That is the problem that a former chiropractor and osteopath faced. The good news for him is that it took only 20 minutes for a jury to clear him of a sexual assault charge. One of the more interesting aspects of the case is that he represented himself during the trial, and prevailed. And when, you ask, did this assault allegedly take place? In 1971. Think about that. Can anyone here state what they were doing 40 years ago? With any degree of precision? I doubt it.
And yet last year, this doctor was arrested and this year went to trial. The claim is that he had sexually assaulted a 12 year old during a consultation.
The doctor is currently talking to attorneys to sue the state for unlawful arrest, and misconduct during the investigation. He also has plans to sue the complainant for a false allegation.
Among the man’s claims are the following:
- The complainant was told her alleged attacker would be in a certain courtroom on a certain day so she could refresh her memory of what he looked like;
- Police suggested to the complainant’s brother that he change his statement to say that it was possible their mother could have left the consultation room and left his sister and the chiropractor alone.
- Prosecutors chose not to investigate Yellow Pages evidence given by the man that he was not practising at the premises at the time it was alleged the assault took place.
The man said he is writing to the Commissioner of Police to complain about the actions of police in the case, and he is also complaining to the Law Society about the complainant, who is a lawyer.
After charges were brought against him, the Chiropractic Council had imposed restrictions on his practice that caused loss of income.
He is demanding the restrictions be removed.
The man said said he had also suffered a loss of reputation over the case and had been the subject of malicious gossip in Wagga.
Link:
http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/man-cleared-of-sexual-assault-allegation-to-seek-compensation/2301096.aspx
Posts
15 comments:
This is really the kind of case that justifies this site. How do we allow men to be destroyed over charges that can't possibly be proven? I don't know if this man if factually innocent; what concerns me is that the claim is shrouded in uncertainty, and the only reason charges were brought, I would bet, is to appease some politicized interest. No sane prosecutor could have expected a reasonable trier of fact to convict this man. So why destroy him? And why does nobody, outside of a few of us, give a damn about it?
I hope he really pushes the damaged reputation angle. Even after this lawsuit the rumors will continue, likely for years to come.
It is, of course, good to see men standing up for themselves more and more against false allegations, and, as in this case, turning the tables and filing suit to try to recover some small portion of the damage done to them.
Fortunately for this the unnamed doctor (Hum???, I wonder if his named was splashed all over the news when he was accused and arrested?) not only does he have the resources to pursue the matter in civil court, but Australia has been less polluted by feminist ideology, meaning that he will stand a better chance of prevailing.
But, that also points to what I believe is a serious deficiency in the criminal laws now in place to deal with (or, more accurately, NOT deal with) false accusations and the damages they cause.
Of course, the most glaringly obvious issue (and I’m certain people are becoming sick of my going on, ad nauseum, about it) is the dearth of laws to charge false allegations as anything more serious than a misdemeanor (as if such allegations were no more serious than ship-lifting or public intoxication, for example).
But there is another issue buried in all this, and I believe it to be of even greater importance. Under the laws which can be applied against those making false allegations, the “criminal act” is viewed as having been committed against the state (typically, the police), and not against the falsely accused individual. This is not a “six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other” considerations. Because a falsely accused man (or woman) is not recognized as the victim of a crime, he does not enjoy certain added protections and considerations afforded to crime victims under both state and federal “Victim’s Rights Acts”.
This means that even if the false accuser is proven to have lied, he does not enjoy the right to be involved in any subsequent decisions regarding the charging, prosecution, and sentencing of his false accuser.
And, further, whereas it is quite typical for prosecutors in adjudicating criminal cases in which the commission of the crime lead to financial or property losses to (recognized) victims, to ask for the (criminal) court to imposes orders of restitution against the defendant, since the falsely accused are not recognized as victim’s (of a false report), there is no mechanism by which the criminal court can the same for them (of course, they can order the perp to pay the police/victims).
