I know it's late, but anyone there to console me? I am feeling sick to the stomach that I probably won't get justice :( (Trigger warning)

[keepingmum121]

Anyone there? I need to splurge.

KM, may I have permission to copy your last post and send it to some great people with whom I work on a regular basis. I am more involved these days in cases of historical child sex abuse - but I am in touch with some of the leaders of those campaigns.

The 'shutting down for self-preservation' is currently being documented and researched. We have good solicitors and barristers working with us pro bono.

When I was being abused, I actually hoped that his attempt to strangle me on 2nd January 2004 would mean that I was free of him! He thought he had killed me - I hoped he had! But somehow, I came around 3 hours later with his dog keeping me warm, paddling my chest to rouse me and licking my face. (I think that must have been dog CPR) I still stayed! I took the final beating on 29th January 2004 - it was his dog who defended me again and bit him to stop the kicking. The dog was kicked severely in the process, but when I opened my car door, his dog jumped in and looked at me as if to say "This is your escape and I am coming with you. Now put your foot down on that pedal!"

I was reported for dog-knapping. NWales police told him that there was no such crime. But when I made my statement on the Sunday, the dog was there. I said, "This is his dog, what do I do about it? Do I need to hand him over to be returned?"

I was asked if I was willing to keep the dog. I said Yes, because that dog had saved me twice. "Don't worry about him then, he will have already got a new puppy to kick around". The police had already got a measure of my type of abuser. They were kind and confident - sharp and intelligent. Never did I feel that I was not believed.

I have a horrible phobia of the word

I remember your initial threads and we all had to agree not to use 'the word'. However, now that you are seeking a prosecution, you will have to learn it, accept it and become desensitised to it - the word is a description of an event. It is like short-hand.

The detail of that event and abuse is more important.

Can you see now how the police are judging your ability to stand up to a criminal trial under their duty of care? If you continue to have a phobia of 'that word' - the defense barrister will have you in tears within 2 minutes. You could even end up saying "I made it all up" just to get out of the witness box.

Your mental health and well-being is paramount. Your ability to build a new normal is paramount. Only YOU can decide what you can cope with. MNetters and RL friends will stand by you, do research, find some big gun lawyers etc only if you are up to it.

Thank you for all your help SW. You are lovely, especially after all you've been through yourself. Wow! I love that dog!

Yes, c&p that post and I'd be grateful for more opinions on whether a jury could be made to understand.

Re that word, when the DC first saw me after report (which my friend did by calling 101 on my behalf), I had a friend with me who explained about the phobia as I made coffee in another room. The DC has been great at not saying it throughout and even editing her emails to not include her job title at the end.

However...when she called me that day (the call that prompted me to start this thread) she said it a number of times on the phone. I sort of reacted by saying 'ouch, please, please' but she just carried on as though she didn't hear me. It made me lose all ability to concentrate. I feel attacked when I hear it. I start to zone out and feel physical pain.

Could she have been purposefully doing that, as a kind of test? She definitely knew my issue. If their reasons for not pursuing are because of a duty of care (that they think I won't deal with the trial), why wouldn't she say so?

KM - yes, she will have been told to test your reaction. However much she empathised with your hatred of the word, she would be duty-bound (and instructed) to 'test' your abilty and tolerance. Now a prosecution barrister will use worse tactics.

I feel attacked when I hear it. I start to zone out and feel physical pain.

What we can do on Mumsnet is to help you face up to 'that word' until it doesn't cause you physical pain and send you into any sort of dark place. It will just be the short-hand word for your attack/abuse. You tell us when you are ready though. Only when you are able to say 'that word' and hear it out loud will you be ready to challenge the lack of prosecution. It would have been inappropriate for the DC to say "I am going to use that word and I don't want you to get upset" - that wouldn't have been a true indication of your safety and well-being. The prosecution barrister won;t give you a warning - you have to learn your coping strategies.

It will take lots more help before you will be able to stand in a witness box. It is a cruel place - and you become an accuser rather than a victim.

If you want to continue, we can help you to get there.

I'll print off your post now that you have given me permission, and try to find some additional professional advice for you.

Oh?? Now I feel sick. I might actually be sick. I failed the test :(

KM - I should also say that your avoidance of speaking the word out loud is NOT unusual.

It took Esther Baker 7 interviews before she could speak truthfully about the extent of her child abuse. She kept parts of it 'hidden' because speaking about it made it real. Does that make sense?

"Nick" (another child abuse victim) has had 12 police interviews and was taken back to the places of his abuse, including Dolphin Square. I think it was during his 8th interview where he finally spoke about another boy in the next bed being murdered. "Nick" goes into a melt-down after every interview, but he has great RL and cyber friends who swoop in when needed to prop him up.

