Stalking

[OptimistS]

Came across this article this morning. It's a shocking case and I have every sympathy with everyone whose life was so badly affected as a result. I am not disputing that this is a newsworthy story or that it is significant simply because stranger stalking (as opposed to ex-partner stalking) is quite unusual.

Statistics demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of stalkers are men and that most of them are ex partners or well known to the victim. Among the women I know in my own life, several of them have received abusive text messages from an ex-partner, some have extended to threats of severe physical violence and death threats. In some cases, women have been beaten up quite badly indeed. However, while everyone agrees that this is awful, no one (other than feminists) seems to ever be as shocked by it as they are by the story above.

In the news article quite a lot was made about the impact and disruption to the Mr. Falkowski's life, yet this degree of disruption is shockingly common to women trying to leave a violent partner.

I guess that while I accept that what Mr. Falkowski went through is indeed good material for a TV drama, I am saddened that yet another drama 'a la Fatal Attraction' draws attention to the psycho female when such cases are actually statistically rare and pale into insignificance when compared to the number of women whose lives are blighted by stalking and violence from men. Why don't we have more hard-hitting dramas about these or is its normalcy considered to make such dramas boring? And shouldn't that be something by itself that makes society sit up and take notice?

You answered your own queston though "such cases are actually statistically rare" that is the point, they don't make dramas about things that are relativly every day!

This caught my eye: "1.2 million women and 900,000 men are victims of harassment"

That's actually not that many more women than men. I would be interested to see what the incidences of harrassment are in each case, because those figures are surprising if they're true.

(I'm guessing that as with the figures for DV, the harrassment most men suffer is less violent, less frightening and less sustained than that which women suffer, but am still a bit surprised that the gap between incidences is so narrow. And wondering how "harrassment" is defined for the purposes of this figure.)

I think the newsworthy issue in this case was that the dr stood trial for rape and the "miscarriage of justice aspect".

Prior to the stalkers allegation of rape which went to trial the harrassment case against the woman had been dropped due to lack of evidence, it was only reopened after it became apparant during the rape case that she had planted DNA evidence.

The whole case was extraordinary and I think that is what made the headlines not the fact the victim was male.

I've read the whole article properly now and 2 more things struck me

1. the police were extraordinarily pro-active about catching this stalker. A mock wedding was staged while they staked out all the public phone boxes to catch her. What a contrast to the poor woman who was hiding in her wardrobe frantically calling the police while her ex battered his way into her bedroom. They didn't bother to come out to her and he murdered her. Would be interesting to know how they make a judgement on how to deploy resources in stalking cases and whether there are consistent criteria.

1. There were two victims of stalking here, not one. The article focuses on Dr Falkowski but in the first year of the stalking, it appears from the article at least, that it was his fiancee who was subjected to most of the physical threats. It was only when they split up, that the stalker turned her attention to harming him in the shape of a false rape allegation.

The fiancee's experience of being the stalking victim, seems to be treated as a bit of a side issue. (Presumably because being threatened with injury and death is not considered as appalling as being accused of a crime you didn't commit.)

sadly I suspect the primary reason that the police were so proactive is the number of other people who became involved - friends and relatives of the stalkees were contacted and threatened as was the manager of the venue where they intended to marry.

It then became an issue of the safety of the public as opposed to "just" the two victims and had to be considered to be more than a "domestic".

I think the reason that the article focuses on Dr. F is that in the original trial the stalker was accused of harrassing both parties but the charges were dropped. The second trial was brought about specifically because of teh false rape allegation which only applied to Dr. F and it was the harrassment, by way of this allegation, that was the substance of the charge.

I'd be interested why they chose not to prosecute her - they clearly had the evidence and she accepted guilt as she was cautioned. Seems indicative of how seriously (or not) all stalking cases are treated.

Nancy- I found that quite shocking as well. The police obviously took it very seriously, but the CPS didn't think it worth prosecuting. Surely the things she threatened were worth more than a caution?

The police are well aware that stalking can be a precursor to far more serious crimes - I wonder if the CPS are and this case is a bit of an odd one, or if they aren't that
bothered by stalking?

If there was enough evidence - which there clearly was it would have been decided not to prosecute as "it was not in public interest". In cases like this that usually means that the defendant is no risk to the public, the victims feel strongly that there shouldn't be a prosecution or the defendant have significant mental health issues that are already being treated.

Like I said I would certainly be curious to know the reasons given...

I do think this particular case is being made much of because of the many unusual (in statistical terms) elements - the fact that the stalker was a woman the victim didn't know as opposed to an XP, the false rape charge coupled with faking DNA evidence and the stalker's willingness to harass other people such as the wedding venue manager.

Yes most stalkers are known to their victims aren't they?

It's a very odd case, there's no mention of why this woman randomly picked this particular couple to threaten.

And the lengths she went to to get DNA evidence is really astonishing. Shows how DNA isn't the holy grail of evidence it's often painted as.

I've just watched the tv drama based on the story mentioned.Utterly shocking case.If you read about the actual true events ( not just the tv film) it must have been awful for eveyrone involved.