CCTV footage from the Mark Pearson case.
Rape And Corroboration
Hello guys, and gals,
This is a video about the need for corroboration in rape trials, with particular reference to historical allegations of rape and other, lesser, sexual offences. I hope to convince you of this primarily by an ad hoc test. I’m going to show you a number of short clips of people speaking about crimes, and what I would like you to do is open another window on your desktop or take a pen and paper, then decide who is telling the truth and who is not. We hear a lot about body language, micro-expressions, and so on, but at the end of the day these can be not only useless but misleading. This is especially true in some types of rape cases, not only historical ones. A good example is the recent and notorious Mark Pearson case.
CCTV footage from the Mark Pearson case.
You will find a short clip from that on the International False Rape Timeline linked below. This was a case that should never have come to court, and in spite of the prosecution tampering with the exculpatory CCTV evidence – disgracefully, I might add – it is clear that no offence was committed, yet by the same token it is clear this woman was not lying, at least not in the accepted sense. Many false allegations of rape are made by women who are not right in the head, but unless they are clearly gaga, they can make compelling witnesses. By the same token, truthful witnesses can sound very unconvincing. I’ll have more to say about that later.
The current state of the law is that in England, in Canada, and many other jurisdictions, a man can be convicted of rape and his life trashed solely on the word of his accuser, with absolutely no corroborating evidence, even if the allegation is made months, years, sometimes decades, later. This is a recipe for injustice, one we would not tolerate for any crime of a non-sexual nature.
The women – and on occasion men – who make these allegations are granted lifelong anonymity, and laws passed ostensibly as a shield for accusers, are transformed into a sword to convict the innocent. Incredibly, the situation is growing worse under unremitting pressure from damned liars like this woman:
Lisa Longstaff of Woman Against Rape is a woman who has no qualms about lying on behalf of false rape accusers.
airheads like this one:
Feminist academic Joanne Belknap who thinks women never lie about rape.
The despicable Gloria Allred who has used false rape accusers to attack statutes of limitations.
Before playing the clips, I will say something about corroboration by volume, which is no corroboration at all. This is discussed in the aforementioned Cosby video, and in the much shorter Memorandum To Operation Yewtree. This is a video to which police officers in particular would do well to pay special attention, because as demonstrated therein, it can happen to you too.
Now to the videos, this is not a quiz, there are no right or wrong answers, if you know the answer, that is if you recognise the person speaking and know something about the case, please move on to the next one. My apologies for the inconsistent sound quality.
The first clip is a missing child case that was soon transformed into a murder investigation. The child’s mother is speaking, her husband is not. Is she telling the truth? Does he know more than he is letting on? Or are they both lying?
This is a similar case; if you are as ancient as me, you might recognise it. Again, sincere or lying?
This is another missing child investigation; is this man an innocent witness, or as suggested by the background music, something far more sinister?
This man claims to have seen his friend murdered...but did he wield the knife himself?
This is a missing teenager case that would eventually become a murder investigation. Is this man a liar, or are his emotions real?
This woman claims her baby was snatched by a wild animal; her husband backs her up, but is she, are they, telling the truth?
This man appears to be talking about a missing or possibly murdered loved one. Clearly he has a lot of support, but is he telling the truth?
Likewise, this woman has a lot of support, but is she telling the truth about a police officer stopping her in her car and sexually assaulting her?
This is a slightly unusual clip; it is actually two separate clips of two men confessing to two murders decades apart. I can tell you that the first man was actually arrested on suspicion of murder, and that he is giving this press interview in another country. The second man is talking about a mercy killing, one to which he confessed sometime before. I can tell you that he too was arrested on suspicion of murder. I won’t tell you if he served gaol time, but is his confession genuine?
This is another murder case. Is the man doing the talking for real? What about the silent woman by his side?
This is a woman who is being treated as a key witness in a murder investigation. But is she a witness or something far more sinister?
And I’ve saved the most difficult one until last. Is this young boy telling the truth?
Okay, let’s see how you did. Prior to making this video, I asked a number of people to let me know what they thought. I had a very poor response: one on-line; and two people who actually watched them on my machine. One is a lawyer. The other is a lady who is not a native English speaker, although she does speak very good English, and she has been in the UK about ten years.
My cyber respondent said these two were telling the truth, but both the others said they were lying. Obviously the lawyer didn’t recognise the woman who is speaking; she is Sara Payne, the mother of the angelic Sarah Payne who was murdered in 2000 by Roy Whiting. Sarah’s father Michael died in 2014, most people agree of a broken heart. He took the death of his daughter very badly.
This is the notorious Susan Smith who murdered her two young sons, a terrible case; her ex-husband had nothing to with the crime. My cyber correspondent thought they were both lying, as did the lady; I think the lawyer said they were both lying too.
