Jump to content

Allegations of rape: Why are police asking victims for their phones?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, willman said:

10 days before trial when the old guy was preparing for a bad future - pictures were shown that she had  taken during the offence and with texts the following day about how good he was for his age.

Texts to who?

 

If they were presumably sent to the defendant, why did he not mention them to his solicitor or the police when he was questioned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Texts to who?

 

If they were presumably sent to the defendant, why did he not mention them to his solicitor or the police when he was questioned?

They apparently couldn't initially prove when they were taken although they knew when they were received. She denied any knowledge of them and claimed they were done without her knowledge initially. It was a long and strange investigation which had lasted nearly 18 months.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have no problem with the police having access to any information held by my phone, but if I had been raped I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable with all of that being turned over to my rapist and his legal team, then picked apart and used against me in open court.

 

Let's be honest here, although cases cannot officially be defended on a 'she was dressed provocatively so she was asking for it' defence. conversations with other people, intimate photos and the like could all be used to colour a jury's opinion.

 

Who would welcome that one?  I wouldn't, even though I know for a fact that there is nothing even vaguely intimate on my phone (unless you count texts booking a gardener to come and build me some fencing, or photos of the dog and cats as intimate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, medusa said:

I would have no problem with the police having access to any information held by my phone, but if I had been raped I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable with all of that being turned over to my rapist and his legal team, then picked apart and used against me in open court.

 

Let's be honest here, although cases cannot officially be defended on a 'she was dressed provocatively so she was asking for it' defence. conversations with other people, intimate photos and the like could all be used to colour a jury's opinion.

 

Who would welcome that one?  I wouldn't, even though I know for a fact that there is nothing even vaguely intimate on my phone (unless you count texts booking a gardener to come and build me some fencing, or photos of the dog and cats as intimate).

Or used to prosecute the rapist? It's evidence - simple as that.


As I said before - the same logic would have to apply to the defendant - just change the words round to your opening statement

 

"I would have no problem with the police having access to any information held by my phone, but if I had been wrongly accused of rape I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable with all of that being turned over to my accuser and her legal team, then picked apart and used against me in open court."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, willman said:

They apparently couldn't initially prove when they were taken although they knew when they were received. 

Sounds very fishy to me! All photos taken digitally carry metadata saying exactly when they were taken, as countless insurance fraudsters have found out after sending photos of ‘stolen’ goods to their insurers which were taken after the items were stolen. The same goes for texts, emails and social media posts.

57 minutes ago, makapaka said:

"I would have no problem with the police having access to any information held by my phone, but if I had been wrongly accused of rape...”

A valid point, however false rape allegations are relatively rare whereas under reporting of rape and other sexual offences is a big problem.

 

Given that, the judicial system should be concentrating on encouraging genuine rape reports than preventing false ones, nothing should be done to discourage the former.

 

This is just another badly thought out, knee jerk response to a problem which can easily be solved by people doing their jobs properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Sounds very fishy to me! All photos taken digitally carry metadata saying exactly when they were taken, as countless insurance fraudsters have found out after sending photos of ‘stolen’ goods to their insurers which were taken after the items were stolen. The same goes for texts, emails and social media posts.

In this case I'm not sure when a photo was taken is the most important factor anyway and it's easy enough to scrub or edit the metadata. A photo could be taken whilst a relationship is ongoing, months before an offence is alleged to have taken place. If it's sent after the alleged offence, that would be of interest to the police - regardless of when it was taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, altus said:

In this case I'm not sure when a photo was taken is the most important factor anyway and it's easy enough to scrub or edit the metadata. 

It is, but if these photos are sent by text/email/WhatsApp/facebook, the platform can provide untampered with metadata. Anyone who presents a photo which has been tampered with in evidence to a court, is not only likely to be deemed an unreliable witness but also liable to be charged with making false evidence.

 

The point that I have made three times now is that evidential communications between victim and accused DO NOT require access to the device of the victim, just the device of the recipient and the acquiescence of the ISP/phone company/facebook whatever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/04/2019 at 08:42, ECCOnoob said:

What about the defendant's right to a fair trial?  

 

You can bet your backside that the police and prosecution team will trawl through the defendant's entire personal history, trawl through all their personal and intimate photographs, trawl through all their drunken messages and coversations to build up their case without problem.

 

It's an obvious balance to ensure that the same level of scrutiny should also be applied to the alleged victim reporting such a serious crime. 

