Walsh said (Malinda) Kline’s serial fabrication of rapes and assaults dates back to at least 2001 across three other states. Since 2002, she has made at least 15 unfounded rape, assault or attempted burglary allegations to police in Delaware, according to Walsh. And between January 2008 and October 2008 alone, she went to the emergency room at Christiana Hospital 14 times claiming to have been assaulted. But on each of those visits, no evidence of an attack or crime could be substantiated.
That’s the background that netted Ms. Kline one year minus 36 days for filing a false report of a rape that has devastated a Delaware State Police trooper. I’d say that given her history that’s a bit light. This doesn’t even start on the civil action regarding child support (though I would guess that is an entirely new case altogether). However, it’s better to light one candle than curse the darkness, so to speak.
Ms. Kline’s lawyer tried to paint an image of a mentally disturbed young woman as far as he could (since Ms. Kline didn’t agree to it he couldn’t directly enter a plea of "guilty but mentally ill"). On that point I’d agree; anybody who strings together over a dozen false accusations of burglary, theft, and rape has something not functioning right. But that isn’t the court’s concern. The court’s concern should be upholding justice, which is put in serious jeopardy if anybody can walk scott-free after filing a false claim against anybody else.
And this is a claim that has devastated the life of a state trooper. The man, who was not named by the paper (more on that below), described how his life had been turned upside down and how he was ". . .innocent of multiple violent assaults and rapes of single individual despite her constant accusations to the contrary." That’s not something I think they train you for in any police academy.
And Malinda is sticking to her story that she was raped, even though she now "concedes" that it was somebody using this officer’s name. Even in conviction she is now attacking the state prosecutors and the DSP of not doing enough to investigate and capture the man who attacked her. Maybe she should ask OJ Simpson to investigate as soon as he straightens out the business in Nevada.
As I mentioned above, the newspaper has withheld the name of the officer who was accused because he was a victim of a crime. What is not addressed by the article (and something I e-mailed the reporter about) is whether the officer has been named in any stories in the past related to this issue. If he has then in some ways this is worse; now he has an accusation with his name in the papers but no follow up saying "Officer So-And-So was falsely accused by Malinda Kline". If he hasn’t been named, on the other hand, the newspapers did the right thing.
Update: The reporter contacted me and said that the police officer had not been named. Had the officer been named, the reporter would have named the officer for vindication but as the was not naming him would have opened an old wound. " But since it had not been, it seemed like the fair thing to do was treat him like all other victims and leave his name out of the story," was Sean O’Sullivan’s exact quote to me . And I agree fully.