A thought on dealing with cases like Cosby

[Jolly_Penguin]

What 'both sides'?

One side is the powerful serial rapist like Cosby that took 60 victims before anybody came forward on the one side, where a system like this would have gotten him caught considerably faster, and lacking it nearly left him getting away with it. The other side is the one off rapist where if a witness decides to seal the report but may have not done so if it wasn't an option, then the rapist gets away. I see two different situations and this system being a huge help in one and a huge problem in the other.

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.

In theory sure, but I don't think that is possible if the accused is questioned. If he's questioned about a rape he did, he'll know exactly who the victim is. If he is questioned on a false allegation, there is still a good chance he'll know who is accusing him (people only have so many enemies who would be likely to do so).

All that's left is the matter of keeping the actual reports confidential, which IMO just makes future rapes more likely.

The benefit is that the option to do so increase the number of such reports and the likelihood of them existing. I totally agree that it would be nice to have them out in the open and widely known by all police everywhere, but that can't happen if the victims never make the reports in the first place.

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.

Her complaint should have been taken seriously, if it wasn't. All complaints should be taken seriously, investigated, properly scrutinized and determined if they have merit through the collection of evidence for and against the allegation being true.

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.

Only if those victims opted to seal their reports. Those who seal their reports are those who are unlikely to come forward otherwise.

 

[Arctish]

So the options are

1. Remain silent. Your rapist will go unpunished but he won't come after you.

2. Report the rape but have the report sealed until more rape victims come forward. Your rapist will go unpunished until someone else has the guts to confront him, at which time it will be known you didn't and your silence allowed him to continue raping people, but you won't have to face him alone.

3. Report the rape, have the information and evidence made available to LEOs in all jurisdictions, and rely on confidentiality laws to shield your identity unless and until the cops find enough evidence to bring charges. You might have to face your rapist alone but only if there's sufficient evidence of the crime to bring the case to trial.

Why would someone prefer Option 2 over Option1? At least with Option 1 you can claim you were too distraught to talk about it. Option 2 makes it look like you were hoping there'd be more victims.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

What if there is counter forensic evidence from the same time period? It could be time sensitive.

 

[Toni]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

What if there is counter forensic evidence from the same time period? It could be time sensitive.

Evidence from any and all crime scenes IS time sensitive. Witness accounts change over time simply due to the nature of memory. Witnesses die; evidence disappears. DNA does degrade, the extent is determined by storage conditions. Given the vast number of untested rape kits in existence right now, it seems implausible that such evidence would be kept until someone actually came forward, much less kept in appropriate conditions.

 

[laughing dog]

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

It was directly on point. There is no reason to bully a victim when there is no identification of the attacker and there is reason to expect to go to trial.

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

You need to explain your babble. It makes no sense.

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

There as no court room. The investigation had no leads at that point.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Wow, you wrote "And he's correct. That is part of their job, and if they didn't do it, they would be negligent. ". Apparently you do not even pay attention to what you write. Are you saying you did not mean it?

No I haven't done. I said that to Toni clearly in jest....

A "joking" accusation is an accusation, so you admit having done it. If that is true that it was a "jest" (which I doubt), there are plenty of ways to make your case without accusing someone of a violent felony, but you choose to do so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

Proposal: Allow sealed police reports. You can go to the cops and report a crime but indicate that you do not want to prosecute at this time. The police interview the person and gather any available forensic evidence that they can do so without talking to anyone else. The person filing the report indicates how many others must also file such reports before it becomes unsealed. The stuff goes into a offline cold storage system so it's basically immune from hackers--all that's on-line is the identity of the accused, the sort of crime, the ID of the cold storage file and how many entries are required to unseal it.

When a new report is filed the computer checks to see if it can find a set of files to activate. If not, it's simply accepted with no indication there are any other reports. If it finds enough it says so and notifies the other departments to activate their files also.