 

That alleged defendant is just as innocent as the alleged victim until such point until proven guilty of a crime.  

 

Unpleasant as it may be for an alleged victim the cold hard fact it is anything to do with investigating rape allegation IS personal.  However, that does not mean that one side should have privilege of maintaining their private mobile phone data particularly when such data could be key to an accused's defence

 

In modern times, a persons mobile phone contains their entire life and there is no reason why an accuser bringing such a serious crime allegation against a defendant should not be compelled to give full disclosure to the police. 

 

It should quite rightly be for them to decide what is relevant to the investigation.  

No, it isn't remotely fair or balanced to put the victim through the same level of scrutiny as the alleged perp.

The defendant is guilty, but being investigated.  The victim is NOT being investigated.

23 hours ago, hauxwell said:

I agree with what francypants says in post 2.  

 

A few years ago I was told by a policeman, that it’s not uncommon for a woman to say she has been rapped to get revenge on her boyfriend because he finished the relationship.

Well, there should be some statistics to show this then right...

Because on the fact of it it sounds very unlikely.

23 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Perhaps the phone is used as a locator? To verify if the person was in the area of the attack at the time?

I'm pretty sure that if the police have a good reason to require the victims phone then they can in fact get a warrant for it.  Which is quite different to routinely requesting the phone for rape victims and imaging the entire thing to trawl through.

20 hours ago, willman said:

In the real world people lie - if there's nothing incriminating on the phone hand it over. Or would you rather waste millions on court cases which collapse when the defendant proves that the accuser is lying .

The accused has to hand over phones,laptops and personal information to prove themselves innocent why shouldn't the accuser have to do the same ?

Because a VICTIM is not on trial.

 

Rape is a massively under reported crime, treating the victim like a criminal will make this worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, willman said:

They apparently couldn't initially prove when they were taken although they knew when they were received. She denied any knowledge of them and claimed they were done without her knowledge initially. It was a long and strange investigation which had lasted nearly 18 months.

 

So in this case there's a clear reason to get the details of what has been sent FROM THE PHONE COMPANY.

Not a blanket reason to seize victims phones.

16 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Sounds very fishy to me! All photos taken digitally carry metadata saying exactly when they were taken, as countless insurance fraudsters have found out after sending photos of ‘stolen’ goods to their insurers which were taken after the items were stolen. The same goes for texts, emails and social media posts.

A valid point, however false rape allegations are relatively rare whereas under reporting of rape and other sexual offences is a big problem.

 

Given that, the judicial system should be concentrating on encouraging genuine rape reports than preventing false ones, nothing should be done to discourage the former.

 

This is just another badly thought out, knee jerk response to a problem which can easily be solved by people doing their jobs properly.

It is easily possible to manipulate that metadata though, if you've got any experience in IT.

However if they were sent somewhere then the records of that cannot be manipulated.

 

Agree with the bit in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

No, it isn't remotely fair or balanced to put the victim through the same level of scrutiny as the alleged perp.

The defendant is guilty, but being investigated.  The victim is NOT being investigated.

Well, there should be some statistics to show this then right...

Because on the fact of it it sounds very unlikely.

I'm pretty sure that if the police have a good reason to require the victims phone then they can in fact get a warrant for it.  Which is quite different to routinely requesting the phone for rape victims and imaging the entire thing to trawl through.

Because a VICTIM is not on trial.

 

Rape is a massively under reported crime, treating the victim like a criminal will make this worse.

The defendant isn’t guilty - not until it’s proven.

 

or have you decided that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply now?

 

if I accuse you of rape now - and the police investigate - are you guilty?

 

dont talk daft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendant IS being investigated for a crime though.  Apologies the "is" in my previous should clearly be isn't.

 

The defendant isn't guilty, but being investigated.  The victim is NOT being investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

The defendant IS being investigated for a crime though.  Apologies the "is" in my previous should clearly be isn't.

 

The defendant isn't guilty, but being investigated.  The victim is NOT being investigated.

An alleged crime is being investigated. There are two parties involved  both of which need to be investigated for corroborating evidence or conflicts in evidence. Only investigating the accused smacks of the assumption of guilt by those investigating the crime.

 

Where exactly does 12 hours of "No comment" interviews get the police in any investigation without supporting evidence.

It isn't about victimising the victim any further it's about proving an offence beyond a reasonable doubt and locking somebody up for it.

 

 

 

Edited by willman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.