I would have thought it crucial to your defence, JK, that your accuser was not referred to as 'victim'. I'm surprised you had to instruct your own lawyers to this effect...is that not in Lawyering 101?

If the starting point for a trial was the availability of reliable evidence, then many historical cases would not get to court. There are those who would 'fight wrong with wrong' demanding a statute of limitations. Surely, where suitable evidence exists, it is not necessarily wrong to prosecute a crime from long ago, and we need no cut off date. All we need is 'proper' standards of evidence! (Perhaps, a threshold set higher he longer ago events happened, given the problems in accuracy of witness memories.)

I just fear that by cheering for the 'fairness' of 'two wrongs', we are actually accepting a lower standard of privacy, or freedom, or justice for all.

I should add, that I'm delighted for all those (including yourself) who have been trying to raise awareness of these problems, that you've begun to make real progress!

Why are they only going to examine seven years worth of phone messages?

What is to stop Jo and me from inventing a matching story about Hedda, and agreeing to put in false claims seven years from now.
It even makes more sense to sit on it for a while, so the victim is less likely to have an alibi.

As it happened Misa the Magistrate at Westminster told off the police and CPS for using the word "victim" - but the clerk still put it on my bail form!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
What is to stop Jo and me from inventing a matching story about Hedda, and agreeing to put in false claims seven years from now.
What a great idea! Might even get a trip to Australia out of it.

Jo and honey!oh acting in concert...now that would be a force to be reckoned with!

Watching the backlash kick in - why is it so hard to understand that demanding phone and computer information does not affect genuine victims at all but merely helps root out false accusers? I suspect many simply do not believe that the majority of sex claims are exaggerated if not invented.

JK2006 wrote:
Watching the backlash kick in - why is it so hard to understand that demanding phone and computer information does not affect genuine victims at all but merely helps root out false accusers? I suspect many simply do not believe that the majority of sex claims are exaggerated if not invented.

I think it definitely does affect them, because it breaches their privacy and the privacy of everyone they speak to, which is hurtful, and some people might have unrelated incriminating information on their phone (I do. Not me, a service user) but despite all that, I feel that you simply cant deny accused people the right to fully defend themselves.
I am sure it will prevent a lot from reporting real crimes though, which is terribly sad.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Watching the backlash kick in - why is it so hard to understand that demanding phone and computer information does not affect genuine victims at all but merely helps root out false accusers? I suspect many simply do not believe that the majority of sex claims are exaggerated if not invented.

I think it definitely does affect them, because it breaches their privacy and the privacy of everyone they speak to, which is hurtful, and some people might have unrelated incriminating information on their phone (I do. Not me, a service user) but despite all that, I feel that you simply cant deny accused people the right to fully defend themselves.
I am sure it will prevent a lot from reporting real crimes though, which is terribly sad.
The South African author Sisonke Msimang says "One of the things I think is important is not that rape doesn't involve injury...but what do we do when the people who rape us are people who we know and love. The vast majority of rape occurs by people who know and love us against us."

Her words suggest to me that fear of not being believed isn't the main reason people don't come forward to report. The biggest problem seems to be the inflexibility of the system especially in terms of outcomes. Unless I'm mistaken, the only two choices availabe when reporting incidents is either to accept a full investigation and the consequences if charges are made or to withdraw the allegation entirely. Perhaps many don't want their loved ones to be convicted and put behind bars, only for the behaviour to change.
www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/18/ge...auma-to-her-fear-of-

spiders

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6994125...e-phones-police.html

Here we go...

Until just over a week ago, the term "digital strip search" that has highly emotive connotations was used to describe the controversial practice of whole body scanning at airports. It had nothing to do with police investigatory procedures.

md wrote:
The South African author Sisonke Msimang says "One of the things I think is important is not that rape doesn't involve injury...but what do we do when the people who rape us are people who we know and love. The vast majority of rape occurs by people who know and love us against us."

Her words suggest to me that fear of not being believed isn't the main reason people don't come forward to report. The biggest problem seems to be the inflexibility of the system especially in terms of outcomes. Unless I'm mistaken, the only two choices availabe when reporting incidents is either to accept a full investigation and the consequences if charges are made or to withdraw the allegation entirely. Perhaps many don't want their loved ones to be convicted and put behind bars, only for the behaviour to change.
www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/18/ge...auma-to-her-fear-of-

spiders
Fear of not being believed seems to have become a widely accepted reason for victims not coming forward. But has that always been assumed or is that a recent development? I'm wondering if it's an effect of the Savile claims and if it tends to be used by false accusers to explain their tardiness in reporting crime.

I expect the Savile bloggers would know, but they seem to give this forum a wide berth.

Jo, it's my impression that 'fear of not being believed' was in circulation before the Savile fiasco, but I'm pretty sure it featured heavily in the related reports. Indeed, as I recall, several reported victims claimed to have told someone at the time (a since-departed parent) and to have not been believed (or to have been told no good would come of making a fuss).

md's quote of Sisonke Msimang raises interesting questions about the kind of cases that make it to court, and what our courts are capable of dealing with. There have been some cases, I believe, where complainants may have felt wronged, but didn't really expect or want their complaints to be taken as far as they were. Presumably, there must be other cases where people suffer awful assaults and keep quiet.

I'm not quite sure why, but this reminds me again of one element with the Savile reports that always interested me. There were quite a number of non-victims who came forward as witnesses to possible abuse by Savile. Many of them sounded quite sincere, but it appeared they had, in light of 'what was now known', re-appraised past events, fleeting encounters, and the like, as sinister, and now felt obliged to report them...in support of the victims.

That's interesting, Misa. And how convenient that someone they told should no longer be around. I wonder how often reappraisal of past events was an element in the Savile claims and whether this was genuine concern or jumping on the bandwagon to become part of the story.

I would think that at least some of those witnesses reported whatever they remembered with the very best of intentions. Sympathy for victims, civic duty, or whatever. Of course, those motives can then shade into self-interest, attention-seeking, or outright delusional behaviour, but it seems wholly reasonable to me that decent caring people – people like former nurses – having heard of what he did, would try to rememeber whatever they could that might help in any way.

I think there is here a genuine problem with the making, reporting or publication of accusations – once the accusation is known, decent people, with the best of intentions, may well end up 'corroborating' events which never took place, simply through their re-appraisal of what they now remember. If you learn that someone you knew (even quite well) has since been found to have done terrible things, how difficult would it be to 'remember' evidence of bad character from one's own dealings with the person?

We all used to learn as children not to make allegations without evidence. Now the law says that was wrong. Make allegations first, and see whether anyone backs you up later – there may even be a few quid in it for everybody!

Fear of loneliness or a compelling desire to fit in with the rest of the group is another reason why the truth is often sidelined.