I heard about this case. As can be expected, the girl has told the media that she won't be seeking the police's help next time, and who can blame her?

And this is supposed to convince her to cooperate how?

She testified today, and is now being quoted as saying she hopes her boyfriend is acquitted so that they can be together. What's so frustrating is that many people, I'm sure, will read the coverage of this story and of the things she's saying and argue that it justifies her being held against her will, when it may simply indicate the extent to which she has been abused by her boyfriend. Too many of the abused women I worked with years ago stayed with their abusers long after the abuse started because of the mental and emotional toll the abuse had taken. What's to say that isn't what we're seeing here?

The court is holding the witness in custody to make her testify against someone accused of "forcible confinement"?

Sorry, ladies, I've got to side with the Crown on this one. Lots of my clients make domestic violence allegations (via children's dependency court). Sadly, they are often just a tool to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The alleged victim's statements indicate this is one of those situations.

I see this a lot more often than I see the converse (women too terrified to come forward). These false allegations waste law enforcement resources and undermine the credibility of genuine victims.

And if she is genuinely scared of the guy, well, at least she'll be safer where she is. There's a baby's welfare to think about too. If this man is abusing her, not only she but the baby are in danger if we just let her drop it because she changed her mind. In America, her behavior would be legal justification for children's services to detain her baby until she's completed some domestic violence counseling and shown she is willing to protect her child.

As far as I can figure, the material witness warrant was issued against her because the cops and the prosecutors thought she was lying. She testified in court today that she did make it up because she was mad at him for watching pornography in the same room as her, and he wouldn't go to bed with her at night.

A friend of mine works in the DV court program in Toronto, and she estimates that at least 1/3 of the charges laid are laid to manipulate divorce and custody proceedings or to try to make the partner "act right" and give up things like pornography, hanging out with undesirable friends or get a job.

I have tonnes of time for women who want to get away from abusive partners. But I hope that every lying sack of crap who lays bogus charges is jailed on material witness warrants.

estimates that at least 1/3 of the charges laid are laid to manipulate divorce and custody proceedings or to try to make the partner "act right" and give up things like pornography, hanging out with undesirable friends or get a job.

What evidence does she have that this is the case? It seems very likely to me that a woman who is abused by her partner may retract her statements once she realizes that her partner may not be convicted even if she tells the truth. She is probably afraid that if she tells the truth and then he is not convicted, that he will become even more abusive.

Holding a potential victim of abuse in jail is unacceptable, in my opinion. She needs support and counseling, not jail.

Even if some women do lie about abuse, maybe we should look at these women with compassion. Clearly, something is not right in that relationship, and the woman is crying out for help. She still needs support and counseling, not jail.

The real issue is whether law enforcement should force alleged domestic violence victims to testify even after they change their minds. When there's a child involved, I say yes without reservation. If it takes jail, then jail it is. These women must be forced to place their children's safety before their romantic relationships. Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around.

California is actually working on legislation that provides victims of domestic violence with the same rights as victims of sexual assault - namely removing the ability of judges to put them in prison to testify or to hold them in contempt of court and have them put into county jail as a result. If you want more info on this bill, it's SB 1356 (Yee).

What evidence does she have that this is the case?

I believe the commenter said his friend was speaking from firsthand observation, as am I.

Even if some women do lie about abuse, maybe we should look at these women with compassion. Clearly, something is not right in that relationship, and the woman is crying out for help. She still needs support and counseling, not jail.

If it were your son or best friend she were lying to the police about in her cry for help -- same feelings?

More to the point, we have no way to force someone into counseling without court intervention. The voluntary approach doesn't work with people in denial.

Remember, sometimes bad things happen to bad people. The fact that these women are mistreated doesn't make them saints. They can be incredibly selfish about putting their own interests and desires before the welfare of their children.

Assholes:

She has recanted the charges. She has also made up the world's most unbelievable lies for each and every mark on her body that her abuser left. These weren't false allegations. I don't know why she is lying now, but I do know that to suggest that her recanting means the abuse didn't happen is either an ignorant or deliberately misleading statement.

And here's an idea: how about we don't force victims of abuse to do anything? How about instead of talking about what "responsibility" victims have, we start talking about the responsibility of the actually violent person. I am so sick of this "women make up abuse" crap, and there are tons of MRA blogs out there who will love to hear from you. Christ.

"Sorry, ladies, I've got to side with the Crown on this one. Lots of my clients make domestic violence allegations (via children's dependency court). "

Thats how I see it. I dont get it. We should feel sorry for her simply because shes pregnant AND being held by the court? She may be to fragile to testify if it was up to her. This ensures she'll testify rather than protecting him, and his fucked up behavior.

