Falsely accused

[friday]

hi saffron, not sure where your statistics are from, nor am i saying they are incorrect, just pointing out they differ considerably from those i have read. i was under the impression 30% of allegations resulted in trial. 6% result in conviction (therefore 24/30% cases at court result in a not guilty verdict or aquittal). the majority of guilty verdicts are in cases where the perpetrator was unknown to the victim (can't remember the figure) so on a balance of probabilities (although probability means very little in cases of this nature) it is more likely than not that a)furry001's case will not go to court and b)if it did he would not be found guilty.

hi furry001, sorry to hear you are in such a horrendous situation. you need to keep strong, make sure you have positive people around and look after yourself. of course you have to be prepared for the worst, but statistically things are in your favour since your wife was obviously known to you and there are no injuries. lets just hope the cps agree.

[Rights Fighter]

Out of interest furry001 were you arguing over custody/residency of the children prior to the rape allegation?

If you were, there is your number one motive for it. It is important to stablish a strong motive and back it up withh evidence, should this go to trial.

[furry001]

Out of interest furry001 were you arguing over custody/residency of the children prior to the rape allegation?

If you were, there is your number one motive for it. It is important to stablish a strong motive and back it up withh evidence, should this go to trial.

There was no argument and she has told police that I forced myself upon her, which means that she should have injuries to support this. There aren't any as I didn't.

The only motive that I can think of for her doing this is that she is unstable mentally, which has been well documented by the social services, medical staff and health visitor.

[Rights Fighter]

News Flash! No injuries are necessary to "prove" rape. Some people are genuiinely forced into sex without being physically hurt.

Havig previously had mental health probles does not preclude a person from being raped or sexually assaulted.

It is important to make sure that her medical and counselling/psychiatric records are obtained (if you are charged) in case she has previously made false allegations of any description.

As I said, a good strong motive for her lying about this is very helpful in these cases. Crown will ask you "why would she put herself through the trauma of a police interview annd court action if it is not true?"

If you do not have a good answer then they will take that into consideration during their deliberations.

[Saffron]

Hi Friday

My understanding was that the stats say that 6% of all reported rapes end in conviction. Of course, many many reported rapes do not get as far as the CPS and result in NFA or "no crime". A friend of mine is a sol for the CPS in London and specialises in sexual crimes; he was the one who gave me the 60%-once-it-gets-to-trial figure. He does not know about what happened to R and me, and I have never volunteered the information, (although his mum and dad know, and provided references for R at sentencing) but I have expressed an interest in his work, and we have discussed the stats.

The problem with all statistics is that generally they can be twisted to represent whichever side you want them to. I have another friend who is an accountant, and he says one should never trust "official statistics"!!!

With regard to Furry, I would say that the greatest motive for the false allegation was your daughter's arm injury which seems to have kicked all this off. I would reckon that your wife was quizzed about it at hospital, and claimed you inflicted it to divert suspicion from herself. The alleged rape would have been the icing on the cake. Without wishing to sound flippant, it sounds like an episode of Casualty.

OK, signing off now as I am feeling a bit down.

[friday]

in fact people with mental health problems are more likely to be a victim of a serious crime, less likely to report and, from my own experience, are likely to have it used against them in court, even if it has nothing to do with the trial and without being allowed a psychiatrist to explain how the illness affects them. of course what effect this has on the trial depends entirely on the jury and their understanding an attitude towards mental health conditions.
since rape victims are more likely to suffer repeat episodes of sexual violence than other people, if there are previous allegations it wouldn't mean a jury would necessarily think it wouldnt happen twice and unless she has been proved to have lied in the past i can't see what affect this would have on the trial.
RF-would an allegation of rape be allowed to be brought up if there was no evidence it was false (e.g. if i was to go to court over another rape would the fact i had reported one before and the fact he was found not guilty be allowed to be brought up?)

[Saffron]

Hi Friday

As far as I know, previous arrests are now admissable in court, if they have a direct association to the case that is being tried. IE: if the trial was for rape, and previous allegations of that nature had been made against the defendant, then the prosecution would argue for disclosure.

As far as I am aware, if a complainant had made a previous allegation of rape that was not proven to be false, that would not be admissable. I am not 100% certain though, but am pretty sure I am right.

Sorry, I am not being very clear, have had the day from hell, my daughter has a fever of 103 and my central heating has packed up... If the defendant had been previously arrested/charged with rape, the prosecution would argue for disclosure, although this may not be granted as a matter of course.

If the victim had made a previous allegation that was *not* proven to be false, I think that would not be admissable. If s/he had made an allegation that *was* proven to be false, that might be admissable.