I don't tell you this to compare your case to theirs - only that other people who have faced horrendous trauma (as you have done) also use the same avoidance tactics. But learning to say the word and hear the word will give you greater control over what happens to your perpetrator and your future life.

Take care

I failed the test

No..... they just didn't tell you the rules

Now you know the rules, we'll get you there! You tell us when we should start to use 'that word' and we'll get you desensitised so that you can appeal your case. The police have never come across the power of Mumsnet before

Do you mean she was not entirely candid about the real reason for not pursuing the case?

I am shaking and retching here. Crap :(

She will have been informing you - as appropriate. But you were also being tested. Do you not think that the DI would have said, "How can we put her in a witness box if she is physically unable to hear 'that word'. Do you think she is up to it?" (That isn't about truth and credibility, it is about your mental and physical well-being)

You can't give evidence on your own terms - the prosecution barrister is there to save his client from a jail sentence.

So, finish feeling sick tonight and we'll start the desensitisation process with the Mumsnet team as soon as you feel up to it.

sorry - mistake! prosecution barrister = defence barrister

What do you mean, informing me as appropriate? I just need to know if the reasons she gave me were the real ones?
I can't overcome this phobia. You must understand, I had a year of counselling to try and it failed.

Why would they do that on purpose? Why test me? Did they think I was lying when I said I can't hear that word? It is cruel.
Still shaking. This is horrible. No way I can go to sleep.

The police have gone out of their way to assure you that they believe you, honey, as does everyone here and your rl friends have no reason whatsoever to doubt your world.

Given that the police had already made their decision, it's highly unlikely that you were being 'tested' when the DC phoned you to tell you the reasons why your case was not going to be referred to the CPS and I sincerely hope you haven't gone to bed thinking otherwise.

As I've said upthread, on the face of it there appears to be no reason why the police didn't elect to refer your case to the CPS but, from what you've said in your last few posts, imo you should think very carefully before asking your regional police authority to review its decision.

When you posted on being told the police didn't intend to take the matter any further, you were understandably distressed that you wouldn't get the justice you wanted but, shortly after, you appeared to be livelier than you'd been since you beginnning your thread and I'm wondering if this was because your feelings, albeit temporarily, turned to those of anger rather than despair?

If so, I think you will find it far easier to live with the anger of knowing that the police failed to progress your case to the next level than live with the despair of a jury returning a not guilty verdict.

This is not to say a jury would find your attacker not guilty but, even without your phobia of certain words, you would most probably feel that you are on trial when cross-examined by the defence as you will be required to explicity state what he did to you in front of strangers in an open court.

That in itself can be the most horrendous ordeal for victims - many describe it as akin to being rxxxd in public - without the defence implying that their attackers' advances were not only welcome, but actively sought. Unfortunately, you had consensual sex with your attacker a matter of days before he rxxxd you and it doesn't take much to imagine what counsel for the defence would make of that.

Your attacker is cunning. He selects vulnerable women who he suspects will fall victim to his wooing and he brutalises them shortly after he's met with success. This modus operandi is not uncommon and serves to convince me, as I said earlier, that he's done this before and will do it again to other unsuspecting women.

Although he's cunning, he's not clever. One fine day he will select the wrong woman and, as he does not appear to have been formally charged with any offfence(s) against you, it's probable that you will be contacted by the police and play may a part in a successful prosecution which will see him sent down for many years.

Remember that you have something many victims of serious sexual assault do not possess, namely your faith and, although I subscribe to no man-made religion, I would suggest that you give consideration to seeking spiritual direction from your pastor with a view to contemplating the meaning of Luke 22.42 together with Psalms 7 and 55 v.22

Rest assured this ordeal will NOT break you, lovely, nor will it ''finish"you... you WILL come through this and be stronger for it.

This is long link to a much longer article but any woman with 10 minutes to spare will find it worth the read:
www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/02/28/revealed-why-the-police-are-failing-most-rape-victims/

may play not play may!

Thank you godess.

I just should clarify, when the DC called me in May (when I started this thread), it was not to inform me of the decision. The decision had not yet been officially made at that point. She told me that the DI would be reviewing within the next fortnight. However, I picked up that I felt she was gently preparing me for the possible decision to not take it further.

I can't help but think that she used that word and apparently ignored my distress on purpose in that phone call. She used it repeatedly and enunciated clearly. She definitely and without doubt had not forgotten my trouble because up until then in ALL our communication she had striven to be careful to avoid it.

On another note, I don't get why the police can't actively seek out one of the previous possible victims. They told me they can't approach people from the past because it would make the defense argue that they're clutching at straws. However, this guy actually told me about a woman who 'falsely accused' him. However, this was in a different city (I don't remember where) and she only reported him to the hospital where they both worked, not the police.

