A ghastly story but I have one question (as you will guess)... not going to the other extreme but wondering why nobody seems to carry the possibility that she killed herself because, deep down inside, she knew she lied or exaggerated in court and couldn't live with the consequences.

I am NOT saying that's what happened but, from personal experience, I KNOW people can lie, exaggerate and often are 99% convinced they are speaking the truth. I was speaking to a friend about my own case who said she was sure my "witnesses" were simply after money. Compensation. Media fees. Read Bob Woffinden's detailed explanation of the man he interviewed in 65 My Life So Far and you'll see how much money was made from my case.

I know that's NOT the case. There are often many other mixed motives, from mental illness to a desire for revenge to simple misunderstanding - drink, drugs, changing memories... I would say the vast majority of my false accusers genuinely, honestly believed their stories. Indeed, in many cases 90% of the tales were absolutely accurate. Those who did meet me, did come to my house, did listen to music, did eat my food and drink my drink, sometimes even discussed sex yet simply did not actually have sex with me. A small detail compared to the rest of the story in time, activity, experience - yet, thirty years later, a tweak by media, cops, lawyers, CPS...

If you'd stood in court, sworn you'd been abused, genuinely believed you'd been abused yet, alone, in private that demon emerges, sits on your shoulder and says "it never happened", wouldn't you contemplate suicide? Or even, quite possibly, "it did happen but I initiated it, enjoyed it, wanted it but dare not admit it"?

I'm not saying that is the case. I think I need to repeat that as people seem unable to understand it. I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm not saying the poor, troubled lady who took her own life was lying or mistaken or exaggerating or reconsidering.

I'm simply asking - why doesn't ANY coverage mention the possibility? Are we readers, viewers, listeners really totally unable to consider it? Can we only see one side, one angle, one slogan, one headline? Is Mr and Mrs Average really that stupid? And are the writers, commentators, observers really that blinkered?

I fear the answer is - YES.

JK2006 wrote:
A ghastly story but I have one question (as you will guess)... not going to the other extreme but wondering why nobody seems to carry the possibility that she killed herself because, deep down inside, she knew she lied or exaggerated in court and couldn't live with the consequences.

I am NOT saying that's what happened but, from personal experience, I KNOW people can lie, exaggerate and often are 99% convinced they are speaking the truth. I was speaking to a friend about my own case who said she was sure my "witnesses" were simply after money. Compensation. Media fees. Read Bob Woffinden's detailed explanation of the man he interviewed in 65 My Life So Far and you'll see how much money was made from my case.

I know that's NOT the case. There are often many other mixed motives, from mental illness to a desire for revenge to simple misunderstanding - drink, drugs, changing memories... I would say the vast majority of my false accusers genuinely, honestly believed their stories. Indeed, in many cases 90% of the tales were absolutely accurate. Those who did meet me, did come to my house, did listen to music, did eat my food and drink my drink, sometimes even discussed sex yet simply did not actually have sex with me. A small detail compared to the rest of the story in time, activity, experience - yet, thirty years later, a tweak by media, cops, lawyers, CPS...

If you'd stood in court, sworn you'd been abused, genuinely believed you'd been abused yet, alone, in private that demon emerges, sits on your shoulder and says "it never happened", wouldn't you contemplate suicide? Or even, quite possibly, "it did happen but I initiated it, enjoyed it, wanted it but dare not admit it"?

I'm not saying that is the case. I think I need to repeat that as people seem unable to understand it. I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm not saying the poor, troubled lady who took her own life was lying or mistaken or exaggerating or reconsidering.

I'm simply asking - why doesn't ANY coverage mention the possibility? Are we readers, viewers, listeners really totally unable to consider it? Can we only see one side, one angle, one slogan, one headline? Is Mr and Mrs Average really that stupid? And are the writers, commentators, observers really that blinkered?

I fear the answer is - YES.


Whatever the actual reason for anyone in that position taking their life (even if it was actually for a completely unconnected reason) it will ALWAYS be presented in the papers as either a direct result of the alleged abuse or as a result of being cross examined and not feeling they are 'believed'. The word 'propaganda' springs to mind.

Also, unfortunately, as false allegations of sexual abuse are so common (aswell as real ones), cross examination is extremely important in trying to determine if someone is telling the truth, and is nessesery, the complainants should have this situation explained to them sensitively - that it is a nessesery evil, and is no reflection on them, but as it is a basic fact of live, that all people are capable of lying, is completely unavoidable in ANY case.

Yes - can you imagine the Editor who dared print the actually true headline...

WOMAN WHO FALSELY ACCUSED INNOCENT MAN OF RAPE KILLS HERSELF

JK2006 wrote:
Yes - can you imagine the Editor who dared print the actually true headline...