Of course there are legal arguments for both sides. Just because someone has been accused of a rape previously does not mean they are guilty this time. And just because someone has previously made an allegation which resulted in "not guilty" or NFA etc does not mean they are immune to being raped, or that they should not be taken seriously.

As an aside, RF is not saying that people with mental health problems should be disbelieved if they make a rape allegation, but rather that only a mentally unstable person would fabricate a rape. Hence why she recommends asking for the accuser's medical history.

Best to all.

[Rights Fighter]

As an aside, RF is not saying that people with mental health problems should be disbelieved if they make a rape allegation, but rather that only a mentally unstable person would fabricate a rape. Hence why she recommends asking for the accuser's medical history.

I would never in a million years suggest that somebody with mental health problems should be disbelieved. Having a mental illness does not preclude them from being raped. Mental illness can be caused by childhood abuse as many of us already know.

Furthermore, some people who have had mental health problems are just as likely to make false allegations as those who do not. Their records pertaining to their condition should be obtained - just in case either:

a) they have a previous history of making false allegationss of any kind

b) there is no mention of the alleged abuse if the complainant claims that the illness was caused by the alleged abuse

Each case is different and I do not believe that a complainant should be vilified just because they have had mental health issuess in the past.

[friday]

^wasnt saying you thought people with mental health problems should be disbelieved!was just highlighting how insane it is that a persons mental health can be brought up in court even if it has nothing to do with the allegation, ie no history of fase allegations, doesnt affect their view of people/the world as in some psychotic illnesses etc... i just cant get my head around it. you wouldn't tell a jury about a physical injury that doesnt affect the trial. fair enough allow it to be investigated for false allegations, delusions around the time of accusation/supposed event but since mental illness still has such a stigma it will inevitably cloud some of the jury's opinion.

[Rights Fighter]

Yep and I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it seemed that I wasn't - I have just (an hour ago) got back from Spain. While I was there I had use of a teeny weeny notebook laptop and the keyboard was so tiny I ended up with stuff I wasn't expecting to type plus the return key was in the wrong place so instead of putting capitals I ended up with the text going everywhere - so my brain was not in fully working order (when is it I have to ask myself!)

I think that in most cases psychiatric illness is not actually put to the jury unless it is part of the allegations - "he made me like that when he did X, Y and Z".

I often get into disagreements with some people who are either pre charge or pre trial, or trying to appeal where they think that this should form part of the defence - "s/he's off her trolley so cannot be believed" is what they tend to want put.

I've had psychiatric help during my adult life due to the rubbish I had to put up with as a child - that doesn't mean that I will lie about somebody attacking me and neither does it mean that I cannot be sexually assaulted. In actual fact that has happened (as discussed in previous threads). It really annoys me that some people who have been accused (rightly or falsely) will use the defence that the complainant has had mental health difficulties - I don't think that is allowed as much nowadays though. unless, as I said, it relates directly to the allegations.

Soz for the misunderstanding!

[friday]

^i'm on a tiny netbook at the moment and though its great cos i can just carry it in my bag the number of spellig mistakes drives me mad!

i guess i'm just bitter that it was allowed to be used against me when the only issue that had any effect at the time was the fact i was emaciated and thus easy to overpower. the hospitalisation was after and any delusions as a result of my illness are of grandeur when i am manic. hospital records would have shown i was not manic at the time as i was having outpatient treatment 3+ times a week. but of course his barrister was trying to get him off so instead took it upon himself to quote the dsm-iv, neglecting to read the bit that says people can have any combination of the symptoms or the bit that explains the difference between bipolar I and II. i firmly believe that if a psychiatrist had been allowed to be called to explain the illness then the case may have turned out differently.

[Rights Fighter]

The Crown should have argued vociferously on that point alone. It seems the person who was supposed to be batting for you could not be ar*ed. Hells Bells!

[furry001]

Just to bring my case into perspective here. My wife has a known history of mental illness, to the point where she will dream things that are not true and believe them until you present evidence to the contrary. The medical team looking after her are aware of this problem.

If my case goes to court, then I will be requesting that this is brought up and used against her. It is less than 3 weeks now before I go back to the police to (hopefully) find out if they intend to charge me or release me.

[friday]

hi furry, i would think that should be allowed as a history of lying has a direct impact on the case. i don't know much about the legal side of things but if she has a history of lying not just confined to an episode of illness or if only when ill then if she was ill at the supposed time of offence or reporting then i would guess it would be admissable.

[friday]

rf- i was told they were allowed to use it against me as hospitalisation was the reason it took a year to report it. of course as a victim you are nothing more than a witness so don't get to meet your barrister until the day of the trial making it very difficult to actual make the case stronger.