A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not part of their job to bully victims into recanting - which is exactly what happened in this case according to an independent investigator. Yet here you are defending it - just like a true rape apologist would.

No, I'm not. Neither was Loren in the text you quoted. Do you really fail to see that, or do you just pretend to fail to see that so you can libel people? I think the latter.

Could it be that you just made that up on the spot in an attempt to defend your bad behaviour by pointing at another (in itself a fallacy)?

There was no bad "behaviour" on my part. Nice try to deflect from your petty and nasty slander of claiming my true statement was potential libel.

Your statement was an aggressive and disgusting attack on Loren's character, and you know it. You called him a rape apologist with no basis. You just tried to do the same to me. It says more about you than it does either of us.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You assume they are all false--unless, presumably there are 4 male witnesses and/or some undefined number of other victims.

Please, Loren, quit trying to tell me what I think, believe or assume. You are never correct and it makes you look like you don't actually have cogent or coherent argument or reason.

Now you are holding your own mirror, yet you still won't look. Will it break if you do?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This proposed system of concealing the reports won't encourage anyone to take on a powerful, popular figure like Cosby or Savile or Sandusky.

Not publicly, no. You need to encourage that separately. What it will do is allow them to come forward together, so nobody has to do so alone.

What will encourage victims to come forward is something like the #MeToo movement, where victims know they aren't the only ones and they know their reports are being taken seriously.

I agree, the #MeToo movement helps. Publicizing when people come forward to encourage others to do so as well is a good thing. It is not mutually exclusive with the system being discussed here. Both can happen at the same time. They will compliment one another well.

How about this instead: people reporting rape and sexual assault are routinely granted anonymity unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at which point they have to be identified in order to respect the right of the accused to face his/her accuser. The report itself is never hidden, and is always available to LEOs and Prosecutors investigating criminal complaints.

I like this procedure, but I do not think it will encourage people to come forward if they can't be assured that they won't be outed all alone by themselves by the police and prosecutors when the police and prosecutors decide to push the case forward.

And people with no experience in police or legal matters and no oath to uphold the law don't get to decide if and when crimes are prosecuted.

Yes. And that includes the victims. As you know, people don't get to decide when to "press charges" against those who have comitted criminal acts against them. It is the crown (or "the people" in the USA) that brings the case against the accused. That's the sticky thing with your proposal above that will discourage viictims from coming forward.

 

[Arctish]

How about this instead: people reporting rape and sexual assault are routinely granted anonymity unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at which point they have to be identified in order to respect the right of the accused to face his/her accuser. The report itself is never hidden, and is always available to LEOs and Prosecutors investigating criminal complaints.

I like this procedure, but I do not think it will encourage people to come forward if they can't be assured that they won't be outed all alone by themselves by the police and prosecutors when the police and prosecutors decide to push the case forward

The only way to guarantee the first victim of a serial rapist isn't the only one making an accusation is to wait until there are more victims. I don't believe that's any sort of solution.

And people with no experience in police or legal matters and no oath to uphold the law don't get to decide if and when crimes are prosecuted.

Yes. And that includes the victims. As you know, people don't get to decide when to "press charges" against those who have comitted criminal acts against them. It is the crown (or "the people" in the USA) that brings the case against the accused. That's the sticky thing with your proposal above that will discourage viictims from coming forward.

Loren's proposal doesn't change the potential social consequences of accusing a popular figure like Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby. It won't lessen the fear of being thoroughly trashed in the media. It's just a plan to wait until a serial rapist has raped so many people that the odds of finding a dozen accusers increase to the point where it becomes likely.

That's not a good plan.

The cops might have no choice but to wait. They need sufficient evidence to bring charges. And a terrified, reluctant witness will probably recant rather than face a firestorm. But hiding evidence until there's a dozen victims isn't the way to go about things. Not if your goal is to stop a sexual predator and prevent more rapes.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I'm not. Neither was Loren in the text you quoted.

It is not the job of police to bully rape victims into recanting. That is what happened in that case, and LP defended it. And now you are defending it. Perhaps this is part of your kneejerk whiteknighting of LP, but you are defending it.

Do you really fail to see that, or do you just pretend to fail to see that so you can libel people? I think the latter.

I know I have the ability to libel people. But telling the truth is not libel.

Your statement was an aggressive and disgusting attack on Loren's character, and you know it. You called him a rape apologist with no basis.

