8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

I don't think anything is clear, thinking.

This whole thing is so upsetting.

Say that the boys didn't rape her, where did she get the idea/ability to descibe being raped when it was initially investigated?

I think we should have some kind of different court for when children are involved, they have that in other countries don't they.

"?She said, ?The boys had been doing sex with me?.? The mother told the court that her daughter complained that she had been assaulted while blocked into a bin shed before being forced to touch the boys? private parts."
well, i'm sorry, but i still mainatin,t hat this court case has been going on for 3 days ? and none of us, i.e joe public are any the wiser.

but doesn't the girls comemetns sound odd to you ? i was a very innocent young girl, from a totally loving family. so have no knowledge of abuse, but is this 'normal' talk for an 8 year old. to even know what sex is ? to accuse them of repeatdley raping her ?
does it sound a bit odd to you ?

They are continuing with the trial because not all the evidence has been heard. An 8 year old in the witness box means very little and judgement will not be made on her account alone.

pixie because children are inlcined to agree with adults a lot of the time, and she said she had not been raped under cross examination from the defence lawyer.

the judge said "i know the lady is nice but you don't need to say yes to everything she says"

They are continuing as they have videotaped evidence where the girl describes what happened to her. The CPS obviously felt they had enough evidence.

We do not know what the girl said when questioned by the prosecution lawyer.

The court / judge are aware that the girl was tired, had been questioned for hours, and maybe was saying what she thought they wanted to hear so that she could go home.

She is only 8, she won't fully understand what is going on.

Oblomov Fri 14-May-10 21:09:37

"but doesn't the girls comemetns sound odd to you ? i was a very innocent young girl, from a totally loving family. so have no knowledge of abuse, but is this 'normal' talk for an 8 year old. to even know what sex is ? to accuse them of repeatdley raping her ?
does it sound a bit odd to you ?"

The problem is, we cannot know which words the girl knew because she already "knew" them (e.g. from the playground), which she may have learnt during the incident, and which she may have learnt from her mother when she was questioning her. This is a big problem questioning children: they will very quickly pick up any phrases you use and use them back.

Even if the girl did make perfectly truthful rape allegations, they are unlikely to have been first couched in the words: "these boys raped me and forcibly touched my privates". Far more likely is the mother asking "did they do this?" and the girl saying "yes", and the word "rape" actually being an interpretation by the adults involved.

And btw knowing the word for having sex is perfectly normal for an 8yo. Their older friends are having sex education at this age, my 9yo certainly knows what condoms are for, that is perfectly normal.

Of course, as has been pointed out on this thread, leading questions can distort the evidence either way; it can be that the girl is now saying what she thinks the defence lawyer wants to hear. That is why the trial has to continue until there is absolutely no doubt.

dittany Sat 15-May-10 12:19:00
"She didn't "admit" - the defense counsel put statements to her and she agreed with them. Absolutely disgusting that they are reporting it this way.

What they should have said was "a powerful adult put a series of pressurising statements to an eight year old girl and she agreed to them". If this was in a relationship where someone was bullying someone else into agreeing with them, it would be called emotional abuse, but in court it gets called an admission."

I agree with this. But it cuts both ways: her mother was also a powerful adult as far as she was concerned. It is hopelessly difficult to now know what exactly she would have said if no leading questions had been put from either side.

This is a sad case from both sides, and like PPs I do feel that a criminal court, particularly in public, possibly isn't the best place for it. I would like to see some sort of youth court system for 10-14 year olds, held in private with input from appropriate professionals.

I agree with Cory that it will be next to impossible now to ever know what happened, just because an 8 year old knows the words "doing sex" doesn't mean she knew what sex was, and surely if it was just children playing then it cannot be interpreted as rape?

In teh original BBC item (which has now vanished) they said that the videotaped evidence showed the girl describing being raped "in simple terms". ie that she didn't use the word, and said what they did, and the word that the adults listening to the interview applied was rape.

It would not have gone to court if what she had described was simply children playing.

Also the BBC headline "girl lied about rape for sweets" was modified after some hours to something a bit less

The way I read it, in the court she said she voluntarily went there (wasn't dragged) and they showed each other their private parts (as happens at around this age). And she touched a guy's penis, but wasn't forced to do so. There was no penetration anywhere.

So how is this criminal? Am I missing something?

dittany Sat 15-May-10 14:35:08
"I wasn't aware there was evidence that her mother had asked her leading questions, Cory."

Well, she did say she told her mother what she did because she thought she wouldn't get any sweeties otherwise. That does rather sound as if she knew what the mother wanted to hear.

"
"girl lied about rape for sweets" ...
How can adults live with themselves speaking about an eight year old girl like this? How can adults live with themselves speaking about an eight year old girl like this?"

Well, seeing that they were the same newspapers who spoken about 10yo boys as rapists... Or do you mean it is worse to say that a small girl has told a lie than that a small boy has committed rape?

I would have no qualms in recognising that my own 8yo girl told lies from time to time- she did! And as often as not to get out of trouble. So did I when I was that age. That doesn't turn her into a "lying slag"- which was your interpretation.

It is at least possible that this was a fairly innocent game of mutual dare, which was turned into something more sinister by adult reactions.

I think its very sad the way some people on this thread want to demonise these two boys without all the facts.

I have an 11 year old DS in year 6. To think that if he was playing around with girls showing each other their bits, that he could be tried for rape appauls me.(sp?) He sort of knows what sex is, in the sense of its something to giggle about but he wouldnt understand rape.

Some boys do mature quicker and some boys at this age might be capable of a sexual assault but I think that would be rare. Even if these boys have assaulted this little girl, I dont think we should be demonising them on the basis of that article.

I think they would be better employed educating these children about their bodies and respecting themselve and others.

We don't know what happened here.

We do know that the judge hasn't stopped the trial. So presumably he is not convinced that the girls retraction under hours of questioning by an experienced defence lawyer is credible.

I am also concerned at everyone who is so keen to believe that the girl is lying.

We don't know one way or another.

cote and teamcullen

upthread it explains that the evidence she gave under questioning by the defence lawyer in court was different to the evidence she gave when the incident initially came to light. The videotaped evidence describes rape, not children showing each other their gentials. That is why the case went to court.

If she's previously described in detail what happened to her using words you'd expect a child to use surely she must have been telling the truth rather than repeating things suggested to her by her mum or anyone else for that matter. I know children lie but could an 8 year old really know enough to make up something like that. Saying something different in court doesn't mean that she lied previously just that she's been confused by an adult whose job it is to make it sound like she's lying. Mind you I also find it difficult to believe that 10 year old boys would be capable of rape. It's very scary to think about how they might have learnt about sex but in such a limited way that they thought it was ok to copy it with any girl who happened to cross their path. A truly terrible case no matter what the truth is.

And equally if the girl was lying, where has she learnt such things, in order to be able to tell teh initial investigators so convincingly.

the whole thing is just awful. Whether it is the boys who are lying or the girl, it seems that something terrible has gone on somewhere.

WTF are 10 and 8yr olds doing in the Old Bailey?

"Hostile defense lawyer" - Come on dittany

Nobody even wore wigs. They asked "fun" questions first so as not to scare her. Judge said "You did nothing wrong, remember that" etc.

Is it not at all possible that she said she was forced because she thought mum would be angry if she went there of her own accord?