DOJ-OGR-00006276.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424-3 Filed 11/08/21 Page 8 of 29 102 J. Engle and W. O'Donobue course of 1 year in which all three men were charged with rape and pub- licly vilified. The lacrosse season was cancelled, and the coach was fired. According to some, a large amount of evidence was withheld from the pub- lic that may have cast suspicion on the accusation, all while the reputations of the three accused men were continually besmirched (Hemmens, 2008; Setrakian, 2007). DNA evidence revealed no physical evidence that any of the three men had raped her. Magnum also came under the suspicion of the authorities by telling conflicting versions of the sexual assault. In one instance, Magnum reported that she was gang raped by five men in the bathroom, at another time, she reported that she was not forced to have intercourse with anyone, although the men did pull her from her car and groped her (Taylor & Johnson, 2007). The discrepancies in Magnum’s account are considered “core” discrep- ancies in that they are central details of the case and, thereby, any variation in these details is considered a strong indication of a false account of events. Research on the accuracy of emotional memories indicates that in an emo- tional event, individuals are more likely to remember core features of the event (e.g., forced intercourse occurred, whether the event occurred inside or outside) than peripheral features (e.g., which street the rape occurred on, what perpetrators were wearing) and, in fact, memory for core fea- tures of the event is actually enhanced by the emotionality of the situation whereas memory of peripheral features tends to be poorer (Kensinger, 2007). It is noteworthy that Magnum’s initial claim that she was raped occurred when she was being admitted to an inpatient ward for psychiatric obser- vation and treatment—a fact that did not receive much attention by the prosecution or others (Taylor & Johnson, 2007). Knowing the details of the mental health report could have helped investigators determine whether there were (a) motives for knowingly filing a false allegation or (b) reasons why Magnum would have unknowingly misinterpreted the events that took place. Later, the men were exonerated in what the judge called, “a tragic result of a rush to accuse.” This rush to accuse should have been medi- ated by a fair consideration of the possibility of a false accusation and an examination of pathways to false accusations. Despite this ruling, the case could still be labeled “unfounded,” as the term false allegation is often reserved for cases in which a claimant knowingly filed allegations that were false; either the claimant knowingly identified the wrong perpetrator, or she fabricated the entire event (Gross, 2009). In this case, Magnum never recanted her claims, and it cannot be determined whether she actually believed the events occurred or whether she knew that she had fabricated her story. However, an increased understanding of possible psychological pathways could have helped explain core inconsistencies in her statement and potential motivations to file a false allegation. DOJ-OGR- 00006276