Wrong, I do have a basis.

You just tried to do the same to me. It says more about you than it does either of us.

it is rape apologia to say that it is. The police in the case bullied the victim into recanting. Yet LP defends it. You are echoing and defending LP's disgusting defense. On the other hand, I have not accused anyone of committing a crime like rape or child abuse (which you have done). So, I find your outrage hypocritical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sigh, try to focus. We are talking about a situation where there are many accusations. If some of them end up false, that does not change the underlying reality that the accuses is a sexual predator.

And while we are at it, what is the wing structure of a pig like?

So you agree.

But there is no national database. Nor is the likely to be one.

My proposal did include a database. I didn't explicitly specify it as "national" but it should be obvious it needs to be.

 

[laughing dog]

And while we are at it, what is the wing structure of a pig like?

The same as your argument.

My proposal did include a database. I didn't explicitly specify it as "national" but it should be obvious it needs to be.

Given the obvious flaws in your proposal, it was not obvious what you think "obvious" is.

Good luck in getting a national database of unproven and uninvestigated allegations into reality. I'd imagine civil libertarians will march in step right behind you in support on that one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not part of their job to bully victims into recanting - which is exactly what happened in this case according to an independent investigator. Yet here you are defending it - just like a true rape apologist would.

Actually, there is a good reason for a bit of bullying. Much better to do it when she makes the report than have her come apart on the witness stand and the case collapse at that point. Anyway, most of the "bullying" is going after discrepancies in her story.

- - - Updated - - -

The real ‘problem’ with Loren's scenario is that Loen lacks the courage or honesty to acknowledge that he sees the potential for false accusations rather than the Crome of rape. Rape is not a ‘problem:’ it is a crime. And indeed, it is personal.

In other words, what I've been saying all along--you assume all reports are real.

You assume they are all false--unless, presumably there are 4 male witnesses and/or some undefined number of other victims.

Please, Loren, quit trying to tell me what I think, believe or assume. You are never correct and it makes you look like you don't actually have cogent or coherent argument or reason.

Where have you ever considered that a rape report might be false? Even when a story has holes you're quick to try to patch them over.

The lowest credible number we have for the false report rate is 8%. To not consider this is gross negligence.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not part of their job to bully victims into recanting - which is exactly what happened in this case according to an independent investigator. Yet here you are defending it - just like a true rape apologist would.

Actually, there is a good reason for a bit of bullying. Much better to do it when she makes the report than have her come apart on the witness stand and the case collapse at that point.

Before the case goes to trial, there has to be an investigation. In this case, the woman did know her attacker. If the police officers could not find the attacker, there would be no case. So there was no need to bully her to recant, since the case was not going to trial.

Anyway, most of the "bullying" is going after discrepancies in her story.

In this case, they accused her of lying and bullied her into recanting. That is not part of their job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It takes just as much courage to make the 20th report as it does to make the first when the existence of 19 others is a secret.

No. If someone makes the 20th report and that triggers the release they are now in a group of 20 accusers, that doesn't take anything like the courage being the lone accuser takes. Furthermore there's basically no way for the accused to get away with retaliation--there's no hiding adverse action taken against all 20.

Look at the current situation--the victims are too scared to come forward. I'm proposing a way to make coming forward less scary.

How about this instead: people reporting rape and sexual assault are routinely granted anonymity unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at which point they have to be identified in order to respect the right of the accused to face his/her accuser. The report itself is never hidden, and is always available to LEOs and Prosecutors investigating criminal complaints. And people with no experience in police or legal matters and no oath to uphold the law don't get to decide if and when crimes are prosecuted.

IOW, what we have now but with stronger guarantees of anonymity for victims until a case goes to trial.

In other words, give the guy no ability to defend himself. I guess it doesn't matter, women never lie about rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Before the case goes to trial, there has to be an investigation. In this case, the woman did know her attacker. If the police officers could not find the attacker, there would be no case. So there was no need to bully her to recant, since the case was not going to trial.

Once again, a response that is only marginally related to what you are replying to.

Anyway, most of the "bullying" is going after discrepancies in her story.

In this case, they accused her of lying and bullied her into recanting. That is not part of their job.

You said A. Now you said B. Explain yourself.

Much better to do that early on than have the defense attorney do it in the courtroom.

 

[Arctish]

It is not part of their job to bully victims into recanting - which is exactly what happened in this case according to an independent investigator. Yet here you are defending it - just like a true rape apologist would.

