Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
JagLover said:
In terms of actual prosecutions for false allegations that doesn't go to the heart of the issue in many modern cases where the woman feels she was taken advantage of while drunk, while the man thought he was going to bed with a willing woman. No-one has made a "false" allegation it is differing perceptions of the same event.
Do you have any figures for this? Or is this your opinion?cookie118 said:
Do you have any figures for this? Or is this your opinion?
How do you suppose there will be any figures for this?.I did read an article by a solicitor whose speciality is in this area and he said he had seen a big rise in these sorts of cases. Which certainly matches all you read in the media as well. The (mostly) urban myth around so called "date rape" drugs probably doesn't help with this.
"My career was ended by police presuming I was guilty"
BBC article said:
A former pupil had alleged he had been touched inappropriately after a PE lesson 30 years earlier.
"I said to the police, 'I don't teach PE, I don't teach 12-year-olds games'," he says, "but they just wouldn't listen."
"I said to the police, 'I don't teach PE, I don't teach 12-year-olds games'," he says, "but they just wouldn't listen."
BBC article also said:
"When they went to see former pupils... it was made quite clear I was going to be prosecuted and they were looking for people strong enough to say I'd done similar things to them.
"They had no intention of getting to the bottom of what happened. It certainly turns the whole edict of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head."
"They had no intention of getting to the bottom of what happened. It certainly turns the whole edict of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head."
cookie118 said:
skwdenyer said:
False allegations used - it seems - to be rare. And then all of a sudden they weren't. And as a result of the actions of a minority, some other people risk not being believed without evidence. Sadly, that is life.
I noticed some boys (no more than 9 or so) playing in the park next to my office yesterday. They were causing havoc. An adult approached them to try to get them to calm down a bit and stop trashing stuff. One of them piped up "if you don't leave us alone I'll tell the police you're a paedophile who asked to have sexual intercourse with me."
At age 9, they know that an allegation like that has power. Are they going to forget that? Or are they one day going to threaten it and, slighted, follow through?
In times passed, perhaps the stigma associated with sexual assault and rape (including the unfair but well-worn "I bet she was asking for it" etc.) tended (or so it seems) to keep a lid on such things - it was socially bad enough that a false allegation would be damaging to the accuser. But in times before that? Times of "rough justice" and lynch mobs? Just look at some of the things that have happened in other countries, people lynched over an allegation or even just the rumour of one.
It isn't fair to those who've geniunely been victims. The "bad apples" have made it hard. But it is just as hard to see what the alternative is at this point...
I'm sorry but you're simply wrong here. Fakse accusations are very rare. The media doesn't give this impression but they are. The statistics are very clear on this.I noticed some boys (no more than 9 or so) playing in the park next to my office yesterday. They were causing havoc. An adult approached them to try to get them to calm down a bit and stop trashing stuff. One of them piped up "if you don't leave us alone I'll tell the police you're a paedophile who asked to have sexual intercourse with me."
At age 9, they know that an allegation like that has power. Are they going to forget that? Or are they one day going to threaten it and, slighted, follow through?
In times passed, perhaps the stigma associated with sexual assault and rape (including the unfair but well-worn "I bet she was asking for it" etc.) tended (or so it seems) to keep a lid on such things - it was socially bad enough that a false allegation would be damaging to the accuser. But in times before that? Times of "rough justice" and lynch mobs? Just look at some of the things that have happened in other countries, people lynched over an allegation or even just the rumour of one.
It isn't fair to those who've geniunely been victims. The "bad apples" have made it hard. But it is just as hard to see what the alternative is at this point...
For what feels like the millionth time on PH:
-Around 85,000 women and 12,000 men annually experience a rape, attempted rape or sexual assault by penetration.
- Of these only around 15% will report it to the police.
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexua...
The stigma applied to rape victims is still very much there in society. Take this extract from the ons report
'Of those who had told someone but hadn’t told the police, nearly half said it was due to being embarrassed (47%), around two-fifths thought the police could not help (40%), and a third said they thought it would be humiliating (35%)'
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
In terms of false accusations they are very rare. Looking at the prosecution figures, during the same period there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape, and 35 for making a false allegation, or less than 1% of the numbers. Also compare that 35 with the 97,000 that will experience a rape and you can see that they are so very rare. You can click on the link in the rapecrisis link above to see the report.