She should still be in jail for making the false accusation (or if Cara is right, for perjury).

"I have tonnes of time for women who want to get away from abusive partners. But I hope that every lying sack of crap who lays bogus charges is jailed on material witness warrants."

I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household. If her BF wont respect her (arising from her gender) then some women will do that to gain respect in their own household. If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?

But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?

Please refrain from the ad feminem attacks, "Cara." Your personal insults just underscore the weakness of your knee-jerk argument. My dislike of liars, system-milkers, and abusive parents doesn't put me in the MRA camp.

This woman may be putting her soon-to-be-born child at risk by protecting an abusive boyfriend so she can keep a relationship going. Why doesn't this concern you?

I know we were all raised on movies-of-the-week that show domestic violence as something perpetrated upon saintly (usually middle-class) women by twisted, charming psychopaths. In my experience with these allegations, that's rarely the reality. I'm not excusing the perps, but the women play a role in the dynamic, and they are often perpetrators as well. They are part of a population expert at manipulating the system to its advantage (as are the perps, don't get me wrong). And only a small percentage of the allegations involve injuries beyond the very minor (if any). Some of you commenters are confusing "Lifetime" with real life.

And P.S., I apologize for my mispenification of DLF -- the commenter is in fact a woman.

**I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household...If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?**

Wow, GopherII, I'm actually shocked that someone could find a justification for filing false charges against someone just so they can be in control of their relationship. That is f***ed up and really close to what men have been doing to women for years.

I have no use or respect for someone who *lies* in an effort to hurt or control others. Sinking to their level does not make us the same as them, it makes us worse, because we should be better than that.

"This woman may be putting her soon-to-be-born child at risk by protecting an abusive boyfriend so she can keep a relationship going. Why doesn't this concern you?"

So do you believe the charges, and her initial complaint, are true (and she is a victim) or not (she is lying)? You can't have it both ways.

My concern is about the boyfriend. A comment at your linked article had a brilliant suggestion: if the court believes the accusation has merit, how about holding the boyfriend in jail instead of the pregnant woman?

Here's one way to handle the situation of a woman who claims to be unwilling to leave a relationship authorities have *good reason* to believe to be abusive (or she withdraws/refuses to press charges despite arrest of suspected abuser), without jailing potential victims or taking a child from its mother because SHE is "unwilling" to keep the child safe: slap a restraining order on the suspected abuser, so the victim can't return to the relationship, or the abuser is forced from the mutual home.

Sure it's intrusive and has the potential to harm innocent families, but no less so than existing policies requiring officers to make arrests in accusations of domestic violence (as with my brother after his wife filed for divorce - note this strategy to win sole custody failed), or to make arrests if there are suspected wounds visible, even if no complaint is made. Note that such policies very often results in women being taken away as the suspected abuser, if the man (or other suspected victim) displays wounds or appears the passive party, as seen in COPS - call for domestic disturbance finds agitated/disheveled/under the influence woman making claims against man, yet the man is calmly standing or sitting, perhaps with a bleeding cut on his head? Guess who gets taken away? Even if/when the woman later admits attacking the man (eg, in the back of the patrol car), perhaps has a history of doing so, I am disturbed by those scenes.

Spungen, what the fuck makes you think that none of us have a first hand experience with abuse and what the hell gives you the arrogance to presume that we don't have any clue what we're talking about? No, really, I'd like to know. How do you know that my experience comes from Lifetime? I guess my vagina makes me sit down and watch crap tv all day and then turn it into a personal belief system? And that I couldn't have possibly had an experience with a twisted psychopath, an experience you've just completely invalidated? And why the hell is she the one putting her child at risk when she is not the one being violent? For fuck's sake.

I'm going. I'm too fucking angry, and I don't know where all the sane people are, but with a couple of exceptions they're not on this thread. The last time I checked, calling domestic violence victims liars and saying that their injuries are generally only "very minor" -- AS IF THAT SHOULD EVEN MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE -- was not acceptable on a feminist blog and was an MRA argument. And I have better things to do.

But thank you to Samhita for posting on this, because it's outrageous and it's important.

First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised, it's worth noting that the rate of false accusations (not of acquittals, which are a different matter entirely) in rape cases is no higher than that for other offences, someplace around 2% according to the Dept. of Justice statistics I saw a while back.

Recanting, as others have noted, doesn't mean a thing. Many victims recant for the same reason that even more don't come forward in the first place: they have no reason to believe that pursuing the matter will actually help them.

The idea of taking the victim into custody in a case like this is absolutely unconscionable. Leaving aside the fact that jails are rarely particularly safe for anyone, if the Crown wishes to oblige her to testify against this man, obviously, they believe that there are grounds to believe he has in fact committed an offence. If this is the case, then it would justify arresting him, not her. If, on the other hand, they believe that she is falsely accusing him, then the route is not to coerce her into testifying, but to prefer charges for making a false unsworn statement.