Now you have a set of reports that are generally going to be totally independent, people can't make up a story similar to what has been in the news. It becomes a much more solid case and it doesn't require anyone to be the first to stick their head out.

What if there is counter forensic evidence from the same time period? It could be time sensitive.

Evidence from any and all crime scenes IS time sensitive. Witness accounts change over time simply due to the nature of memory. Witnesses die; evidence disappears. DNA does degrade, the extent is determined by storage conditions. Given the vast number of untested rape kits in existence right now, it seems implausible that such evidence would be kept until someone actually came forward, much less kept in appropriate conditions.

Yeah...

 

[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.

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?

You're so fixated on this you apparently missed my point.

The attempt to break the story is going to happen. If she's going to fail it's better for that to be up front than in the courtroom.

Also, the reality is that some of the reports are false and in showing the problem the cops are doing justice.


Lets consider a case that has nothing to do with sex: Thursday I got a personal experience of what being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver must feel like courtesy of a woman who didn't see me. She apparently sincerely insisted to the cop that I was at fault because I came out of nowhere, I must have been going way too fast. (While I didn't look at my speedometer I doubt I was doing even 2/3 of the limit. I had turned block earlier and was going to turn again in another block.) Was the cop wrong to ask her several questions to try to figure out her impossible position, or should he have simply accepted her word that I was in the wrong despite her having a stop sign while I had no traffic controls?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's not about witnesses, it's about a bunch of other independent complaints. One could be false, it's very unlikely a bunch are. Coming forward en mass greatly boosts their credibility.

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.

You're imputing motives that don't exist.

I'm saying that in a case like Cosby there will be some who jump on the bandwagon for personal reasons, not that all of them are. This makes it much harder to prosecute because some claims will be false.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

While the intent isn't to bully it will appear to be bullying from the standpoint of the accuser.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If he isn't informed of the charges against him how is he supposed find alibi witnesses or the like? The bit of not informing him is part of what has made some of the campus cases kangaroo courts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I was only intending this for the sort of cases where she knows her attacker but is afraid to speak up. My proposal is obviously not applicable to a stranger rape scenario because the rapist isn't identified, no way to know if any other case is the same rapist or not. Thus it should have basically no effect one way or the other on isolated rape cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One side is the powerful serial rapist like Cosby that took 60 victims before anybody came forward on the one side, where a system like this would have gotten him caught considerably faster, and lacking it nearly left him getting away with it. The other side is the one off rapist where if a witness decides to seal the report but may have not done so if it wasn't an option, then the rapist gets away. I see two different situations and this system being a huge help in one and a huge problem in the other.

For that matter, how many one-off rapes are there? Rapists generally don't stop at one.

The benefit is that the option to do so increase the number of such reports and the likelihood of them existing. I totally agree that it would be nice to have them out in the open and widely known by all police everywhere, but that can't happen if the victims never make the reports in the first place.

Exactly. Open reports would be the best but reality shows that when it's someone powerful the reports generally aren't made. I'm trying to offer a middle ground to make catching the guys more likely.

 

[Arctish]

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?

You're so fixated on this you apparently missed my point.

The attempt to break the story is going to happen. If she's going to fail it's better for that to be up front than in the courtroom.

Also, the reality is that some of the reports are false and in showing the problem the cops are doing justice.

You have shifted your stance. Either you don't remember what you were arguing when you talked about the cops trying to break a rape victim's story in the thread where we discussed Marie's case, or you think perhaps I don't.

You weren't talking about a thorough, conscientious investigation that examined all claims and evidence. I was. You were doing your usual 'cops are never wrong' apologetics. You were arguing that their threatening her with jail and homelessness was normal police procedure.

Lets consider a case that has nothing to do with sex: Thursday I got a personal experience of what being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver must feel like courtesy of a woman who didn't see me. She apparently sincerely insisted to the cop that I was at fault because I came out of nowhere, I must have been going way too fast. (While I didn't look at my speedometer I doubt I was doing even 2/3 of the limit. I had turned block earlier and was going to turn again in another block.) Was the cop wrong to ask her several questions to try to figure out her impossible position, or should he have simply accepted her word that I was in the wrong despite her having a stop sign while I had no traffic controls?

