further to my other post.......whats the differance..???

[peter125]

my police interview has been put back to 14th Oct 15 from the 5th Oct 15.....my solicitor now says there looking at 1 count of attempted rape..?????? would that be a less thing than rape....or am I missing something

[Rights Fighter]

They cannot be "counts" (on the indictment) unless you have been charged. At the moment these are allegation I believe?

Possibly the complainant has come up with another allegation or changed a previous one.

[peter125]

o yes sorry police have said its now attempted rape....?????? why do people tell bad tales...??? don't they understand it makes me mad thinking how someone whom I treated has my own for 17 years can turn round and say evil things ???????? what I don't know ....wait till police station on 14th Oct 15 see what im accused of..................

[Rights Fighter]

my police interview has been put back to 14th Oct 15 from the 5th Oct 15.....my solicitor now says there looking at 1 count of attempted rape..?????? would that be a less thing than rape....or am I missing something

I must be missing something here. Have you not been interviewed yet or is this for a reinterview? Sorry if you've answered already but been in the middle of other stuff today.

I'll check to see your other threads.

[Rights Fighter]

Ah ok just read the previous thread.

This is a first interview. At this stage these are allegations not charges I think.

See if you can find her Facebook and other social media profiles and if visible check out what she's been saying on there since she made her allegations (and from just before as there might be a clue there).

[Casehardened]

.....my solicitor now says there looking at 1 count of attempted rape..??????

I suspect that the police can find no evidence to back up the allegation of rape so have gone back to her and said, in so many words, 'are you sure?' and her response (or lack of it!) has caused them to alter the allegation to 'attempted'.

One of the previous moderators, LS, often used to remark that it was difficult to prove that one hadn't attempted to do something so it is an easy get-out for the police/CPS if they knew or suspect that rape hadn't occurred.

I'm not wanting to depress you but if you understand the police's reasoning you can approach the interview in the right frame of mind with the appropriate responses.

[Rights Fighter]

Charges on follow if it is thought that there is 51% chance of conviction on the evidence that the police have offered the CPS. This often of course does not include evidence from the "suspect" which could lead to innocence.

The police are supposed to investigate in between interview(s) and Charge/NFA. Sometimes they do investigate but sadly often they will only gather evidence that might ensure a conviction. It's about Government-set rape/sexual abuse conviction targets.

[AmandaF]

"They cannot be "counts" (on the indictment) unless you have been charged."

Back to the old chestnut of Scot's law. My OH WAS tried for an offence for which he was never ever charged- in fact he didn't even know about it until 3 days before the trial was due to start. Just finally had a reply from his defence sol who said it was correct procedure as it was on a different indictment!!

Sounds like Scotch mist to me

[Rights Fighter]

I've seen counts added to the indictment, or the indictment amended during the course of the trial. It's not unusual. This often happens when the accuser changes something in his/her story.

One trial I attended a couple of years back, in the ABE interview she said he touched on top of clothes. In evidence she decided to jazz it up a bit and said he touched her under her clothes.

The count was amended from "touched on top of knickers" to "either touched on top or underneath...." Can't remember the exact wording but the indictment was amended to reflect HER "evidence".

We got NG verdicts anyway. However, it could have gone the wrong way..... had he been convicted of the more serious count, the sentence would have been longer.....

[peter125]

Update...

Been had interview with police..was arrested so they could put bail conditions on me ...make no contact with other person....i am supposed to have tried to force myself on her and have sexual intercourse ?????? this is supposed to have happened at my place of work in 2004 or 2005 ?? ...why was she at my work at night...im on night shift......the works are open 24/7 with 20 people milling about.......all made up lies im now bailed till 4th december 15 pending enquires.....

[YearsOfHell]

Been had interview with police..was arrested so they could put bail conditions on me ...make no contact with other person....i am supposed to have tried to force myself on her and have sexual intercourse ?????? this is supposed to have happened at my place of work in 2004 or 2005 ?? ...why was she at my work at night...im on night shift......the works are open 24/7 with 20 people milling about.......all made up lies im now bailed till 4th december 15 pending enquires.....

Just take a minute to calm down.

The allegations won't make sense because they're not true.

We're in a similar situation, the "assault" is supposed to have happened with nearly 100 people milling about! It's ridiculous but they are obliged to investigate.
All you can do now is start making notes (just in case) and a timeline.
You may never need it but it will help you focus while your waiting for a decision.
Write everything down, no matter how insignificant it seems now.
My OH was also arrested to put similar bail conditions on him, no contact etc
His bail is also for December.
Hang in there! We must be strong together
Trust your innocence
YoH

[Casehardened]

..was arrested so they could put bail conditions on me ...

Interesting comment...was this made by the OIC or did your solicitor suggest it....

Either way, reading between the lines, you weren't arrested because it is thought that you committed the offence but because an allegation was made, as YoH says.

[peter125]

Interesting comment...was this made by the OIC or did your solicitor suggest it....

Either way, reading between the lines, you weren't arrested because it is thought that you committed the offence but because an allegation was made, as YoH says.

thats correct they arrested me as soon as i went to interview room..my solicitor tried to stop them saying its just an allegation and ive come to police station ...but they carried on regardless i had 4 hours of stupid questions about what i was doine in 2004....the 2 police women who did the interview in my mind had already convinced themselves that i was guilty ???? so im now bailed and to make no contact ive not spoken to her for 14 months anyway...so im just in limbo waiting

[peter125]

bit more info would it help

just found out after much searching that the said offence that took place in 2004/2005.....but i didnt start working for the company till 2006....

[AmandaF]

I think you'll find it doesn't matter and apologies if I'm wrong- don't give that info to the police as they will simply get her to say she was mistaken.

The issue I have with "investigations" is that the statements are non- sensical but they just carry on with it. Do they actually "investigate"?

Interestingly I had a conversation with my sister's stepdaughter who is a DI investigating sex crimes. She said that the police have to be impartial and she tries her utmost to do that as she is aware of the increasing false allegations.