If you have hard figures that suggest otherwise then by all means post them but I've never seen anything challenge the above.
cookie118 said:
steveatesh said:
So what is the right time frame to go back to make sure the investigation is as thorough as possible?
What’s your metric for “over a timescale far longer than appears necessary” ?
How do you know it hasn’t been necessary ?
Or basically is that just your opinion but stated as fact?
You're right it is my opinion, based off the report in the article. But in your opinion, for example is it necessary for the 12 year old in the article to have to hand over her entire phone when the perpetrator has already admitted to the crime?What’s your metric for “over a timescale far longer than appears necessary” ?
How do you know it hasn’t been necessary ?
Or basically is that just your opinion but stated as fact?
Do you also think that it is necessary that an entire phone is searched? For example are pictures and emails necessary when relevant messages are on WhatsApp?
The other thing is that the volume of data was not the issue in, for example the case that started this thread. The issue was one of disclosure where the data was there. In fact these mass data downloads are probably only likely to make the issue worse as the police are left with a huge dump of data most of which will be entirely unrelated to the matter at hand. The article highlights that the mass of data is already causing delays of up to 18 months, which can delay things for the victim in terms of getting proper counseling, and also the defendant in terms of getting a judgement.
As for the whole phone - I'd say most stuff in the time period should be searched, as you don't know what you will find. It could be photos, it could be a text, could be a social media message or post, a internet search etc. And the reality it is can work both ways. Say if they searched "how to report rape" straight after it happened. It might help strengthen the case too, whereas photos of them having a great time snuggling in bed after a "rape" is likely to be more damaging. You don't know what you're searching for unless you see it.
voyds9 said:
La Liga said:
o quite.
It's warning you, from the off, that inferences may be drawn if you try and blindside the court.
The bit I was referring to was 'anything you say can and will be used against you'It's warning you, from the off, that inferences may be drawn if you try and blindside the court.
I note it does not say will be used to prove your innocence if applicable.
The part you're reffing to is, "Anything you do say may be given in evidence”. Evidence works both for the prosecution and defence.
If a police officer arrests someone and their reply after the caution is, "I was acting in self-defence", then that is something which may be given in evidence which is likely to benefit the accused.
I agree. The American ( Miranda) caution ( or reading of rights) seems to have become confused with the British caution.
A surprising number of detainees used to have their view of their entitlements skewed by watching American cop shows too.
' I have the right to one phone call' etc.
A surprising number of detainees used to have their view of their entitlements skewed by watching American cop shows too.
' I have the right to one phone call' etc.
Edited by XCP on Friday 26th July 20:14
moanthebairns said:
So what happens when a guy is falsely accused, but there isn't enough to convict him of rape or her of the allegation. It goes down under rape failed rape stats. So you don't know the true figure, no one does.
Well no-i can't tell you to the exact numbers of tapes vs false accusations. But given that the numbers are so disparate in terms of prosecutions it's not unreasonable to assume that fake accusations are really really raremilkround said:
Err...
I'm up in court in just over a month.
The police didn't bother to collect most of the CCTV. They didn't bother to take statements from some of the people there. They didn't bother to consider anything that didn't sit within their narrative. I complained to my solicitor - who tells me this is totally normal and little can be done.
What is the point in saying the Police are 'duty bound' if the duty only extends as far as they can be bothered? My case is much less serious - I'm looking at up to 6 months in jail, but I would be terrified if they took such a careless lack of interesting something which was more serious. Either if I were the complainant or the accused.
I've experienced first hand (not against me) the Police failing to gather evidence, including CCTV, as it didn't suit them. Eventually there was so much of it the crown court judge agreed the case could not be heard fairly and it was thrown out as an abuse of process. This was for a late night GBH outside a pub. I'm up in court in just over a month.
The police didn't bother to collect most of the CCTV. They didn't bother to take statements from some of the people there. They didn't bother to consider anything that didn't sit within their narrative. I complained to my solicitor - who tells me this is totally normal and little can be done.