All three of them recognised this man, he is the Soham murderer Ian Huntley. He took in the police, and there is something I’ve often said about Huntley. You probably recognise this woman. I have often said that if you showed her photograph and those of 99 other women to a hundred Chinese peasants or people who had never seen her, they would all pick her out as the Queen of England. And if you did the same with Huntley and 99 other men, he would be the very last one they would all pick as a child killer. It’s probably his baby face, but he certainly doesn’t look the part.
This is Duwayne Brooks who saw his best friend Stephen Lawrence murdered. I think the lawyer said he was lying – I didn’t take a proper note of that. The on-line respondent thought he was probably lying; the lady thought he was definitely lying.
This man is telling the truth. All three got that right. This is a terrible Canadian case that I will mention later when I discuss credibility.
This is the tragic Lindy Chamberlain. The lady thought she was lying, but the other two are even more ancient than me, and they both remembered the case. In October 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby daughter, and her husband was convicted of helping her dispose of the body. The prosecution case was that shortly after this photograph was taken, the young mother cut her daughter’s throat. She lost two appeals against conviction, and then in early 1986, the baby’s matinee jacket was found. A terrible tragedy compounded by a shocking miscarriage of justice.
Lindy Chamberlain with the baby daughter she was convicted of murdering.
This is Dr William Petit, the sole survivor of the terrible Cheshire home invasion murders. The lady said he was telling the truth; the other two thought he was lying.
Dr William Petit speaking outside New Haven Superior Court after the conviction of Joshua Komisarjevsky.
This is Jannie Ligons who brought down serial sexual predator Daniel Holtzclaw. They all thought she was lying. A woman of her age who makes an allegation of that nature should be more credible than a younger woman, although as with the Mark Pearson case, how do you tell?
Jannie Ligons was a credible accuser because of her age.
The two men here are Peter Alphon, the first suspect in the notorious A6 murder, and Ray Gosling. They are both lying. The lawyer got Alphon right and Gosling wrong; the lady recognised Gosling, but she thought Alphon was lying, and my cyber correspondent stated correctly that they were both lying.
Both Peter Alphon and Ray Gosling confessed to murder, probably out of devilment.
These are the parents of Francesca Bimpson; the lawyer hesitated but said they were honest; the other two both thought they were lying. This is the young girl concerned, and the other person is Graham Heaps, the man convicted of setting the fire that killed her.
This is Joanne Lees; my cyber correspondent thought she was lying; the lady didn’t; the lawyer recognised her. Her lover Peter Falconio was murdered by Bradley Murdoch in the Outback. His body has never been found but he is unquestionably dead. Joanne Lees was secured with home-made handcuffs, and if she had not escaped he would have raped her and then murdered her too, we can say that for sure.
Many people were suspicious of Joanne Lees because she was so level-headed, but there is no question she was telling the truth.
Finally, this young boy was believed by the jury, and his mother was convicted. However, his testimony was all over the place, including the claim that he hadn’t seen what happened. There was other evidence, but, take a gander at this...
It’s often been said a picture is worth a thousand words; that brief footage is surely worth a million. Do you really think this boy would have waved to his mother if he had seen her murder his sister?
AJ Hutto – would this boy have waved to his mother if he had really seen her murder his sister?
The lawyer said you have to be extremely careful with child testimony; the other two believed his description of the murder. Now let’s talk a bit about credibility.
The conviction of Lindy Chamberlain and the widespread disbelief of Joanne Lees show how difficult it is to assess the credibility of an independent witness, an accused, or a victim. The McCanns had the same credibility issues, but they are both doctors. Doctors and other medical professionals see more human suffering than most of us, and learn to keep their emotions in check. By the same token, police officers spend more time than most of us in court. Think about this, if you attended court to testify even briefly for one day a month over a five year period, wouldn’t you know how to impress a magistrate, a judge, a jury? Practice may not make perfect, but most of us improve with regular effort and commitment.
This guy who we saw earlier, was making an appeal in a very notorious case, one that beggars belief. If you haven’t heard of her, Karla Homolka is Canada’s most hated woman. When she met her future husband Paul Bernardo, he was already a serial rapist. It was not so much love at first sight as infatuation, mostly by Karla. But Karla wasn’t a virgin, her younger sister Tammy was, and Paul wanted to take her virginity. So Karla gave it to him, they drugged Tammy, Paul raped her, and Karla joined in.
Tammy experienced an adverse reaction to the drug, one that killed her. Sadly, a proper autopsy was not carried out, and after violating and killing her sister with this monster, Karla moved in with him, married him, and helped him kidnap and rape other girls, two of whom were murdered, most likely by her.
This is a fantastic story, an unbelievable story, but the evidence, including video evidence, proves it to be true. How do we, how does a jury or any arbiter of fact, assess the validity of any story without some corroboration?
Corroboration can be flawed or even dishonest. There was forensic evidence in the Lindy Chamberlain case; that turned out to be flawed. There was plenty of corroboration when Ronald Jones was arrested – police officers lying in unison. Fortunately for him, video evidence came to the rescue.
