From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: The Anonymous Service: This Waiter Has A Fake Accent
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:23:20 GMT

Charles Perez (perez@mgr.hjf.org) wrote:

: In article <14AUG92.14067915.0031@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> Z57N@UNB.CA (Z57N000) writes:

: >I tried to make a report to the police a long time ago, and I wasn't
: >taken seriously (because i didn't run screaming out of the room
: >afterwards, said the female officer).
: 
: I agree that this is bullshit. So why does criminology teach so few
: police officers the actual dynamics of abuse?

Like others, I've stayed away from this particularly nasty, vicious little
circle (as Riker put it) of psychological manipulation, and I shall continue
to do so (if anyone wants to know why, they are free to join me over on
comp.os.linux <grin>).  But, at last, there *is* a question I can answer! :)

Please read the ENTIRE post before responding, and remember that I used to do
this for a living - I know whereof I speak.

The reason Relkie got the response she did from the cops is simple.  Cops
are taught the dynamics of abuse, Charles, but they are also taught how
much evidence has to be gathered to successfully convince a DA to prosecute,
let alone get a conviction.  It isn't enough for a woman to stand up and
say "I was raped/abused/molested/etc.", since statistically a significant
number of these complaints are false, misleading, or inaccurate, for one
reason or another (the FBI UCI stats report that there are a significant
number of women now reporting sexual abuse where none existed, and the numbers
are increasing).  Consensual sex where the woman has second thoughts,
or where the woman says yes, then later says no or denies saying yes isn't
unknown.  The guys (and gals) in the DA's office aren't choir boys - they
know such things happen.  A more vicious type of complaint is where the
woman tries to "get back" at the man by accusing him of rape, sexual
abuse, etc.  There is a case pending here in SLC where the woman told her
ex- that if he didn't agree to an increase in child support, she would
accuse him publicly of sexually abusing their children.  This one made the front
page of the paper.  The only reason we know that the ex- isn't making it all
up was because the cops got it on tape (they had bugged his phone for an
unrelated reason).

Assuming that the complaint is valid, that the abuse/rape/whatever actually
happened, now the cops have to look around for evidence.  Physical
evidence is always best: bodily fluids from the attacker, injuries
sustained by either party, etc.  Witnesses are only second-best, because
it isn't too hard to discredit a lone witness on a witness stand, and
eyewitness testimony by multiple witnesses is often contradictory.

A third item to be taken into consideration is what did the victim *do*?
Did he or she resist (and can it be proven, either by eyewitness testimony
or by physical evidence)?  From the perspective of a rape victim, it might
seem that the best course of action would be to not resist, so as to
minimize the victim's chances of injury or death, yet this can be the
basis of a "she wanted it/asked for it" type of defense by the attacker.

The last thing to be looked at is the personal history of the victim.
Yes, I know, it's none of anyone else's business who you've slept with,
but a smart lawyer will tear your reputation to *shreds* if you're anything
but pure-as-the-driven-snow.  Do you have a sexual history?  Are you a
virgin?  Do you have a reputation for "sleeping around"?  Have you ever
been hospitalized for a mental illness?  Are you on any prescription
medication?  Had you been drinking?

I could go on and on - the point is, the attacker's attorney's job is to
get his client off.  If that means that he has to make you out to be some
sort of two-bit slut that sleeps around with anything male, or that you're
a psycho bitch from hell that gets off on accusing guys of rape, or that
you were stoned/drunk/hallucinating, or even that you're just plain mentally
unbalanced, he'll do it.  And the DA knows it - his job is to make sure that
the other attorney *can't* do it.  That the case is airtight - and stays that
way.

If you accuse someone, your personal life will be THOROUGHLY investigated -
by *both* sides.  Your credit report will be pulled, PIs will be talking to
your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your school chums.  Your house
or apartment will be watched 24 hours a day - perhaps bugged.  You will be
followed, your movements watched, who you see and what you do will be recorded.
ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembles any sort of moral lapse will be noticed -
and used against you.  You visit your same-sex friends for emotional or moral
support?  That will be noticed - you might be a homosexual (and believe me,
they will try), and that would be devastating in a court trial.  You stay
overnight at someone's house (other than your family) and it will be implied
that you were having sex.  In short, any conduct that would indicate (or anyone
would even remotely believe) that you aren't as prim and proper as a Sunday-
school teacher will damage your case.  Your personal life will be put under
a microscope, and you will be living in a fishbowl for as long as the trial
lasts.

Yeah, our legal system stinks.  One reason why I quit.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"