What is the point in saying the Police are 'duty bound' if the duty only extends as far as they can be bothered? My case is much less serious - I'm looking at up to 6 months in jail, but I would be terrified if they took such a careless lack of interesting something which was more serious. Either if I were the complainant or the accused.
Even so, investigations have to be proportionate. The police won't spend the money and resources on an assault by beating as they would a murder!
If you cannot get a fair trial because some vital evidence is missing, then there is abuse of process to protect you, however the bar for this is very high, as once the case is stayed it's almost certainly never coming back.
On the flip side, last month I stopped an absolutely leathered guy from returning to the cab of his 38 ton articulated truck after stopping in an urban bus stop to take a piss. As I was on the phone to the Police he took a swing at me and connected on my ear, which I have commentary on whilst I was on the phone.
When the Police arrived the guy resisted arrest. I told them I wasn't bothered about the punch as it didn't do any harm. They said they'd put it in the statement anyway, which I gave a few minutes later, 'just for completness'. I reiterated I had no issue with it and didn't wish to proceed with a complaint about it.
Two days later I get a voicemail to say he's been charged with assault.
Last week I get a letter from victim support saying he was going to trial for failing to produce, dangerous driving and assault, and that I would need to be available for trial.
This is despite me saying I didn't want the assault to be pursued.
Once the Police have an agenda, you sometimes see them stick fingers in ears and let the CPS deal with the fall out. For what it's worth, my BiL is a serving officer, too.
janesmith1950 said:
milkround said:
Err...
I'm up in court in just over a month.
The police didn't bother to collect most of the CCTV. They didn't bother to take statements from some of the people there. They didn't bother to consider anything that didn't sit within their narrative. I complained to my solicitor - who tells me this is totally normal and little can be done.
What is the point in saying the Police are 'duty bound' if the duty only extends as far as they can be bothered? My case is much less serious - I'm looking at up to 6 months in jail, but I would be terrified if they took such a careless lack of interesting something which was more serious. Either if I were the complainant or the accused.
I've experienced first hand (not against me) the Police failing to gather evidence, including CCTV, as it didn't suit them. Eventually there was so much of it the crown court judge agreed the case could not be heard fairly and it was thrown out as an abuse of process. This was for a late night GBH outside a pub. I'm up in court in just over a month.
The police didn't bother to collect most of the CCTV. They didn't bother to take statements from some of the people there. They didn't bother to consider anything that didn't sit within their narrative. I complained to my solicitor - who tells me this is totally normal and little can be done.
What is the point in saying the Police are 'duty bound' if the duty only extends as far as they can be bothered? My case is much less serious - I'm looking at up to 6 months in jail, but I would be terrified if they took such a careless lack of interesting something which was more serious. Either if I were the complainant or the accused.
Even so, investigations have to be proportionate. The police won't spend the money and resources on an assault by beating as they would a murder!
If you cannot get a fair trial because some vital evidence is missing, then there is abuse of process to protect you, however the bar for this is very high, as once the case is stayed it's almost certainly never coming back.
On the flip side, last month I stopped an absolutely leathered guy from returning to the cab of his 38 ton articulated truck after stopping in an urban bus stop to take a piss. As I was on the phone to the Police he took a swing at me and connected on my ear, which I have commentary on whilst I was on the phone.
When the Police arrived the guy resisted arrest. I told them I wasn't bothered about the punch as it didn't do any harm. They said they'd put it in the statement anyway, which I gave a few minutes later, 'just for completness'. I reiterated I had no issue with it and didn't wish to proceed with a complaint about it.
Two days later I get a voicemail to say he's been charged with assault.
Last week I get a letter from victim support saying he was going to trial for failing to produce, dangerous driving and assault, and that I would need to be available for trial.
This is despite me saying I didn't want the assault to be pursued.
Once the Police have an agenda, you sometimes see them stick fingers in ears and let the CPS deal with the fall out. For what it's worth, my BiL is a serving officer, too.
saaby93 said:
irocfan said:
saaby93 said:
I had a pop up from Rebek'ah from CrowdJustice
Someones going to tell me that it's now become common place to have punctuation in a name?
only to a certain sortSomeones going to tell me that it's now become common place to have punctuation in a name?
https://twitter.com/ormakapay?lang=en
It's funny that you only ever hear "It's worth remembering there's no such thing as a good Tory" from these types. Don't think I've ever heard the reverse said about the left.