Changing the laws so that the falsely accused are recognized as victims would make it possible for them to be granted financial restitution without the need to pursue their claims in a civil court (at significant personal expense). Then, one wouldn’t need to have the resources of, say, a chiropractor and osteopath to be able to have THEIR day in court.
Paul Grieg was accused by 2 girls, that, when he baby-sat for their family "The whole night was spent abusing myself and my sister, having sex with us, moving from one to another." and allegedly, he repeated this conduct on numerous occasions over a year.He was then aged 14. Nothing was noticed by their mother.
They claimed to have suppressed the 'memory' for thirty six years, until they until they saw his photo in a newspaper, and 'realised' what he had done. Without any other evidence(not even positive dates that might have been rebutted)- this 51yo Scottish Police Sergeant has now been convicted.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/Cop-guilty-of-raping-sisters.6794842.jp
This man essentially had to prove his innocence. Rather than honestly accept that their case was weak or nonexistent, they instead choose to run with it, ignoring and excluding evidence that would point to innocence, and rallying behind extremely weak evidence. The police were clearly witness tampering when they suggested that the brother say certain things in court about the girl being left alone. Witness tampering is a crime yet rarely prosecuted if done by police government agents. This case has Prosecutorial Misconduct written all over it. Police and prosecutors were not concerned with truth or justice but rather with convictions. The whole manner in which cases are handled undercuts the presumption of innocence. The criminal justice system should be accurate, fair, and just. Many jurors expect defendants to prove they are innocent, not just poke holes in the prosecution's case. Plenty of jurors assume that defendants wouldn't be on trial if they hadn't done something bad.
"How exactly do you defend yourself from a claim when that claim is made years after the fact, and any evidence, or even eyewitnesses, wouldn’t be possible to produce?"
ANSWER: You should not have to.
You should be innocent until proven guilty...
I consulted an attorney to file a civil suit against my false rape accuser, but the attorney said she doesn't have shit to pay any claim against her, and i decided out of it.
She even got a chunk of ???victim funds?? that she used for drugs, that she never had to pay back.
Quite a perverted system we have here folks where girls can feed their drug habits by making false rape accusations.
"How exactly do you defend yourself from a claim when that claim is made years after the fact, and any evidence, or even eyewitnesses, wouldn’t be possible to produce?"
----------------------------
What if the situation were reversed. By that I mean what if the alleged victim takes no court action. Instead, she slanders him, hoping he'll sue her.
He does. So now, SHE is the Defendant. What's your take? Will he prevail as the Plaintiff? He now has the burden of proof. His challenge is to prove the slanderous statements were false and damaging -- a very challenging task.
"So now, SHE is the Defendant. What's your take? Will he prevail as the Plaintiff? He now has the burden of proof. His challenge is to prove the slanderous statements were false and damaging -- a very challenging task."
The evidentiary infirmities inherent in a false claim regarding an alleged rape so long ago -- the loss of alibi evidence, faded memories, etc. -- would be the same for him. All he could say is that she lied, I never did that. He would not have any other proof beyond his word. It will be very difficult for him to prevail, and on her counterclaim (yes, she almost certainly will counterclaim), she very well might prevail.
Let's say he has a few corroborating witnesses, all of whom had a less than stellar reputation at the time of the alleged rape. In one fell swoop, she has slandered them too. Interesting huh.
Wonder if the court would believe these men.
You're the lawyer, but I doubt she could file a counterclaim since the statutes have expired for her particular claim. She was an adult when the alleged incident occurred. On the otherhand, there are no statutes for his claim (defamation) in federal court.
Lies, brainwashing, suggestibility, manipulations, coaching, rehearsed memories, and leading questions serve as the collective truth of the State. Prosecutors and police will never talk about the tampering with witnesses in jury trials.
Arod, they will if congress has to step in.
Isnt there any statute of limitations on these things
In criminal court, yes, but there are no sol's in civil court.
Post a Comment