Actually, there is a good reason for a bit of bullying. Much better to do it when she makes the report than have her come apart on the witness stand and the case collapse at that point. Anyway, most of the "bullying" is going after discrepancies in her story.

There is no good reason for the cops to bully a rape victim.

There's good reason to investigate rape reports carefully, diligently, and thoroughly. There may be good reason to go over the witness' story again a few days later to clarify the details. There's always good reason to follow department policies when dealing with traumatized people. But attacking them verbally, threatening to arrest and prosecute them if they don't recant? There is no good reason for a cop to do that to someone reporting they've been raped.

Bullying, attempts to 'break' the story of a possible rape victim, and other strong arm tactics to intimidate people reporting crimes committed against them is outrageous. What kind of f-ed up system of 'justice' would allow that?

 

[Arctish]

It takes just as much courage to make the 20th report as it does to make the first when the existence of 19 others is a secret.

No. If someone makes the 20th report and that triggers the release they are now in a group of 20 accusers, that doesn't take anything like the courage being the lone accuser takes. Furthermore there's basically no way for the accused to get away with retaliation--there's no hiding adverse action taken against all 20.

Look at the current situation--the victims are too scared to come forward. I'm proposing a way to make coming forward less scary.

But it doesn't.

It might make the trial less scary, knowing that there are other witnesses. But it does nothing to mitigate the anxiety of going to the cops in the first place.

How about this instead: people reporting rape and sexual assault are routinely granted anonymity unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at which point they have to be identified in order to respect the right of the accused to face his/her accuser. The report itself is never hidden, and is always available to LEOs and Prosecutors investigating criminal complaints. And people with no experience in police or legal matters and no oath to uphold the law don't get to decide if and when crimes are prosecuted.

IOW, what we have now but with stronger guarantees of anonymity for victims until a case goes to trial.

In other words, give the guy no ability to defend himself. I guess it doesn't matter, women never lie about rape.

And here we have it: your real concern. You are suggesting reports of rape be hidden away until there's just too many of them to ignore, and apparently the reason is because you think it's so commonplace that women lie about rape you need to get a dozen or so complaints before you can believe that one or two of the allegations _might_ be true.

It's all about protecting guys like Cosby from women "'jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons". Jolly, I hope you're reading this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And now you are defending it.

No, I wasn't. I was addressing what you actually quoted and what you were attempting to twist it into, in order to defend your bad behaviour.

On the other hand, I have not accused anyone of committing a crime like rape or child abuse (which you have done).

No I haven't done. I said that to Toni clearly in jest. The whole point of it was to show what it is like to throw around baseless accusations as she is prone to doing, and as she was doing in the text I was responding to. I don't recall who it was she was doing it to since she does it so often. The hope was that she'd see herself in the mirror. She seems to avoid doing so at every turn.

So, I find your outrage hypocritical.

I find you a troll.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, there is a good reason for a bit of bullying. Much better to do it when she makes the report than have her come apart on the witness stand and the case collapse at that point.

No. There is no reason or justification for the police bullying witnesses. Your text dog quoted above didn't show you supporting bullying, but you are here. Why? What do you think it accomplishes? Why don't you find it reprehensible?

Anyway, most of the "bullying" is going after discrepancies in her story.

Going after discrepancies in her story isn't bullying. That's proper police work. Prosecutors putting her through tough questions that Defence counsel is going to ask her also isn't bullying. That's preparing a case and proper prosecutor work.

I think you should clarify what you mean by bullying. People are painting you as supporting cops screaming at and threatening witnesses. Defence counsel won't do that in court. There is no need for it. Are you supporting it? If so, why?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about this instead: people reporting rape and sexual assault are routinely granted anonymity unless and until the case proceeds to trial, at which point they have to be identified in order to respect the right of the accused to face his/her accuser. The report itself is never hidden, and is always available to LEOs and Prosecutors investigating criminal complaints. And people with no experience in police or legal matters and no oath to uphold the law don't get to decide if and when crimes are prosecuted.

IOW, what we have now but with stronger guarantees of anonymity for victims until a case goes to trial.

In other words, give the guy no ability to defend himself. I guess it doesn't matter, women never lie about rape.

This clearly doesn't take away all of his ability to defend himself. Are you saying it will hurt him in the public eye? Maybe the anonymity should only last until he is arrested? Until he is questioned?