They're such a nice, tolerant and inclusive bunch the 'extreme' left, or are they just normal left?
ChocolateFrog said:
saaby93 said:
irocfan said:
saaby93 said:
I had a pop up from Rebek'ah from CrowdJustice
Someones going to tell me that it's now become common place to have punctuation in a name?
only to a certain sortSomeones going to tell me that it's now become common place to have punctuation in a name?
https://twitter.com/ormakapay?lang=en
It's funny that you only ever hear "It's worth remembering there's no such thing as a good Tory" from these types. Don't think I've ever heard the reverse said about the left.
They're such a nice, tolerant and inclusive bunch the 'extreme' left, or are they just normal left?
There lack of objectivity in the CPS and the Police is the problem for me.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
ChocolateFrog said:
There lack of objectivity in the CPS and the Police is the problem for me.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
When we have:Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
“In 2014, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) issued guidance which said, when a crime is recorded, "the presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised"......
what do you expect?
And it’s not just the police. A few years ago I was accused of a criminal act and ended up dragged through the courts over a 15 month period, culminating in a 9 day CC trial before the case was dismissed at half time.
For 18 months I was definitely treated as if I was guilty by all involved but my legal team.
Bigends said:
Police would certainly have to record the assault regardless of the OP's wishes. Not sure why they would pursue the matter to court against their wishes.
I suspect the Police generally will not pursue an offence if the victim does not want to support it but that does not mean they cannot. I presume they feel that overall what the guy did was bad enough and he should be punished for it.ChocolateFrog said:
There lack of objectivity in the CPS and the Police is the problem for me.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
Ah that’s because you’re a man and your Mrs is a woman, which means in the eye of pre-conceived stereotypes as far as the DV system goes you’re a perpetrator and she will be a victim. Didn’t you get that memo? Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
ChocolateFrog said:
There lack of objectivity in the CPS and the Police is the problem for me.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
You don’t think there might be a certain lack of objectivity in your version?Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
From an ex-copper’s point of view, I’d suggest that it might be that the officer took/was given the statement from your ex. It contained an accusation, it seems, of the use of violence against her.
The police officer interviewed you for two hours. And the end of that time ‘nothing came of it’. There was evidence against you. There was no supporting evidence, one presumes. The police/CPS decided there was no case to answer.
In my early days, a fair time ago now, questioning was much more deceptive. I’m not defending it, but it was often the norm. No violence, but it was vigorous. Trickery was often used, e.g. making out information was available when it wasn’t. Nowadays, police questioning is limited, and it is probably for the best.
In the scenario you describe, the officer would appear to have done his duty, as far as he could, to ascertain if he could gain evidence. It would seem that he could not. And you were not charged.
I fail to see any corruption inherent in the system of receiving information and questioning the suspect.
REALIST123 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
There lack of objectivity in the CPS and the Police is the problem for me.
Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
When we have:Having been accused by an ex of domestic violence (the truth being she was the violent person) I will never trust the police again.
She was the victim, I was a wife beater, her statement was defector truth.
I was naive and tried to tell my side of the story. Whenever I said something was a lie or didn't happen. The policemen just asked the question again, and again, and again. Finally he'd ask the question again and then say something along the lines of "for the tape the Mr #### seems to be getting agitated"
Nothing did eventually come of it as nothing ever happened but that 2 hour interview gave me all I needed to know. They were goading me to say anything that they could construe in a way that would support a case.
I will never say anything in interview should I be in that situation again. The system is borderline corrupt.
“In 2014, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) issued guidance which said, when a crime is recorded, "the presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised"......
what do you expect?
And it’s not just the police. A few years ago I was accused of a criminal act and ended up dragged through the courts over a 15 month period, culminating in a 9 day CC trial before the case was dismissed at half time.
For 18 months I was definitely treated as if I was guilty by all involved but my legal team.
I think we all know the well intentioned thinking that lay behind that guidance but it goes too far.
What's needed is a presumption that an alleged victim will always be taken seriously. Believing/disbelieving them can come when there's proof or not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff