Brother falsely accused of historic child abuse

[Rights Fighter]

I meant to add earlier. The six or seven accounts of alleged abuse or rape occurred around or on the FA's birthday. No other dates. This set alarm bells ringing inside my head as she has chosen those dates so she wouldn't forget what she has said. It seems odd that someone would only abuse someone on their birthday (or the day before or after) and the other 363 days of the year nothing happened. It's very odd. The solicitor has said that the case is so flimsy and he wouldn't like to be defending the FA. But, he's warned us today that the legal costs can escalate further ! Is there any way of getting the money back at the end of the case?

Those are the dates on the charges. CPS usually use dates of birthdays when making Counts/charges on the indictment so it fits with sentencing (if the charges related to under 16) should their be a conviction.

So for instance Count 1 could be:

Cyril Bloggs is charged that between the nth day of nth month [year] and mth day of mth month of [year] he did rape / sexually assault etc contrary to whichever Act

And it would go like that. Usually it's under the age of 14 years, then 16 years then "a woman" .....

[Rights Fighter]

Just to clarify:

A suspect is usually interviewed "under caution". He or she has the caution explained and they are asked if they understand what it means.

Complainants are asked (or should be asked) if they understand the difference between the truth and lies and should give an example. Adult complainants who are not ABE interviewed provide a statement (which doesn't happen often). These statements usually have the police caution written across the top of the statement and the complainant should have their attention drawn to it while making it. The same goes for prosecution witnesses.


If it gets to trial all witnesses including the defendant are obliged to give evidence "under oath" apart from those under the age of 10 - I think. They are asked if they know the difference between the truth and lies.


The oath can be made in different ways, for instance:

Swearing on oath - on their own word (if they don't believe in any faith / religion)

Swearing on the Bible

Swearing on any other Holy Book such as the Qu'ran / Koran.

The appeal I've been working on, the guy is a Sikh so swore on his Holy Book. He had to take his shoes off and cover his head in order to swear to tell the truth - part of the religion apparently is that they cannot touch the Holy Book without doing that.

The oath doesn't come during police interviews for either side.

[Casehardened]

Brother has asked for his solicitor not to be named - can I have the post edited if possible?

Done.........

[Cazzle18]

Done.........

The solicitor is quoted in another post .... sorry to be a pain

[Casehardened]

The solicitor is quoted in another post .... sorry to be a pain

Ah....well-spotted

[Rights Fighter]

I don't remember naming the sols in my post CH, but you seem to have edited or removed something

[Shah]

Those are the dates on the charges. CPS usually use dates of birthdays when making Counts/charges on the indictment so it fits with sentencing (if the charges related to under 16) should their be a conviction.

So for instance Count 1 could be:

Cyril Bloggs is charged that between the nth day of nth month [year] and mth day of mth month of [year] he did rape / sexually assault etc contrary to whichever Act

And it would go like that. Usually it's under the age of 14 years, then 16 years then "a woman" .....

You say about dates there was no dates at all except the counts happened between 2013 and 2014 (with my sons case, my son worked away a lot )....

[Rights Fighter]

Look on the indictment (list of charges / counts) if you have a copy. It will say "on a date between date/month/year and date/month/year you are charged with x, y and z".

In all my years of doing this work, I have never seen "Between 2013 and 2014 you are / you did x, y and z".

The counts have to be particularised. If they are not then they've been written up wrong.

[Shah]

sorry cazzle quick reply

charges, no dates as such just between 30th may 2013 and 30th may 2014

[Rights Fighter]

We seem to have gone off topic. Maybe start a new thread Shah

[Casehardened]

I don't remember naming the sols in my post CH, but you seem to have edited or removed something

No you didn't name them; I removed the name from Cazzle's post which you quoted (obviously the name remained in the quote even though I'd edited the original)

[Rights Fighter]

Oh ok. So what did you edit in my post further up? Post #77

[Casehardened]

Oh ok. So what did you edit in my post further up? Post #77

Scrolls back to #77 to check....I didn't edit your words honestly, wouldn't dare to I edited Cazzle's quote in your post to remove the sols name which was still there even though I'd edited it out of her original post

[Rights Fighter]

Originally Posted by Cazzle18
Sorry it is under caution - i'm flicking through 106 pages of bumf lol (not had anything to do with the police before so got confused).... He said that reporting restrictions would be lifted and it could be in the national press.



Your brother's accuser was interviewed under caution? I cannot see how a complainant would be interviewed under caution unless it is because the police believe he is a suspect of a crime.

She may have been told that she has to tell the truth and that she could get into trouble if later on she is found to be lying. She wouldn't be interviewed under caution when being interviewed for a complaint of rape she is making.


Not all cases make it to the headlines. It really depends on what they have to print that might be more important. We have had people on here whose cases never made it into the media and some who did.

Last edited by Casehardened; 1 Day Ago at 08:50 PM. Reason: edited at request of OP

How strange! Who could have gone in and done that? It says

Last edited by Casehardened; 1 Day Ago at 08:50 PM. Reason: edited at request of OP

Is there any way of finding out what has been taken away or added? It's a bit worrying given the oddballs we have had on here and who stalk the site, who could wish any of us harm.