Since they have not done this, it seems clear that they credit her initial report, which means that they also have reason to believe that her safety is at risk. Instead of taking the responsible route of ensuring her safety by holding her abuser in custody, they have exposed her to an even greater risk: when they let her out, he will know where to find her.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Indeed. I wonder how many of them allow abusive men around *for* the children (thinking stuff like "I'm a good mom by giving my child a male role model in our home!!!"). It's yet another reason the pressure on parents to stay in bad relationships sucks.

"But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?"

Good point.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Indeed. I wonder how many of them allow abusive men around *for* the children (thinking stuff like "I'm a good mom by giving my child a male role model in our home!!!"). It's yet another reason the pressure on parents to stay in bad relationships sucks.

"But putting her in jail a week beforehand seems pretty messed up. Why couldn't they wait until she didn't show up and then charge her with contempt of court?"

Good point.

I am absolutely appalled at the apparent ignorance shown by previous comments that allege false allegations of domestic abuse. As a survivor of DV, I know full well how incredibly daunting it can be to leave, especially when a child is involved. Clearly, those of you who believe that abuse targets would fabricate these allegations are unfamiliar with the 1996 study that found that abusive men are 2-3 times MORE likely to seek custody as a means to control a partner who is leaving, and that the court system is JUST AS LIKELY to award custody to the abuser. Believe me - it happened in my case, and my abuser won by accusing ME of abuse when HE was the attacker, and I merely fought back in self defense with just enough force to get away from him. This happened despite REAMS of police reports I'd filed while married to him. It's no coincidence that MRAs have been very successful in promoting their misogynistic agendas in my state. Make no mistake, getting out of an abusive marriage with kids is no picnic.

I'm appalled that this court would put the victim in jail. Elise, you've hit it on the head in your analysis of the screwed up logic here. The safer, saner way to handle this would have been to make it impossible for the abuser to intimidate the victim.

Taking a domestic violence awareness class right now, here's some literature SOME people on here need to be aware of: 50 Reasons Women Don't Leave Abusive Partners
1. Fear
2. Children
3. Lack of money
4. She loves her partner
5. Her partner "loves" her
6. The children love them both
7. Law enforcement blame her
8. Clergy blame her
9. Relatives blame her
10. She blames herself
11. Therapists blame ber
12. Her batterer blames her
13. She's a drug addict
14. Her partner is a pimp
15. Her father abused her
16. Her mother abused her
17. Her partner is an alcoholic
18. Her partner is a drug addict
19. Her partner says, "I'm sorry"
20. Her partner says, "I love you"
21. Her partner says, "I'll never do it again"
22. Her partner says, "I'll take the children"
23. Her partner says, "I'll kill you if you leave"
24. Her partner says, "I'll kill myself if you leave"
25. Fear of losing custody of her children
26. She's deaf
27. She's blind
28. She's mentally impaired
29. She can't read
30. She's in a wheel chair
31. She can't speak English
32. She doesn't have papers to be in this country
33. The shelters are all full
34. She'll become homeless
35. No one believes she is being abused
36. She doesn't think she is being abused
37. She knows the welfare system will abuse her more
38. She's isolated
39. She's depressed
40. It's not the right time
41. She's never told anyone
42. She's afraid of the unknown
43. She's a public figure
44. Her partner is a public figure
45. Her partner threatens to abuse pets
46. Her partner is her personal care attendant
47. Her partner threatens to expose her as a lesbian
48. She feels that there is no help
49. She's tried to leave before
50. Her partner found her before

A woman could have any one or number of those reasons for not wanting to report her partner to the police, or not wanting to press charges. She's thinking primarily of her safety, and if she thinks pressing charges is going to get herself beaten or killed, she's not going to want to press charges. The police are required to arrest, at least in my area, in the case of domestic violence, and the abused has no say in that. So did she try to press charges and then recant, thinking on her safety possibly, or did the police try to press charges and she didn't want to risk her abuser's anger and violence by testifying?

What the fuck?! I'm horrified that so many commenters here have taken the recanting of earlier testimony at face value as true and indicted this girl as a liar with regard to her claims of abuse. Carpet burns, mosquito bites, and sleeping on hard things sound like a totally believable source of bruises to y'all, but the idea of an argument ending in a 25-year-old beating a 19-year-old who's clearly attached to him is just unbelievable?

Ahhhh, depressing.

"Carpet burns, mosquito bites, and sleeping on hard things sound like a totally believable source of bruises to y'all"

Not to me! Mosquitoes think I'm delicious, and I know damn well the bites don't look like bruises.