No one is buying that excluded middle fallacy, where either the police believe every single thing they're told is the infallible truth, or they arrest people who report crimes for lying to them if they can't find corroborating evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

You're so fixated on this you apparently missed my point.

The attempt to break the story is going to happen. If she's going to fail it's better for that to be up front than in the courtroom.

Also, the reality is that some of the reports are false and in showing the problem the cops are doing justice.


Lets consider a case that has nothing to do with sex: Thursday I got a personal experience of what being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver must feel like courtesy of a woman who didn't see me. She apparently sincerely insisted to the cop that I was at fault because I came out of nowhere, I must have been going way too fast. (While I didn't look at my speedometer I doubt I was doing even 2/3 of the limit. I had turned block earlier and was going to turn again in another block.) Was the cop wrong to ask her several questions to try to figure out her impossible position, or should he have simply accepted her word that I was in the wrong despite her having a stop sign while I had no traffic controls?

Do you think asking questions to ascertain her thinking is equivalent to bullying? Really?

 

[laughing dog]

One side is the powerful serial rapist like Cosby that took 60 victims before anybody came forward on the one side, where a system like this would have gotten him caught considerably faster, and lacking it nearly left him getting away with it. The other side is the one off rapist where if a witness decides to seal the report but may have not done so if it wasn't an option, then the rapist gets away. I see two different situations and this system being a huge help in one and a huge problem in the other.

For that matter, how many one-off rapes are there? Rapists generally don't stop at one.

The benefit is that the option to do so increase the number of such reports and the likelihood of them existing. I totally agree that it would be nice to have them out in the open and widely known by all police everywhere, but that can't happen if the victims never make the reports in the first place.

Exactly. Open reports would be the best but reality shows that when it's someone powerful the reports generally aren't made. I'm trying to offer a middle ground to make catching the guys more likely.

That would be more convincing if your proposal did not have "and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons" You have offered no evidence that "jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons" is a problem in the cases of sexual predators with lots of complaints. None. Zero. Even if the "jump on the bandwagon effect" is 50% then Cosby would have 30 "real" complaints. 30 is enough to deal with a sexual predator. Of course, there is no evidence that the "jump on the personal bandwagon" effect is as high as that or even noticeable. Yet your entire proposal is based on dealing with an imaginary problem.

One of the major issues with rape victims coming forward is their fear of the system and that they will not be taken seriously. Nothing you have proposed eliminates the fear of bullying (something you endorse). Moreover, why would any victim think their allegation is taken seriously when there is no immediate investigation?

Finally, your proposal of a national database containing secret, uninvestigated and unproven allegations is a nightmare for civil liberties.

 

[Toni]

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?

You're so fixated on this you apparently missed my point.

The attempt to break the story is going to happen. If she's going to fail it's better for that to be up front than in the courtroom.

Also, the reality is that some of the reports are false and in showing the problem the cops are doing justice.


Lets consider a case that has nothing to do with sex: Thursday I got a personal experience of what being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver must feel like courtesy of a woman who didn't see me. She apparently sincerely insisted to the cop that I was at fault because I came out of nowhere, I must have been going way too fast. (While I didn't look at my speedometer I doubt I was doing even 2/3 of the limit. I had turned block earlier and was going to turn again in another block.) Was the cop wrong to ask her several questions to try to figure out her impossible position, or should he have simply accepted her word that I was in the wrong despite her having a stop sign while I had no traffic controls?

Loren, there is a difference in investigating an allegation and trying to break a story. In the first case, the investigators are attempting to ascertain the facts of the case. In the second case, the interrogator is trying to prove the accuser is a liar.


