynamics.

If the woman regrets the sex a month later, that is 'rape'.

If you wonder why feminists want partial-birth abortion to be legal, the reason is similar. It does not take 8.5 months to decide if the pregnancy was due to 'rape or incest'. Rather, feminists want to have the right to abort a pregnancy if the man loses his job, or becomes less attractive.

Female chimpanzees do this too.

kmg said...

By the way, 40-50% of rape accusations are false. The police even admit this.

If I am ever on a jury for a rape trial, unless the evidence is overwhelming, I will acquit the man, and use jury nullification if necessary.

When so many rapes are false, I am going to go in under Duke Lacrosse assumptions. Short of overwhelming evidence, I will acquit the man.

Manty Five said...

What if he had been raped in prison?

People who think that prison rape is a funny joke but then support laws that make a simple, evidence-less accusation of rape into such a slam-dunk case that even the one of two people on earth who know for a FACT that the rape didn't happen would consider going to prison for 6 years rather than face a jury... those kind of people need to leave Earth right now.

Q said...

His lawyer played smart, I think. He very likely wasn't going to win that trial if it was just he-said, she-said.


Which is a whole other problem.



That's the big problem, isn't it? There is no other crime where one person can go to jail entirely because of another persons words.

kmg said...

I can't even express how angry this makes me. To do that to a man for some money. To ruin his whole life. Don't forget she was willing to put him in prison for the rest of his life for some money.

The even scarier thing is, quite a few women are like this. Even a majority.

Read 'The Misandry Bubble' and all the links in the article.

Grown men have admitted to being brought to tears from reading that article. But they are glad they did.

Modern notions of justice and due process are very fragile things that will not stand in the way of feminists' desire to transfer women away from the consequences of their decisions.

kmg said...

The Misandry Bubble. The above link was broken, sorry.

kmg said...

Screw same sex marriage; that's the real civil rights issue.

Republicans are too cowardly to address what actually harms marriage, because that would mean Republicans would have to hold women to the same standard of accountability as men.

Republicans have no goal more urgent than groveling to women.

Petunia said...

The Daily Mail website has a picture of Ms. Wanetta Gibson. She appears to be a charming young lady. Not.

In these days of the internet, social media, and naming-and-shaming, I'm thinking her life is going to be somewhat unpleasant for awhile.

Petunia said...

Bets on whether the Long Beach School District will sue her and her mother to try to get their money back? If I were a taxpayer in that district I think I'd be demanding it.

Squatch said...

I think Wanetta Gibson needs to pay some monthly support to the man whose life she ruined. Something akin to a healthy percentage of the windfall she got from the civil court award... whether or not she still has that money.

Let's call it, "jailimony".

kmg said...

I can only hope that Ann Althouse follows in the footsteps of Dr. Helen, and becomes a fierce anti-misandry voice...

The world needs this..

SDN said...

"But if that happens, the next false accuser will never recant and the man stays in prison."

The next false accuser should never have that choice because the law should never allow the case to court unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence of coercion.

Until then, jury nullification will have to do.

John Lynch said...

Why hide her name when she isn't the victim?

Why protect the guilty? Media protects women when this situation arises, and there's absolutely no reason for it. Worse, I doubt she'll face much of a consequence.

Oh, and the falsely accused man was black. I'm sure that had nothing to do with what happened to him.

Sabinal said...

most likely Wanetta doesn't want to give up the money because she already spent it all.

Alan said...

The accuser deserves to be haunted by the ghost of Sam Kinison for the rest of her life.

ndspinelli said...

How can any intelligent person be shocked by this?? This is one of the 7 deadly sins[greed]. It has become a boilerplate question by criminal defense attorneys to ask rape victims on the stand, "Have you, or do you plan to, file a civil lawsuit regarding this alleged incident?" And, I've worked cases where the victim lied about planning on filing a suit. Now, that doesn't mean the rape didn't occur. But, when someone lies under oath, I have a hard time believing anything they say. I know Freeman is smart, but she must be incredibly naive, which does mitigate that intelligence.