Justifying false accusations to gain control in the relationship? Wow. Going on with the 2% fiction? Wow. Cara, have you not had the experience I have in family court of allegations being tossed around like ping pong balls simply to gain advantage? Does recanting automatically mean it didnt happen? Of course not but it could mean that. False allegations need to be taken far more seriously. One thing youre seeing happening here is doing whats in the "best interests of the child", usually the mother is lumped in with the child but in this case she is not, it can suck huh?

"First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised"

References are made to domestic violence, as in what is believed to have caused the marks on the woman in this article, not rape itself.

Also, the commonly cited 2% figure is not from the FBI. They do not track "false" reports. As I have read, the figure is usually from Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, from 1975, and is based on results from New York.

slide on over to http://www.nfvlrc.org/ if you have some time and check your metrics against it. I'll find some more on the 2% number for you as well and no I wont need to go back to the mid-80's and those 50% claims.

Or:

51. The local constabulary are headed up by a perpetrator of DV.

In my city, Cincinnati, the wife of the Chief of Police has filed DV complaints against him. In the police reports, she states that he assured her that going to law enforcement would be pointless because "I am the chief of police".

Unsurprisingly, our police department isn't known for excessive zeal in the investigation of cases of DV.

Also, the commonly cited 2% figure is not from the FBI.

The figure I saw was not in a report by the FBI, but by the Department of Justice, which does collect statistics on all manner of things related to criminal justice.

I am sure people at divorce trials see many things. What I am curious about is how those attorneys are satisfied that a high percentage of accusations of abuse they encounter are false. For example, while sworn to client confidentiality, are your clients telling you that they are lying?

elise,
please link the doj page where you found that.

Heres a link on the subject http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html

good quote: "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the ‘two percent false rape complaint’ thesis," even universities repeat this statistic, and it shows up in such important venues as the legislative history of VAWA. Pub. L. 102-199, S. Rep. 102-197 n.48 (Oct. 29, 1991).

look, I am with you on most of this and with most of this site, ive even been called a feminist many times as if it were an insult but damn it, I hate false statistics or at least not including a caveat to using weak ones. get the numbers right or as right as can be given our shitty treatment of rape and dv victims or dont use them.

ive heard the fbi says its around 8% being tossed around a bunch too, does that make it true? I could link an article like this trash http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15978.html and its more substantive than a vague memory of a doj report. Either way the method used to dervive these stats is bullshit and it could be higher or lower, you can even make the current number go higher or lower if you change the criteria just a smidge.

DV cases like the one cited here are running rampant, again we should not automatically believe she was not abused but as we see more and more studies on the -real- prevalence of dv and who the perpetrators are, I hope that using the same old way of thinking will go by the wayside, hell stats wise i still run into a lot of people who talk about the 59 cents to a dollar wage gap or cite the newer articles on the gap between hours of housework done but still women doing more yet they either dont read the full article or read more than one to find men still work more hours, in the end hours worked, as if you can even measure such a thing, is the same. Have a good night all.

"First of all, since the ever-popular spectre of the allegedly rampant false rape allegations has been raised, it's worth noting that the rate of false accusations (not of acquittals, which are a different matter entirely) in rape cases is no higher than that for other offences, someplace around 2% according to the Dept. of Justice statistics I saw a while back. "

Exactly. I cant believe some posters are perpetuating the belief that women may play the DV game simply for family political reasons. I argued with another poster on another site who had actually kidnapped his own kids and lived in another state until they were grown after a custody battle with his former wife. He had the audacious belief that he was right (and he wrote a book about it)since he believed the courts screw the fathers. He was one of those idiots that believed women file sexual abuse claims against the father simply in an effort to gain custody of the kids. Stats on that happening are overtly rare, and that women file false claims against the father simply to get custody of the kids.

A male, I don't know how it is in the US, but often now cops in Ontario have to arrest BOTH people involved in a domestic dispute. It's better this way, as it allows officers to ascertain what the hell happened ie: who has the defensive wounds and who has the offensive wounds. Catalogue it and be able to apply appropirate charges. SO in a way that deals with the MRA fears of false allegations. HOWEVER, it still puts victims at risk, since they'll be less likely to call the cops if they know they'll just be carted off to jail with their assailant.

It really is a difficult situation to deal with: My dad (a police officer for nearly 30 years now) always told me that the worst cases to go to were the DD's since you didn't know who the hell was responsible, and it was very likely that the female complaintant would come after you with a baseball bat after you arested her husband/boyfriend.

Anyways, personally I don't agree with what the judge did in this case, a bit of a hairbrained idea, and really at the most superficial level its very bad PR to throw a 19 year old pregnant woman into a jail cell.

I live in Toronto and everybody was talking about this case. The woman was the one who called the police on her abuser. She made the videotaped accusation against him. The crown was going on her words and her bruised body as evidence. She then indicated later that she would not testify. So my question is this???? Exactly what is the legal system supposed to do to get this abuser put away? They were trying to protect her from him and she became the roadblock to that. What is the answer then?? I have a great deal of pity for that child because he/she will be living in an abusive home....

Gopher: I see it as a way for the woman to enforce power in her own household. If her BF wont respect her (arising from her gender) then some women will do that to gain respect in their own household. If hes being such a chauvanist then why cant she bend the rules too?

Later...

Exactly. I cant believe some posters are perpetuating the belief that women may play the DV game simply for family political reasons.

Seriously, Gopher, are you insane?

"A male, I don't know how it is in the US, but often now cops in Ontario have to arrest BOTH people involved in a domestic dispute. It's better this way, as it allows officers to ascertain what the hell happened ie: who has the defensive wounds and who has the offensive wounds. Catalogue it and be able to apply appropirate charges. SO in a way that deals with the MRA fears of false allegations."

Actually, if one goes to Glenn Sacks, this (it does happen in the US) was seen as even more ridiculous, because this *assured* that a victim (not always female) was arrested (along with the offender (or aggressor, in mutual abuse)). If the abuser in a hetero relationship is the male partner, take him. If the abuser is the female partner, take her. If the offender is another family or household member, take them. The entire point of this article is how outrageous it is to arrest or hold an alleged victim of abuse.

"The woman was the one who called the police on her abuser. She made the videotaped accusation against him. The crown was going on her words and her bruised body as evidence. She then indicated later that she would not testify. Exactly what is the legal system supposed to do to get this abuser put away?"

Change the law (or apply existing ones) to allow the case to proceed without her. Her initial statement (videotaped or recorded from the emergency call, even better) and the documentation of the markings on her body should be sufficient. I do not know why they are not. Other crimes (such as murder or abuse of small children) are tried without the input of victims all the time.

Thanks Spungen for recognizing my femaleness.

I'm no fan of Christie Blatchford, but here's her version of events.

I think that the cops realized that after lying to her welfare worker about where she lived, dodging the documents, and telling police that she wouldn't show up they did what they had to.

The boyfriend in this case has been incarcerated since Dec 28. She visited him two or three times in jail.

C'mon ladies, this 19 year old is a victim of her own stupidity, not a man.

"Change the law (or apply existing ones) to allow the case to proceed without her. Her initial statement (videotaped or recorded from the emergency call, even better) and the documentation of the markings on her body should be sufficient. I do not know why they are not. Other crimes (such as murder or abuse of small children) are tried without the input of victims all the time."

While it would be nice to move the case forward without the victim, legally I'm not sure that it could be done. Under U.S. law a defendant has the right to confront their accuser. I would hope Canadian law would allow for the same. A videotape or recorded message wouldn't allow for this. You can't cross exam a video tape or recorded message. Without the videotape or recorded message it's difficult to prove who actually caused the abuse. The documentation therefore would likely be suppressed. Without a witness the case would probably have fallen apart, even though the prosecution probably knows who is guilty. I don't like the tactics involved in this case or the result, but the law is also there to make sure people get a fair trail, even if they're likely guilty.

The question was how to put away abusers when victims who are for whatever reason, uncooperative. Other crimes may be successfully prosecuted without victim testimony, and in the case of murder, sometimes even without a body. I'd love to hear a better idea.

This is not applicable to accusation of DV by one partner against another, but it does apply to what I mentioned, maneuvering during divorce or custody proceedings:

http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/504523.html

Bill would criminalize false abuse charges
By MICHAEL C. LEWIS / Journal Staff Writer
POSTED: March 10, 2008

"In West Virginia, from March 2007 to March 2008, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Child Protective Services received and did paperwork on 37,165 incidents of child abuse. From those, 26,904 cases were further investigated, said John Law, spokesperson for WVDHHR. Only 3,998 cases were found to be substantiated, or less than 20 percent of all investigated incidents."

Lacking a crystal ball and telepathy to interrogate those involved, I am not going to try to put a number on false accusation of crimes. But if more than 80% of accusations of child abuse in one state in a single year are claimed by the investigative body to be "unsubstantiated" (I am sure one plausible explanation for this figure is they were simply not investigated well enough) it is not difficult to imagine how many of those could have been used for "family political" reasons in family court.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. How in heaven, hell, earth, or purgatory did so many misogynists (in the strict definition--women haters) get in here.

Recanting means that she was lying? Give me a break. Ever heard of PTSD?

Women use DV charges to manipulate their partners? I really don't know how much closer to a medieval caricature you could get. I've seen several studies on this from multiple countries, and the highest rate of false allegations is 9%.

God almighty.

But if more than 80% of accusations of child abuse in one state in a single year are claimed by the investigative body to be "unsubstantiated" (I am sure one plausible explanation for this figure is they were simply not investigated well enough) it is not difficult to imagine how many of those could have been used for "family political" reasons in family court.

West Virginia's not a particularly good sample, though. For one thing, it's a very poor state, and virtually everything is underfunded. For another thing, the reach of law enforcement is rather limited there. There are large areas of the state, entire counties according to some current and former WV residents I've spoken with, that the police will not even enter.

For another thing, it's important to remember that there's a big difference between a finding of "unsubstantiated" and a false allegation. I don't know the official definition in WVA, but here in Ohio, cases are either "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated". There is no middle ground. If there is not enough corroborating evidence for an allegation to be considered "substantiated", it is automatically "unsubstantiated".

Of course, corroborating evidence is often unavailable. Many abusers are well versed in how to avoid leaving visible marks, and many victims are too scared or too subjugated to even consider turning in their abusers. And it's almost always possible to come up with a plausible explanation for any bruises, marks, or other evidence of violence. It will be hard to substantiate a case in these circumstances, particularly when the victim either refuses to talk, or is the one who attempts to explain away the evidence of abuse.

And even if the above were not the case, there is still a big difference between the state failing to satisfy an evidentiary standard and a person lying about abuse.

It seems the only way we'd get good numbers on this sort of thing was if law enforcement pursued false allegation charges against claimants whose case turned up to be sufficiently unsubstantiated to make such a thing suspect. Such agencies are overworked as it is though, so I don't see that happening soon, even if we could get the political backing for it.

"Recanting means that she was lying?"

Not to me in general, and in this case, if anything, the stories of her recanting lead me to doubt the recanting. I do not recall ever hearing more creative explanations for markings or reasons one would allegedly falsify a complaint.

"Women use DV charges to manipulate their partners?"

Men and women. It happens, according to those professionally involved, and even a claimed 9% rate of false accusation of DV is reason enough a jury is unlikely to convict accused abusers on uncorroborated complaints given the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the truth behind a claim, filing for divorce, making a complaint of abuse, and demanding sole custody in short succession, does look convenient to an outsider.

"I really don't know how much closer to a medieval caricature you could get."

Then perhaps in addition to increased efforts to prosecute and punish actual offenders, one's priorities could be eliminating, perhaps even punishing accusations discovered to be false, because false accusations are just one more reason that actual victims are doubted, others do not come forward, and offenders escape justice. I do not mean "unsubstantiated" or simply recanted. I mean provably false, as does occur. It's not a DV or rape case, but this week, I have read the most unbelievable (but apparently true) story I have come across in recent memory. Thank God for video cameras and stupid people, because innocent people have been lynched for less.

"it's important to remember that there's a big difference between a finding of "unsubstantiated" and a false allegation."

I know.

BTW, I'd like to know where to find some reliable reports on false allegations of partner or child abuse in the US, because despite the readily available information on DV and DV related research, I haven't seen any. Believe me, I'd prefer not to rely on the word of divorce attorneys.

"Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around."

Spungen, a woman is NEVER guilty of a partner's abuse. A woman does not ALLOW a partner to be abusive. It is the abuser who is committing these acts, and the frequent attempts to blame the victim is just another reason why women GO BACK.

Let's say there are women who use abuse allegations as a manipulative tool. I don't think it is as prevalent as women who are too terrified to come forward.

I have talked to many woman who were in abusive relationships, many as mothers or when pregnant, most when they were teenagers or in their early twenties. Every one stayed for a long time, many for years.

I think the tendency in these conversations to focus on the best way to blame the victim - focus on the liars - is what makes the vast majority of women who tell the truth look bad. Is that really the most important contribution to be made to these conversations: "remember, women who make these accusations can be big liars!"

I think there should have been a shelter for her to be in, one in which she could be watched and receive counseling. I doubt she was a flight risk, and if she changed her mind about testifying and is a pregnant teenager, I think counseling is a good idea no matter what.

"Recanting means that she was lying?" - Jeffrey Collins

Yes. Either she was lying when she said he abused her, or she was lying when she said he didn’t.

And can we please drop the 2% claim until someone can produce the report?

C'mon ladies, this 19 year old is a victim of her own stupidity, not a man.

No, she is not. And all the people calling her stupid will only make it worse since that is probably what her abuser tells her all the time.