Ronald Jones was assaulted by police officers who then lied gratuitously.
Without corroboration though, it is she said/he said, so if the alleged victim plays her part convincingly, like this woman, and if the jury is not impressed by the well turned out dude with a professional demeanour, injustice results. There is something else that needs to be added to this equation, the lack of the requirement of corroboration leads inevitably to a rise in false allegations, the same way a lack of consequences for false allegations leads to a rise in them. This is human nature.
Corroboration is even more important in historical cases as was demonstrated by the Ghomeshi affair in Canada. Although this was not a rape case, it saw three women testifying under oath that Jian Ghomeshi had seriously assaulted them a decade earlier. He was acquitted when he was able to produce a number of contemporaneous e-mails and a letter that proved these women had lied. In addition, there was compelling evidence that two of them had actually conspired against him, exchanging incriminating messages on social media.
Three women lied about Jian Ghomeshi under oath, yet they are still being treated like victims.
Incredibly, instead of facing the fact that some women are shameless liars, the narrative is being pushed that they were somehow in shock, and that post-assault contact was to be expected.
Essentially, we are being told believe women, no matter how outrageous their lies. If their evidence is shown to be materially incorrect on important points, that is because of the trauma, or some other garbage. If Ghomeshi hadn’t kept those e-mails, he would be in prison right now. There are many men who are or who have been, like this man, Michael Brewer.
Along with his wife, music teacher Brewer was convicted of historical sexual offences against this woman, Frances Andrade, who committed suicide during his trial. I’ve put a link to the sentencing remarks of the judge below. They run to 55 paragraphs, but take a look especially at paragraphs 28-30.
It is not unknown for especially music students to become close to their tutors, but does this sound even remotely credible?
To begin with, does anyone have that much oral sex? He did this when she was 14, when she was 15, yet she kept going back for more? She told no one at the time, didn’t even make an excuse for avoiding him by telling her parents she wanted to leave the school or the administration she didn’t want to be taught by him.
We’ve all heard of grooming, and we all know the reason kids are meant to keep silent when then are sexually abused: “I’ll kill your parents” or perhaps “I’m a witch, and I’ll turn you into a frog”. That may work on a 6 year old, or a teenager who has the mind of a 6 year old, but Frances Andrade was a woman of above average intelligence. What would even a reasonably intelligent 14 year old do if her tutor whipped out his hampton and tried to shove it in her mouth? And while driving a camper van too?
Why did she wait thirty years to report this obscene behaviour? The obvious reason is that these sexual assaults happened only in her head, and at a much later date. Frances Andrade was not a vulnerable witness to use a popular phrase, she was a head case. She shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near a courtroom, but treated for her delusions, or maybe she should simply have had them explained to her.
In 1990, the American teenager Nicole Althaus accused her own father of sexually assaulting her, just once. She would go on to make all manner of bizarre allegations against him, other family members, and total strangers. One of the things she was meant to have been forced to do was walk over hot coals, which would have scarred her feet. When she realised this, and that she had no scars, she realised too that these vivid memories were in fact delusions.
This is not an isolated case, but the people running our criminal justice system never learn anything. Nicole Althaus had false memories implanted in her by therapists. False memories can also be created by prescription drugs, recreational drugs, or just plain old-fashioned alcohol, fermented by years of confabulation.
And here is one of my all-time favourite short video clips; this is the world’s leading authority on false memories explaining how easy it is to create them in ordinary, well-balanced people, which the majority of historical accusers are not. On top of this, some people are just mad, while others are simply evil.
Nobody put it better than Paul Gambaccini, another victim of the Operation Yewtree witch-hunt. Addressing a meeting of mainly lawyers in Central London last October, he said that tonight there will be maybe three hundred girls going to sleep dreaming about Harry Styles. Thirty years from now, two or three of those dreams may have morphed into something more sinister. He was talking specifically about celebrities, but in this day and age, false allegations of this nature can and do happen to ordinary people, including on occasion women.
We need to halt and then reverse what can only be described as the rape of due process. To this end, no one should stand trial for rape nor for any sexual offence of an historical nature without some meaningful corroboration. And if that means no so-called closure or compensation for self-styled survivors who come forward ten, twenty, thirty years on, tough. Get on with your life like these real rape victims. If too this means less money for parasitic lawyers like this woman, then so much the better.
[The above is a transcript of my text only; a few photographs have been added. All the actual footage was found on YouTube.]
To The Video Of Rape And Corroboration
To An International Timeline Of False Rape Allegations 1674-2015
To BILL COSBY: A Voice Of Reason
To Gloria Allred’s Despicable Crusade
To Memorandum To Operation Yewtree
To Sentencing remarks re the imaginary crimes of Michael Brewer against Frances Andrade
Back To Documentary Transcript Page