Woman falsely sends man to prison for rape, tells the truth, goes to prison
This story covers the gamut, from the depths of human evil to a turning toward God to undo the evil, accompanied by the acceptance of due punishment.
Five years ago, the then 22-year old Biurny Peguero Gonzalez did an inconceivably wicked thing. For no reason to speak of, for a whim, she made up a completely false accusation of rape against an innocent man, and she persisted in the accusation until he was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, tormented by guilt, she confessed to a priest, and he led her to take the steps to free the innocent man. And now she is going to prison for her crime.
A priest showed the way
Rape liar: Confession booth to clink
By BRAD HAMILTON and SUSANNAH CAHALAN
February 28, 2010
She thought she might get off with a few Hail Marys. Instead, she got three years in prison.
The 27-year-old New Jersey woman who cried rape and put away an innocent man had no idea what coming clean would cost her when she stepped into a confessional a year ago and told her priest everything.
Biurny Peguero Gonzalez
What materialist theory of human nature
can explain her crime or her confession?
“She was going to confess this was her sin and that was it,” said a source familiar with the shocking recantation of Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, who on Tuesday was sentenced to one to three years in prison for falsely accusing William McCaffrey of a violent sexual assault in 2005.
McCaffrey, whom Gonzalez had accused of raping her on a deserted Inwood street, served nearly four years of a 20-year sentence. The Bronx man, now 33, was exonerated in December after Gonzalez, a mother of two, admitted concocting the tale to gain sympathy from friends.
Although Gonzalez desperately wanted McCaffrey freed, “I don’t think she felt that it was going to go beyond that confession. She just happened to pick a priest who said, ‘Oh, no, no, no …’ “
The priest, the Rev. Zeljko Guberovic of St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church in Union City, made it clear to her that her obligation didn’t end with admitting the lie.
He told her she had to do everything in her power to get McCaffrey out, said sources familiar with the case.
That eventually put her in the cross hairs of Manhattan prosecutors, who charged her with perjury, but Gonzalez never wavered, they said.
“She’s the hero, not me,” Guberovic told The Post.
Gonzalez’s admission in March 2009 was her first trip to the confession booth since McCaffrey’s conviction four years earlier, and it may have been the first in her life, the sources said.
“The priest said, ‘The only way you can make this right is to get a lawyer and get this man out of jail,’ ” said Gonzalez’s lawyer, Paul Callan.
She agreed, and Guberovic contacted a lawyer he knew who in turn reached out to Callan.
“It took enormous courage to turn herself in. It was something that was spiritually motivated. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose,” Callan said.
Gonzalez was tormented by her lie, Callan said.
“She was having trouble sleeping. She’s been haunted by guilt,” he said.
Guberovic’s active role in the case left Biurny “enormously grateful,” Callan said, but it drew criticism from some parishioners who questioned whether he acted appropriately.
And the Newark Archdiocese reminded the reverend he was not to reveal the contents of any confession.
“He’s not supposed to say anything,” Callan said. “There’s a thing called priest-penitent privilege.”
[end of article]
- end of initial entry -
Hannon writes:
I am confused about the reporting of the story of the woman who falsely accused a man of rape and finally repented her sin, resulting in his release. As far as I can tell the story makes no mention of the reverend saying anything to any third party, only that he strongly encouraged her to do the right thing (which she did).
“He’s not supposed to say anything,” Callan said. “There’s a thing called priest-penitent privilege.”
Why are the church higher ups admonishing the reverend here?
LA replies:
That last part of the story is ambiguous and confusing. It sounds like silly handwringing, since as far as we can tell, the priest did not say anything to anyone else or turn her in; he convinced her to turn herself in.
Though perhaps there were some higher ups who didn’t like the fact that he took an active role at all and persuaded her to turn herself in. Given the state of the Church, that wouldn’t surprise me.
Patrick H. writes:
You ask in the caption what materialist theory of human nature can explain her crime or her confession?
Why, clearly both her crime and her confession are the result of the laws of physics together with the initial conditions of the universe at the Big Bang.
There’s an equation somewhere that covers all of this. Isn’t there?
P.S. It is a wonderful thing to see the redemption of a human soul. Well done, Biurny Piero Gonzalez!
Jake Jacobsen writes:
I have a peculiar loathing for the cheapening of the word “hero.” I don’t think a person can be a hero merely for undoing a horrible crime they committed. Certainly they may be courageous and many other perfectly fine adjectives but didn’t she take hero off the table when she falsely accused him of rape and allowed him to serve four years for her lie?
Would a thief ever be heroic in returning their swag?