You'd be right at home with the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Toni]

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.

What do you think a trial is, anyway?

An investigation is conducted by law enforcement, and evidence is brought to prosecutors who determine if there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. There is a trial. The accused is represented by an attorney or, since we are talking about rich and famous men in this thread, a team of attorneys, plus forensic experts, at least one and probably an entire team of psychiatrists, several medical experts, and a whole lot of private investigators who will provide evidence that the alleged victim was over the age of 5 and not a virgin so she is probably almost definitely lying. In addition, the accused was under psychiatric care and under the influence of a plethora of medications which render him not responsible for his actions and for the purposes of the trial, probably impotent, although he and his wife have a wonderful marriage and satisfying sex life.

All accused are represented at their trials and before by attorneys. One of the reasons that so few cases go to trial in the first place is that the defense attorneys are good at negotiating lesser charges or having charges dropped. You see those as evidence of 'false claims.' Normal people see those as cases of expediency and the fact that no prosecutor wants to go to trial without an air tight case.

 

[Arctish]

your proposal of a national database containing secret, uninvestigated and unproven allegations is a nightmare for civil liberties.

Excellent point.

A secret database full of uninvestigated allegations that will be released en masse once some threshold has been reached sounds like something out of the Stasi playbook. Does anyone really want that?

 

[arkirk]

Rape isn't baseball. You shouldn't get three strikes..

 

[Axulus]

Loren's idea is a good one

Can you or Loren point to any cases where"bandwagon" false claims arose or were a problem? And why would anyone expect police in different jurisdictions to keep vigilance and correlate cases once someone was publicly accussed?

To date, the usual rape apologists "civil libertarians" have used handwaving to promote this proposal.

Take your blinders off about your disbelief of false sexual assault reports and consider the other positives. How about women not waiting 30 years to report Cosby, protecting countless women from getting raped by this creep? If they know their case won't go public until they have strength in numbers perhaps they wouldn't be so reluctant to report incidents like that in the first place. Not only that, but the threat of public exposure becomes all the more credible and probable, likely deterring additional rapes.

Not only that, but the naysayers claiming false reports will have negligable believability.

 

[Axulus]

Victims of rape aren't encouraged to come forward if/when every single one of them thinks s/he's the first person to report having been assaulted, especially when the assailant a high profile, beloved figure like Cosby, Sandusky, or Savile. They're actively discouraged if/when they believe their case will never see the light of day.

This proposal does nothing to reassure the victims. IMO all it does is reassure men that it's okay to believe scores of women who report sexual assaults committed by the same perp because the women will have had to meet a pretty high bar before their reports became part of a criminal investigation.

This could be a way that they come forward together, shielding any individual one from having to do it alone, which none of them may be willing to do. Or at least not for a very long time. If the first 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever number of victims came forward together under a system like this, then that may save future victims after that point. Otherwise maybe nobody would come forward until there are dozens of victims.

How will victims #3-15 find out about victims #1 and #2 if their reports were filed away and not acted on by law enforcement?

If Loren's proposal is just a way for authorities to wait until they have enough evidence to prosecute, how is it different from what we have in place already?

I think most of us have been in situations where people don't want to be the first to say something, but once one person says it, others then feel safe saying it too. That barrier of the first coming forward is a strong barrier in many contexts, and an especially strong barrier in this context. This is one attempt to break it down.

Loren's proposal is designed to prevent what you're describing:

The basic problem is that with a powerful, high profile person most people are afraid to say anything, figuring they can't fight the power. Hence the problem stays hidden for a long time and when someone finally comes forward then we get a flock of others joining in--and no way to be sure if the problem is real or jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons.

What you call feeling safe to say something because you're not alone he calls "jumping on the bandwagon for personal reasons". He wants to prevent that kind of group action by sequestering accusations until a highly subjective limit is met.

Reading comprehension fail: victims still have the option to go through the normal investigation process. This just offers them an additional option.