Lying False Accuser Robin Levitski Made Fake Kidnapping & Sexual Assault Claims To Police Against An Innocent Man She Met Online To Cover Up Her Shame Because Her Grandmother Found Explicit Pictures Of The Consensual Sexual Encounter On Her Phone
Lying False Accuser Robin Levitski, was an eighteen-year-old student at Clarke University, she falsely told police she had been abducted and sexually assaulted by a man she had met online and who she had dated.
She was then driven to “a residence on Rhomberg Avenue. Levitski falsely said that she was led by John at knifepoint to an upstairs bedroom at this residence where she was forced to perform sex acts on John.
Levitski falsely added that John was photographing this incident with his telephone. Levitski additionally falsely told Cpl. Welsh that John sent the images he took during the sexual assault to her phone. However Levitski said that her grandmother saw these images on her phone and deleted them.”
“Cpl. Welsh then located and interviewed John at his residence on Rhomberg. John said that he met Levitski on meetme.com a couple weeks prior and they started dating. John admitted that Levitski had previously spent the night at his residence but was adamant that she did not stay with him on the night of October 23.”
It was the usual he-said / she-said story except that the wrongfully accused man had photographs of their encounter, taken during what Levitski falsely described as a sexual assault. The photos provided independent documentary evidence of what happened between the two of them behind closed doors. The police officer accessed John’s cell phone and “recovered images depicting sexual acts between John and Levitski.” The police officer, however, immediately detected a problem: “The time date stamp on these images however was October 27 and Levitski could be seen smiling while lying next to John in one photo.” Why would a woman be seen smiling next to a man who was sexually assaulting her, and why did the information in the photograph file indicate that the photos were taken on a different date than Levitski claimed?
There were other problems with Levitski’s story. For example police “obtained key fob activity reports from Clarke University for Levitski’s assigned campus keycard…. during the time of the alleged kidnapping Levitski had used her key at and within Clarke University.” Unless Levitski’s key fob was stolen and used by someone else – something she denied and never reported – clearly she could not be at an off-campus house being sexually assaulted by John while at the same time being on campus. Furthermore a friend of Levitski’s told police that she had been with Levitski at the pumpkin carving event on the night of October 23. Instead of John arriving and abducting Levitski at knifepoint as she claimed, Levitski and her friend left the event together uneventfully.
In order to get to the bottom of the mystery, police re-interviewed Levitski at Clarke University on November 8. “Cpl. Welsh explained to Levitski that she had reported a Class A felony that was punishable by up to life in prison if John were found guilty. Cpl. Welsh asked if she thought this would be a fair punishment for John based upon what she was reporting. Levitski said that she didn’t think he needed to serve that long a sentence but he should have to do ‘several years.’ Cpl Welsh told Levitski that her honesty was imperative if this investigation were to continue and Levitski was adamant that the details she provided were true and accurate. Cpl. Welsh gave Levitski an opportunity to change or correct her statement if she thought at this time that there was something that may have been misreported. Levitski maintained that her story was accurate.”
Police “then presented Levitski with the evidence that they had uncovered which was contrary to her statements. After maintaining that she was telling the truth for approximately thirty minutes Levitski finally admitted that the entire story was fabricated to act as some sort of cover for the explicit images that her grandmother had located on her cell phone. These images being of her and John engaged in consensual sex acts. Levitski admitted that these photos were taken during a consensual sexual encounter between her and John on a date later than October 23, contrary to what she had reported.”
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this case is Levitski’s utter indifference to the consequences of her claims for the man she dated. John might have been convicted of Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, which as a class B felony would have been punishable by up to 25 years in prison; or Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree, which as a class C felony would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of between $1,000 and $10,000. On the abduction charge, he could have faced Kidnapping in the First Degree (“when the person kidnapped…is intentionally subjected to torture or sexual abuse”), which is a Class A felony and is punishable by life imprisonment.
When liar Robin Levitski was told that her statement might imprison an innocent man for life, she hedged a bit and stated that such a punishment may be extreme; perhaps only “several years” in federal prison for her abduction and rape would be sufficient to teach him a lesson. The phrase “several years” may have rolled off Levitski’s tongue as a trifling, abstract punishment for something that never happened, but pause for a moment and consider what that really means for the true victim in this case: the innocent man she falsely accused.