LA replies:
I agree. Her crime is far too wicked for her to be called a hero just for confessing the crime, something she was absolutely required to do. Yes, in order to confess, she had to rise above herself, and given the darkness she had been in, she needed grace to do that. But she is not a hero. She is a criminal who has willingly confessed her crime and must pay for it. She has done the right thing. But when the only alternative to doing the right thing was to persist in a horrible crime, doing the right thing is not heroic, but simply necessary. She will spend her time in prison contemplating her crime, and feeling extremely remorseful about it. She looks grave and serious, which is the way a sentenced criminal ought to look. Her demeanor shows what jail ought to be about, not body building and watching TV.
Jake replies:
I agree with you that she clearly recognizes her guilt and that is a terrific thing. What Liberal society isn’t capable of understanding is that all she’s done is return to status quo ante, as Chris Rock used to say ‘You ain’t ‘posed to go to jail.’
Kilroy M. writes from Australia:
He is sentenced to twenty years and serves four, for a crime he did not commit. She gets three for framing him. This is sickening. I believe that the framer should server the sentence of the framed. That has poetic (if not natural) justice about it. What is happening here is just another softly-softly approach toward female transgressives; I am supported in this opinion by the description of her as a hero. I agree with Mr. Jacobsen’s objection to the phrase being used in this way.
On a related point: I worked at a State prosecutor’s office several years ago, in a team that was more than 90 percent females (it became obvious to me at one Friday evening “after work” team soiree that more than half those women were lesbians—it was graphically demonstrated at the bar and dance floor). One actually boasted to me about getting a bloke fired for sexual harassment. She said this with a giggle. The subtext was simple: “I wasn’t demeaned, threatened or in fear—I simply used a legal weapon against somebody I did not like.” I sometimes think that in these cases, the onus of proof is de facto reversed.
In the past, it was men who bore the responsibility for defending women from assault, dishonour and all kinds of attack. Today however, cultural feminists have created a society where the institutions of State (i.e. the law etc) are often used maliciously against men who have no recourse other than the hope for their persecutors’ conscience.
LA replies:
There’s no question that modern liberalism / feminism / sexual liberation / lesbian liberation has unleashed female evil. And female evil can be worse than male evil. Still, I think you’re being too negative about this woman. She confessed, she came forward, she got the man released, and she is going to prison.
On another question, I’ve missed in the reporting on this how the defendant was found guilty given that there was no physical evidence, unless they had consensual relations and then she accused him of rape.
Laura Wood writes:
I agree with Jake’s point that it is wrong to call this woman a hero. I can’t imagine what kind of low and sordid world she inhabits if she did this to impress her friends.
It’s amazing that a man can be convicted of rape with no circumstantial evidence. The prosecutors in the case should be disciplined too.
Posted March 2
Mark P. writes:
You wrote:
On another question, I’ve missed in the reporting on this how the defendant was found guilty given that there was no physical evidence, unless they had consensual relations and then she accused him of rape.
This is probably accurate. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of rape accusations are of exactly this type. Basically, women scream rape when she is trying to get revenge against some man. Real rapes result in the murder of women.
Another reason to avoid women.
LA replies:
They did not have sexual relations, consensual or otherwise. There was zero physical evidence of a rape.
Michael Jose writes:
On your recent post, Hannon wrote:
I am confused about the reporting of the story of the woman who falsely accused a man of rape and finally repented her sin, resulting in his release. As far as I can tell the story makes no mention of the reverend saying anything to any third party, only that he strongly encouraged her to do the right thing (which she did).
“He’s not supposed to say anything,” Callan said. “There’s a thing called priest-penitent privilege.”
Why are the church higher ups admonishing the reverend here?
I can see three possibilities:
(1) They are referring to Guberovic’s contacting the lawyer, although it is not clear that he told the lawyer anything other than “Ms. Gonzalez wants to talk to you.”
(2) The church is simply reminding the priest to be careful not to cross the line; they are not saying he did. (And they want to make it clear that where the line is in case others considering confession might balk after hearing about this (particularly if they didn’t pay attention and assumed that the priest turned her in).
(3) Perhaps the article is misinterpreting the remark and taking it out of context, and the reminder is just to tell him not to talk to the press about the case. While the article states that “drew criticism from some parishioners who questioned whether he acted appropriately,” nowhere does it actually quote a parishioner criticizing him. Rather, it makes an additional statement about the archdiocese reminding the priest not to reveal anything and quotes the lawyer on the case mentioning privilege while providing no context. For all we know, the lawyer Callan was asked if Guberovic had discussed the case with him, and he said this statement in the context of denying such an event. For example: “Did he tell me anything? Oh, no, he’s not supposed to say anything. There’s a thing called priest-penitent privilege. He just arranged our first meeting.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 01, 2010 08:12 PM | Send