WOMAN WHO FALSELY ACCUSED INNOCENT MAN OF RAPE KILLS HERSELF


Perhaps there's a more diplomatic way of putting it, lol

JK2006 wrote:
A ghastly story but I have one question (as you will guess)... not going to the other extreme but wondering why nobody seems to carry the possibility that she killed herself because, deep down inside, she knew she lied or exaggerated in court and couldn't live with the consequences.

I am NOT saying that's what happened but, from personal experience, I KNOW people can lie, exaggerate and often are 99% convinced they are speaking the truth. I was speaking to a friend about my own case who said she was sure my "witnesses" were simply after money. Compensation. Media fees. Read Bob Woffinden's detailed explanation of the man he interviewed in 65 My Life So Far and you'll see how much money was made from my case.

I know that's NOT the case. There are often many other mixed motives, from mental illness to a desire for revenge to simple misunderstanding - drink, drugs, changing memories... I would say the vast majority of my false accusers genuinely, honestly believed their stories. Indeed, in many cases 90% of the tales were absolutely accurate. Those who did meet me, did come to my house, did listen to music, did eat my food and drink my drink, sometimes even discussed sex yet simply did not actually have sex with me. A small detail compared to the rest of the story in time, activity, experience - yet, thirty years later, a tweak by media, cops, lawyers, CPS...

If you'd stood in court, sworn you'd been abused, genuinely believed you'd been abused yet, alone, in private that demon emerges, sits on your shoulder and says "it never happened", wouldn't you contemplate suicide? Or even, quite possibly, "it did happen but I initiated it, enjoyed it, wanted it but dare not admit it"?

I'm not saying that is the case. I think I need to repeat that as people seem unable to understand it. I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm not saying the poor, troubled lady who took her own life was lying or mistaken or exaggerating or reconsidering.

I'm simply asking - why doesn't ANY coverage mention the possibility? Are we readers, viewers, listeners really totally unable to consider it? Can we only see one side, one angle, one slogan, one headline? Is Mr and Mrs Average really that stupid? And are the writers, commentators, observers really that blinkered?

I fear the answer is - YES.

I suppose compensation was not a likely motive in this case so maybe you are right. On the otherhand all the available information suggests otherwise. This is one conspiracy theory that is unlikely to get published and nor should it.

Anoymous wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Yes - can you imagine the Editor who dared print the actually true headline...

WOMAN WHO FALSELY ACCUSED INNOCENT MAN OF RAPE KILLS HERSELF


Perhaps there's a more diplomatic way of putting it, lol

No there isnt.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes - can you imagine the Editor who dared print the actually true headline...

WOMAN WHO FALSELY ACCUSED INNOCENT MAN OF RAPE KILLS HERSELF


The true headline????????

She falsely accused him of rape - he was acquitted - and aren't people meant to be innocent unless found guilty?

Good point, and I suppose you'd agrue that when they're found guilty then they are guilty. Then again maybe you wouldn't.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't - juries can, and do, get it wrong. But we are all meant to be presumed innocent until or unless proven guilty.

This discussion just hightlights how vitally important evidence is .... the "fresher" the complaint the more likely the evidence (if it exists) will be obtained, which can prove guilt or innocence.

If someone delays complaining - for whatever reason - they also delay (deliberately?) the possibility of finding the truth.

We cannot and should not, ever, merely just accept someone's word. Many people have an agenda. It is right and proper that someone's complaint is challenged and tested in Court (to see if it stands up).

Guilt without evidence is just one step away from guilt without trial.

Compelling corroboration, no?

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/10/chetha...-music-former-pupils

Sorry. I just realised that is evidence against somebody else. I was trying to hold up my end of a phone conversation at the same time as posting my previous comment. Multitasking was never my forte.

Guilt without trial? The police officer's wet dream.

And corroboration is not evidence as I know to my cost. It can simply be the result of good coaching by astute police.

Yes Jim I found it a bit confusing but let's face it, whether it's about one pervert or another doesn't matter much in 2013. Lock up all men, I say, and dykes too.

I am surprised to hear that the case was brought to the attention of the police by her friend,against her wishes, because it could cast doubt on the evidence right from the start.

It is not relevant in this case, because Brewer was convicted of some of the charges, but there are many reasons why you might pretend you were abused.
Perhaps to make yourself interesting? To gain sympathy? As an excuse for certain behaviour?
Or perhaps to get a job?
There are areas where it is considered an advantage to have experienced this (or other trauma or illness)if you are treating current sufferers, such as in specialist counselling, and i know of a case where someone has lied to have access to training.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I am surprised to hear that the case was brought to the attention of the police by her friend,against her wishes, because it could cast doubt on the evidence right from the start.

It is not relevant in this case, because Brewer was convicted of some of the charges, but there are many reasons why you might pretend you were abused.
Perhaps to make yourself interesting? To gain sympathy? As an excuse for certain behaviour?
Or perhaps to get a job?
There are areas where it is considered an advantage to have experienced this (or other trauma or illness)if you are treating current sufferers, such as in specialist counselling, and i know of a case where someone has lied to have access to training.


Great points.

Your right