To wonder how we determine if a rape accusation is false?

[FlinchGirl]

It seems just about everyone I talk to about this "knows" someone who was definitely falsely accused whilst their accuser apparently got away scott free.

But how do we determine whether an accusation is false?

A claim being withdrawn or charges being dropped or a not guilty verdict being reached does not mean the accusation were false, surely? But those are always the responses I get when I ask how they know the accusations were false. Occasionally the accuser apparently admitted they made it up but then when you probe further it becomes apparent that there is no evidence such a confession took place; it is just what people perceived to have happened and is now being repeated as fact.

I can't say I blame women in being reluctant to report rape

So is it your contention BillSykes that unless numbers are definitive we should disregard them? Does that also apply to situations in which men claim to have been falsely accused? Or should we believe men and not women?

We never use past sexual history in our enquiries now. How many partners a partners has had or whatever is of no relevance. We only ask about current partners for the potential of a partners Dna being present. But feel free to keep insulting my work ethic and that of my colleagues

I did say that historically they weren't dealt with as they should be.

John Worboys was only convicted in 2009.

I think when people say that conviction rates are so low they are talking about the number of reported rapes which result in a conviction rather than the literal conviction rate.

Out of all reported rapes, only 6% will result in any jail time.

Nick, Ched Evans was found not guilty on retrial due to his victim's sexual history. At a recent case that I was involved in the prosecution asked for leave to include the victim's history at trial and was granted it. She had to answer utterly humiliating questions that had no relevance to what happened.

Clearly I can't speak for every investigation and its merits across the country, especially one from 2009 which I wasn't working on. I did say generally which seems to have been ignored.

I'm out of the conversation and this is why I rarely get involved in conversations like these. No one is actually interested in the role of a solo officer or to ask about my experiences or how we deal with an investigation and just want to hit me with failings about cases I wasn't on. In an ideal world we would get it right every single time but sometimes that doesn't happen.

I could add to this conversation if it was wanted but it doesn't appear to be.

Sexual history can be relevant and it would be foolish to state that it should never be used. Haven't used it in any of mine though that I can recall. I promise it's my last comment now!

You may be a great officer Nick but that doesn't help the women who are failed by the system as a whole. You can't claim everything is fine when it clearly isn't.

How can sexual history be relevant Nick? That's a genuine question.

What I find complex about rape cases is that in any other standard crime the starting point is innocence. The alleged perpretrator did not commit the crime unless a court can prove otherwise.

With rape, as a woman, I always start from the point of "I belive you" with the victim. Yet that clashes 100% with the innocent until proven guilty concept.

No it doesn't NapQueen. If I said my house had been burgled the response would be sympathetic and supportive. No one would think to question if I was lying. In court, however, the burglary would have to be proven. Rape should be no different, but in practice it's far more common for someone who says they've been raped to not be believed.

"ask I did say that historically they weren't dealt with as they should be. As a current Cid officer I can assure you they are. I deal with them every week."

Every generation of rape victims is told that Nicky.

Every fucking generation.

Meanwhile, most rapists walk free and most rape victims will never get justice.

My point is that unless you know someone to be untrustworthy then it is totally standard to believe them when they say something's happened to them.

I'm not complaining about the prosecution's role in the Ched Evans case, I'm complaining about the whole process: the way the victim's sexual history was allowed to be used in court to prove that she wasn't a worthy victim, while his sexual history is off the table.

Why are defendant's ex girlfriends not brought into court to testify about their normal sexual behaviour and attitudes, in the way that victim's sexual partners are? Hmm? Can you imagine the horror some of these rapey blokes would feel, if it came out in court how they regularly coerced their girlfriends into unwanted sex acts? But that's not allowed, while a woman's sexual history can be picked apart to prove that she's a slut who can't be really raped because she's up for it all the time.

Don't tell me there's nothing wrong with how we handle rape cases.

Police officers are people, some have prejudices just like the rest of us. I've worked with officers who were sceptical about rape allegations but most were sympathetic. Female officers are women like you and me and know it happens, male officers tend to have significant women in their lives, wives, mothers, daughters etc. So they don't tend to approve of rape either.

Women do make false allegations, I can remember one where her father caught them in an embarrassing situation, she was frightened of her father and cried rape. He called the police, if dad left the room she said it wasn't rape, if dad walked back in she said it was. It wasted a lot of time and officers were engaged with dealing with her, her father and her boyfriend on a night shift where we were short staffed. A dispute started within walking distance of the police station which ended up with a man being killed before an officer was freed up to attend. Officers ended up rather exasperated with this family's Jeremy Kyle moment.

On the other hand I remember two men who were on a rape spree, raping local prostitutes. A big investigation was started and the men were caught. One officer was heard to say it was a risk with their life style, I won't repeat what the DCI said but that young man didn't make the same mistake again.

Rape is a hard thing to investigate in many instances, the accused and the defendant can have their lives ruined and convicting innocent men isn't going to help genuine victims.

It is easy for people who aren't involved to think they could do it all better. They could always start studying to become a solicitor/barrister/judge/detective and show the rest of us how to do it.

"convicting innocent men isn't going to help genuine victims. "

That isn't happening though.

Guilty men are walking free.

Most guilty men aren't even reported.

I'll start worrying about innocent men being banged up, when we start banging up a higher percentage of guilty ones.

Napqueen I don't start with 'I believe you'. I think that's fundamentally flawed. I think the starting point should be neutral, neither belief or disbelief.
I did know one man who was found not guilty of a rape charge. I honestly don't know if he was guilty or not. I wasn't in court, I only know what my ex partner told me, who believed he was innocent, but then he was a friend of his, and what I read in the paper.

I think people do question other crimes as well. Burglaries - well I know people who I suspect staged it to do an insurance claim. I might be wrong but certain things didn't add up.

No, people don't have a generalised attitude to burglaries of "well, so many burglaries are insurance frauds, let's face it, he's probably pulling off an insurance fraud" as a sort of kneejerk thing, as they do to rape.

When really, it would be more logical, because according to insurance industry figures, far more people falsely allege burglary, than falsely allege rape.

AskBasil, well we won't agree on that one. I think it is entirely possible that innocent men have been convicted of rape, after all we know people have been wrongly convicted of murder so why not rape. Of course guilty men sometimes walk free but can you just explain how locking up an innocent man will help? Both sides are entitled to justice in a civilised society.

Although obviously if you work with the police, you are more likely to have a sceptical attitude to all crime reports, simply because you've seen more false ones than most people have.

AskBasil you might not think people would think an alleged burglary is an insurance fraud, if you have seen it then you would think it. I'm not sure if you have any evidence of what the generalised attitude to burglaries is, insurance frauds are investigated and prosecutions happen.

We cross posted, yes what you have seen will influence you in the future you can't avoid that.

"Of course guilty men sometimes walk free but can you just explain how locking up an innocent man will help?"

No, it's not sometimes, it's most times. Most rapists are never even accused, let alone tried, found guilty or locked up.

Why are you asking me to explain how locking up innocent men will help? I've never advocated that. I've advocated proper investigation and prosecution of rape allegations. Why do you assume that means locking up innocent men? What sort of justice system do you think we have?

grannytomime, people don't immediately start questioning whether a burglary was staged or not, when they hear a neighbour has been burgled. They might start questioning it if circumstances emerge which mean that things don't quite add up, but it's not an instant response as it is with rape.

I think if you hang around with police officers, you're more likely to be in contact with people whose kneejerk response is to wonder if that burglary is real.