3 ms·

Given the motivation for this -- the collapse of several high-profile rape case where evidence of false accusation was discovered on the "victim's" phone -- it

• DanBC 8y ago
  Why are people so keen to suggest that she lied to the police, but was truthful in her messages to other people? I can see several reasons why women would tell the truth to the police but not to friends; fear of reprisal being one.
  • Veen 8y ago
    I'm "keen to suggest" it because because several high-profile rape cases in the UK collapsed in the last few months because police either didn't gather phone data or failed to disclose relevant phone data they had gathered — data that exonerated the accused. Phone data is one possible source of evidence and it should be considered alongside all the other evidence to determine whether the accused person is guilty. By refusing to hand over that evidence, rape victims deny police and prosecutors evidence that may be vital to making a case, which obviously makes it less likely that a prosecution will go forward. You can't convict someone with no evidence. I can certainly understand how it would make the accuser uncomfortable, but that has to be balanced against the rights of the accused to a fair trial where all available evidence is considered.
    • DanBC 8y ago
      I don't think we disagree on any of that. Where I disagree is that her messages were proof she lied to police about the rape. She may well have been telling the truth to the police and lying to her friends -- why aren't people leaving that open as a possibility.
      • Veen 8y ago
        I’d say it’s evidence but not proof. If the phone is full of messages saying the accuser had a wonderful time with the accused, that’s evidence that should be considered alongside other evidence. She may indeed be lying about having a wonderful time, and that should be taken into account. Investigators have to make a judgement that into account.