Tuesday 7 April 2009

Oooh, Yet Another Of Those ‘Extremely Rare’ Cases….

…of false allegations of rape:
A man has told of the pain and humiliation he endured when his estranged wife falsely accused him of rape.
You’d think those words, ‘estranged wife’, might have given the police a clue, don’t you?
He described how he was arrested at his home - he was watching TV in bed when police arrived - and spent 16 hours in a cell.

His clothes were taken for forensic examination and he was left naked so that DNA samples could be taken.

Mr Scoones said: 'I wasn't just stripped of my clothes, but of my dignity. I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side, having swabs taken from all over my body.

'It was humiliating and degrading. I don't blame the officers for investigating, but it is a heinous crime to be accused of and I'm still having nightmares now.'
That’s very forgiving of you, Mr Scoones….
Durham Crown Court heard that she told police Mr Scoones followed her home from a shop, forced his way into the house and raped her in a downstairs toilet.

She claimed she was hurt but had not been able to call police immediately because he threatened to petrol-bomb her house.

It was only after discrepancies emerged in a police interview with her that Mr Scoones was told he was in the clear and his ex-wife was charged with committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.
Wouldn’t it have been an idea to have those interviews before arresting the poor guy? You know, to see if there really has been a rape after all?
PC Elizabeth Graham, of Durham Police's domestic abuse investigation team, said the force was very victim focused and that the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.

It was only when the truth emerged that Scoones stopped being treated as the victim.
How about, instead of assigning ‘victim’ status to one or the other depending on the complaint, the police wait to see where the actual evidence leads?
PC Graham said: 'This was a calculated and malicious allegation made by a frustrated ex-partner who had an aim of discrediting her former husband and subjecting him to the indignity of a police investigation into an allegation of rape.

'The sentence imposed reflects the gravity of the offence committed and takes into account the trauma the true victim of this incident experienced, as well as the significant waste of police time and money spent investigating a crime that never occurred.'
There we are again – ‘true victim’.

Of course, he’s only now assigned that title because it transpired that the wife set him up – before that, she was considered to be the ‘true victim’, and treated accordingly.

Deciding who the ‘victim’ is seems to take up a lot of police time. Doesn’t it…?


Dr Melvin T Gray said...

This shame upon womanhood may have been exceedingly clever and convincing until ultimately trapped by excellent police work.

However justice was still not done. The sentence for a woman who knowingly schemes to fabricate a rape conviction should be nothing less than the sentence intended for her victim. In addition, the liar should pay all or part costs of her own trial.

Letters From A Tory said...

'Victim focused' sounds an awful lot like Labour Speak to me. Great with the Daily Mail headlines, totally useless in the real world.

Oldrightie said...

Takes me back some thirty years. Then I had a great deal more sympathy and help from the authorities. How times change.

JuliaM said...

"The sentence for a woman who knowingly schemes to fabricate a rape conviction should be nothing less than the sentence intended for her victim. In addition, the liar should pay all or part costs of her own trial."

That has a certain 'old style' justice about it. I can't see the 'sisterhood' agreeing to it though...

"'Victim focused' sounds an awful lot like Labour Speak to me."

Of course! As spoken by the most PC PCs.

"How times change."

Not for the better.

ContraTory said...

Amongst others, journalists, politicians and climate change fundamentalists don’t bother with actual evidence so why should the Police?

Oh, I forgot. The Police have to get their case past a Court, which decides matters only on the basis of admissible evidence.

Anonymous said...

I stumbled across your blog following a link from David Thompson's site. I found your tag on rape and remembered another blog post on it - if from a slightly different perspective.


I think it would be most interesting to hear your response, presuming you don't die from apoplexy before you can frame an appropriate response.