The thing that many of you don't seem to get is that abuse like this is probably never just physical. It usually involves a LOT of emotional abuse as well. Abusive relationships usually start off wonderfully (it's not like he's going to introduce himself as an abuser, for god's sake) and go downhill only after several months of happiness. By the time the victim realizes what has happened, they are too confused by the abuser's constant changes between absolutely loving and kind, and outright hateful, and abusers are very, very skilled at recognizing when to be very sweet so that their victims will think, "Oh, s/he still loves me. Things are better now and I love him/her too..." or when to go the threatening route such as "I will find you and your baby when I get out of jail and kill you both if you testify against me." Testifying against this guy is one of the most dangerous things she can do, and it's not "stupid" to avoid that danger. Even though she'll most likely be beaten by him again in the future if she stays with him, that's probably not as bad as what he's threatened to do to her if she leaves him and testifies against him.

If you have never been abused or seen an abuser in action, you need to shut your goddamn mouth and quit talking about false allegations and shit. This thread is disgusting.

Lots of people still calling her a victim. So, we have to believe a women when she accuses someone, but we should not believe her when she recants?

"'Just because they're victims themselves doesn't absolve them from placing a child at risk of abuse, which they are doing by allowing an abusive man around.'

"Spungen, a woman is NEVER guilty of a partner's abuse."

I got the impression that in this quote Spungen's not talking about a victim causing her partner to be abusive and is talking about a victims keeping a 3rd party (a child) in the path of abuse she doesn't cause.

Noname, do you know exactly why she recanted? Do you know for a fact that she was lying the first time and telling the truth when she recanted? No, so yes, she is still a victim until proven otherwise without a doubt.

Many, many victims of DV recant. It doesn't make them not a victim.

Mina, that doesn't make it any better. As I said above, leaving and/or testifying against one's abuser is one of the most dangerous things a victim can do. There was a case posted on Feministing recently where an abuser got custody of his and his victim's children and then killed them. So she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Rather than focusing on what she needs to do, we need to focus on getting the goddamn abuse to stop, and the only one who can stop it is the abuser.

"we should not believe her when she recants?"

Not when the explanations for her injuries and markings, or for making her initial complaint are so creative. Bug bites, bumping into the wall, carpet burns, and sleeping on "something hard." Why would you believe all that as opposed to the simplest explanation (lacking other eyewitness testimony, and I've seen nothing of the "boyfriend's"), that he did beat her and kick her out? And her oft repeated claim she will not call the police for help the "next time." Next time of what? The next time the "boyfriend" watches porn or refuses to get her some food?

I don’t know why she recanted. I also don’t know if the recantation was the truth, or if the accusation was the truth. I believe I have been very clear about that. What I don’t understand is how you can just assume she is a victim. I was thinking that it might be appropriate to call her an alleged victim, but at this point it seems no one directly involved in the case is even alleging (officially) that she is a victim at this point. Which brings us back to my initial observation: you think that the accusation must be believed and that the recantation should not. I find that highly problematic.

I was writing to waxghost in my last post.

"The question was how to put away abusers when victims who are for whatever reason, uncooperative. Other crimes may be successfully prosecuted without victim testimony, and in the case of murder, sometimes even without a body. I'd love to hear a better idea."

Some crime may be successfully prosecuted without the victim or the accuser. If you read the text of the sixth amendment the accused is allowed to confront witnesses against them. That also goes for any evidence brought against the accused. To be able to challenge any evidence, physical or testimonial, is a fundamental right of our legal system. If there is strong physical evidence that uniquely identifies the accused in the crime, then the prosecution may feel no need to present witnesses. A lot of murder cases have such strong physical evidence like fingerprints, dna, murder weapon, financial papers that indicate a motive, footprint matches, etc. With strong forensic evidence you don't always need a witness, but the accused is still granted the right to confront/cross examine the evidence. Sometimes you can't make a case without a witness. How many times has organized crime been able to remain untouched because witnesses were "unavailable" to testify? More specific to this case, the question is does the prosecution have enough physical evidence to prove abuse and identify the accused? If they do, then they don't need a witness. As for the question of what to do with uncooperative witnesses, i don't know. Prosecutors regularly try whatever they can to make witnesses testify whenever it's crucial to their case.Sometimes they leverage testimony by dropping charges or pressing charges against a witness or making a deal on a sentence. They issued a subpoena for the witness in this particular case, and where still unable to get her. Subpoenas are usually the best way to compel someone to testify. Is there a way to put the accused behind bars without a witness? Yes, with physical evidence that conclusively points to the accused. Can it be done in all cases, or most cases? No. Sometimes there isn't physical evidence that identifies the accused conclusively.

"she is still a victim until proven otherwise without a doubt."