I do think he will obviously know who his accuser is as soon as he is questioned about the alleged rape if it actually happened, and probably even if it didn't.

I also do see that you are showing concern for both the victims and the falsely accused. I don't see much of the latter from many of your detractors, but Arctish seems to care, hence saying he should at least know who she is so he can face his accuser come court.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It might make the trial less scary, knowing that there are other witnesses. But it does nothing to mitigate the anxiety of going to the cops in the first place.

I disagree. It makes it considerably less scary, if you have any confidence that the powerful rapist being accused won't find out who the accuser is until the accuser is ready for that.

You can ease such people who wouldn't otherwise come forward in slowly, first with an anonymous tip line (I hope we can all support those?), then have that encourage people to come forward and give a full report in a sealed way, and then encourage them to unseal it at a low number.

This doesn't have to get in the way of those who are bold enough to just go straight to the police station and make the accusation outright and publicly. It is focused on those who won't.

 

[Arctish]

It might make the trial less scary, knowing that there are other witnesses. But it does nothing to mitigate the anxiety of going to the cops in the first place.

I disagree. It makes it considerably less scary, if you have any confidence that the powerful rapist being accused won't find out who the accuser is until the accuser is ready for that.

You can ease such people who wouldn't otherwise come forward in slowly, first with an anonymous tip line (I hope we can all support those?), then have that encourage people to come forward and give a full report in a sealed way, and then encourage them to unseal it at a low number.

This doesn't have to get in the way of those who are bold enough to just go straight to the police station and make the accusation outright and publicly. It is focused on those who won't.

I see no reason for secrecy beyond respecting the privacy of a rape victim, and plenty of reasons against allowing it to interfere with investigations. If you goal is to stop a rapist before he rapes again, then sealing the reports is a serious impediment. Having the information they contain available to all branches of law enforcement across all jurisdictions is far better than keeping it sequestered and largely unknown.

In the case that laughing dog linked to where the first victim (Marie) was bullied into recanting, the rapist wasn't identified until he had raped two other women. They both reported the attacks to the police. A police investigator noticed that the case she was working on bore a striking resemblance to a case in a different jurisdiction. Marie's report was eventually linked to the other two. The rapist was caught because Marie's case contained crucial evidence used to identify him.

Had the information in any of those cases been sealed as per Loren's suggestion, the cops might still not know they were dealing with a serial rapist. They might think they were each working on a one time only case. The first report, the one Marie made, was crucial. Had it been sealed away until 4-5 more victims were found, that guy might still be out there committing more rapes.

It's just a bad idea to keep that information hidden.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Having the information they contain available to all branches of law enforcement across all jurisdictions is far better than keeping it sequestered and largely unknown.

Having the information available like that would be ideal yes. But if they never come forward, you're not getting any such report.

Had the information in any of those cases been sealed as per Loren's suggestion, the cops might still not know they were dealing with a serial rapist.

True. But had there been such an option, there may have been reports from earlier victims that were unsealed because there were enough of them, before any of these three victims were even raped. As I wrote above, it is a big help for serial rapist cases. It is a detriment to isolated incidents of rape. I have yet to see either side of this (Loren or his detractors) address both sides of this.

 

[Arctish]

Having the information they contain available to all branches of law enforcement across all jurisdictions is far better than keeping it sequestered and largely unknown.

Having the information available like that would be ideal yes. But if they never come forward, you're not getting any such report.

Had the information in any of those cases been sealed as per Loren's suggestion, the cops might still not know they were dealing with a serial rapist.

True. But had there been such an option, there may have been reports from earlier victims that were unsealed because there were enough of them, before any of these three victims were even raped. As I wrote above, it is a big help for serial rapist cases. It is a detriment to isolated incidents of rape. I have yet to see either side of this (Loren or his detractors) address both sides of this.

What 'both sides'?

You and I agree that the identity of reported victims can be kept confidential until trial, so the issue of privacy and protection has been addressed. All that's left is the matter of keeping the actual reports confidential, which IMO just makes future rapes more likely.

Marie was the guy's first victim. Had her report been taken seriously the cops might have gotten lucky and caught the guy before he attacked the second or third victims. Even if she wasn't the first, a situation where there "may have been reports from earlier victims that were unsealed because there were enough of them" means there would have been multiple victims before a proper investigation was carried out. That's unacceptable.

Loren's idea shields rapists even more than it shields their victims.