OP - difficult question but you said you 'switched modes' as when being abused by your ex, submission wasn't enough and you had to 'co - operate'. Do I mean you pretending to be an active participant?. Maybe said or did things that suggested you were?.

I believe you. I believe you were a victim and did whatever it took to get through it alive. Lots of people will understand that but not all. Is that what you think the Police were getting at when they said a jury might not understand?.

I feel for you OP. This is all so awful.

The DI preparing you for no prosecution does not mean there won't be one, they have to say that so you are prepared. Please don't let this go. Please fight for justice. You need it to progress.

Just a quick post because I'm going out in a bit.

Any thoughts: IF the DC was testing me and the decision not to proceed is due to their opinion that I won't cope with court, are they really allowed to not tell me that??

Is there anyone with actual inside information who could answer that?

In that case, there is no use me explaining point by point all the other reasons she gave me.

Apologies for my error, keeping - I missed the call that prompted me to start this thread and was under the impression that the conversation you were referring to was the one in which the DC told you that the police had decided not to submit your case to the CPS.

In light of the above, it is indeed probable that the DC was endeavouring to ascertain if your extreme aversion to certain words had abated but, despite your feelings to the contrary, it could simply be that during the intervening time since the previous conversation you had with her, she had forgotten the paralysing effect they have on you.

Nevertheless, is abundantly clear is that, whatever her possible intent, you have NOT failed a test to determine whether you are telling the truth nor should you feel that you have in some way fallen short of what it would take to persuade the police to refer your case to the DPS.

As should be clear from my earlier responses, I was firmly of the view that you should ask your regional police authority to review the decision that has been taken in your case. However, given your subsequents posts and notwithstanding the further information you have provided which supports my conviction that your attacker has sexually assaulted other women, it seems apparent that it may not be in your best interests to do so as police regional authorities rarely overturn decisions made by their officers and it could be that further disappointment will plunge you back into the profound state of despair from which you have so recently appeared to be emerging.

With regard to your question IF the DC was testing me and the decision not to proceed is due to their opinion that I won't cope with court, are they really allowed to not tell me that??, it isn't that they're not allowed to tell you - it's that the reasons the police have given for not referring your case to the CPS are more compelling than whether or not you would 'cope' with court.

It's probable that the combined weight of all of the reasons why it was thought your case should not be referred to the CPS outweighed any consideration as to whether your phobia about certain words could cause you to 'freeze' in the witness box, but it could be that this was an area of concern which tipped the scales against making a referral and, in not tellling you, the police have sought to spare your feelings.

But we're entering into the realm of speculation when you deserve a clear cut answer to your question and, to that end, I suggest you call the DC and ask her outright.

I've no idea. I wasn't tested in anyway to see if I can cope in court. I reported it, submitted all my evidence, video evidence done, guilty person interviewed, witnesses spoken too, form submitted to CPS, CPS submitted it to whoever is above them, decision made. Hearings heard, plea hearing next then court.

I feel increasing upset over this new development.

I'm not sure if I dare directly ask her if she was testing me, for many reasons- not least that I probably won't like the answer :(. I am kind of scared of speaking to her again because of that word, in any case.

All I know is that the reasons she has told me so far for rejecting my file just don't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Each one I can explain coherently and would hope a decent jury would understand. So many women must react in a similar way. I might ask her about that.

I am utterly gutted that I am yet again plunged into helplessness.

So, my crap initial response to what he did and delay in reporting coupled with my history and its effect on me have caused this to fail. Such an emotional roller coaster and all for nothing :(

aintgonnabenorematch Yes, you understood correctly. I appreciate that looks bad but it is still true that I protested both physically and verbally in a sustained way before it got to that point. Also, I had made it clear to him that I did not want a repeat performance after the first time we had sex so he knew he should not be expecting it. He didn't even try to persuade me or anything. He just launched in, completely expressionless as though he was just going through a routine to get a job done.

Your delay in reporting means NOTHING. I took nearly 30 years to report.

My advice is to email her.

Start by thanking her for whatever latest information she has given you. Ask her if she had forgotten you don't want to hear certain words without warning yet as she used it several times and ignored your pleas to stop and finish by asking her what the next stage will be. That is what I would do anyway. Short, factual, firm.

OP - thank you for responding to a difficult question. I think you're right to fear that a jury might struggle to understand that but then, some might do.

I think I'm thinking of YOU being on the stand and having to respond to questions implying that you were an active and willing participant because of what you said or did and how difficult that would be for you. And those questions would be asked.

But I believe you. I understand why you did that. Many other's have done the same.

Well, anyway. There will be no jury and there will be no trial. I need to keep reminding myself of that.
He gets away with the crime. No consequence for him.
I suppose he should be congratulated.