It means that the man she slept with is arrested and charged with a crime. His family, friends, co-workers, and others find out, through rumour, gossip, and the local news, that he was arrested for abducting and sexually assaulting a young college woman. His name and mug shot in the local newspaper and on web sites, easily available to anyone with internet access. Once John is arrested he may be dis-enrolled and banned from campus by the university; what administration needs the negative publicity of allowing a man accused of abducting and raping another student back on their campus?
He loses his job when he goes to prison, if not long before during his arrest and trial. If he is married or has a family, he may lose them too. He and his family may have to pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend him. Who wouldn’t spend all they have to avoid a conviction and prison time for a crime they did not commit? These legal fees, of course, are non-refundable; even if he was found not guilty, he and his family may be left bankrupt by the accusations. His friends view him with suspicion: in their eyes he is a rapist-human garbage only a step or two removed from murderers and child molesters. John will be subject to the stress and dangers of prison life, possibly including rape or murder.
Because of his conviction and after he has served his “several years” for something he didn’t do, he will have to register as a sex offender for years or possibly the rest of his life. Anyone who calls the local police station or looks online can find his name and address, and see that he served a prison sentence for abduction and rape. Think of how you would react if you found that information out about your next door neighbour, how you would treat him from then on, what you might say to warn other neighbours or visiting friends, about the predator next door. That (and much worse) is the reality of what “several years” in prison means. When you don’t have to pay – or even think about the consequences of your accusation it’s easy to dismiss or minimise the damage done to an innocent person.
It’s also easy to assume that scumbag Levitski’s false accusations are less serious because the case against the man never would have gone to trial, or that he never would have been convicted. However such faith in the justice system rests on shaky ground; the fact is that innocent men and women have been convicted of serious crimes on the basis of little more than the alleged victim’s word. While it is likely that the man Levitski accused would not have been indicted or convicted, it is far from a certainty – especially if he is poor or underprivileged and must rely on a public defender.
If she would do this to an innocent man who had done her no wrong, who else might she do it to, in response to some real or perceived slight? We like to hope that Levitski has learned her lesson, but maybe not. This seems to be Levitski’s first and only false accusation, but the situation is far more grave if the person has a history of making false claims. Once may be chalked up to incredibly poor judgment or remarkable malice. But repeated false accusations against innocent people may be a sign of mental illness, perhaps a dissociative disorder (inability to distinguish truth from fiction); factitious disorder (creating dramatic personal narratives, often of victimhood, for attention or personal gain); or even paranoid schizophrenia (delusions of persecution and paranoia). This does not, of course, excuse the behaviour, but it may provide a framework for addressing it and getting help. If left untreated, he or she may not only do extensive damage to those they falsely accuse, but also to their own lives and careers and those of loved ones.
Not only was monster Levitski completely indifferent to the damage she did to the man she accused, but perhaps even more shocking was Levitski’s adamant refusal to admit that she lied. Over and over, on at least three occasions, police asked if there was anything she wished to admit or correct about her statement. She said no, sticking to her story over and over, denying and denying the truth. The fact that it took nearly half an hour of police questioning before Levitksi finally admitted her lies is a fair measure of how determined she was to stick to her story, regardless of the consequences for John.
Telling the truth and admitting that a person made a false accusation can surely be a terrifying prospect. It requires a person to accept responsibility for their bad choices and behaviour and admit having done a grievous injustice to an innocent person. It means giving up the status of victim, admitting mistakes, and trying to undo the damage done. For falsely accusing an innocent man of crimes that could have left him imprisoned for the rest of his life, Robin Levitski was only given probation and fined $315 (the minimum allowed by law) plus court costs.
Chillingly, sexual predator Robin Levitski’s online dating profiles were allowed to stay active.
Check out our next post; https://redpillrights.com/cheating-false-accuser-tracy-denise-roberson-jailed-for-5-years-for-manslaughter-because-she-made-fake-rape-claim-due-to-being-caught-having-sex-by-her-husband-resulting-in-him-murdering-her-lover/