I believe this woman is a victim, and though you may not believe it, my natural inclination is to believe criminal accusations by complainants, law enforcement, or prosecutors. (Unfortunately, I have been often disappointed later when a case so appealing to the media, and so outrageous to the public, turns out not as originally claimed, or yes, even demonstrably false as in the Athens, Texas racial gang assault/threatened rape and murder case, just one of many documented false claims of racial violence. Thank God for video cameras and stupid people that racists didn't lynch those boys first. I don't like it, but false accusations happen, and it serves to cast doubt on later claims by real victims.)

However, this concept of yours that the woman (or any victim or alleged victim) must be proven NOT to be a victim to believe otherwise, is problematic. That is not how the law operates, and despite being jailed, she is not the one on trial. It is the "boyfriend" who is legally presumed innocent. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

CBC update. CBC's The World at Six, good until this evening.

I don't know where to start with this one. Getting the abuser off the street is definitely a public good. But how to convict him without her testimony? She was unwilling to testify, out of fear or other reasons. The police can't protect somebody from being murdered. If they didn't have a prospect of conviction, wouldn't they have had to release both him and her?

Going forward, how do you prevent the abuser from doing any more harm, without relaxing the judicial processes that prevent repeats of the Morin/Milgaard/Marshall type of cases? How to explain to these (usually male) people to not treat their (usually female) partners hatefully and violently?

What a mess.

"A lot of murder cases have such strong physical evidence like fingerprints, dna, murder weapon, financial papers that indicate a motive, footprint matches, etc."

And in abuse of children not able to speak (or later, to remember), there is likely not such compelling evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, eyewitness testimony or recordings that identify the perpetrator, but people may be convicted and sentenced regardless.

Is there no evidence in this case outside of her testimony?

Having watched a family member go through an abusive relationship, I understand how difficult it can be to get away AND to prove abuse. It takes time, money, strength, and a support system outside the relationship. If this young woman is lacking in any or all of those things she feel she needs to stay with this guy. My relative's husband was constantly drunk, hitting her, etc, he even slashed open a water bed. But she had to tape one of their fights to actually prove what he was like. And she is a smart woman with plenty of life experience who doesn't take crap from anyone otherwise, plus she had my part of the family to stay with when needed. So I can't imagine how hard it would be for a scared young pregnant woman to get out if she doesn't have the help.

It's really easy to judge her actions from the outside, but the reality is, we don't know what her life or her relationship is like. She may not have anywhere else to go or anyone else to turn to. She may not have any money of her own, which I'm sure is especially frightening with her about to have a baby.

As far as putting the baby in danger, yes, that's a terrible thought. But the people who implied she was unfit or somehow a worse person for staying in the relationship, I must say I'm appalled and offended at that insinuation. My relative has two sons that were older children to teens while she was married to the drunk asshole, and yeah, it sucks that they had to live through that (especially since he wasn't their father) but it doesn't mean she is a bad mother or a weak person or that they should have been taken away. It had nothing to do with thinking they needed a male role model, if that was even on anyone's radar they spent enough time with my part of the family that they had my dad as an example. It just took a long time (we're talking years) to be able to get out of the relationship - which was a marriage and thus even trickier to get out of. Not that it's easy to get out of any relationship like that.

I should also add that I was pretty young while this was going on, and my parents kept me away from him as much as possible. But the little bit I saw was awful. And I was a pretty intuitive kid, so what I didn't actually see I was able to piece together by listening to the adults (and waiting for my dad when he had to go break up fights). Though I did accidentally overhear the taped argument, it was fucking scary.

I guess my point after all that is, it's really easy to pass judgment from the outside, but if you're not actually involved, you don't know what this particular young woman is going through.

The drunk asshole is dead, by the way. No one in my family really shed any tears when that happened. At least the divorce settlement made my relative the benefactor of a pretty hearty life insurance policy. And my witnessing this got me out of jury duty on a DV case a few years ago.

A male - That Athens case was awful. I am glad they are going to charge her for the false report. Too often authorities let false accusers walk.

"And in abuse of children not able to speak (or later, to remember), there is likely not such compelling evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, eyewitness testimony or recordings that identify the perpetrator, but people may be convicted and sentenced regardless."

Are you saying that people in child abuse cases can be convicted without evidence or that they can be convicted with circumstantial evidence? If you're saying the former, then that's not true. In order for someone to get arrested, indicted, and convicted the police need physical or testimonial evidence. That's the standard for any kind of case, whether it's child abuse, dv, rape, murder, theft, etc. If someone is convicted without evidence then their rights have been violated. In the case of children unable to speak, there is some evidence pointing to a perpetrator. If you don't have fingerprints, dna, eyewitness testimony, or recordings in these kinds of child abuse cases then there's no probable cause to make an arrest much less a conviction. There has to be some evidence even if it's circumstantial. Would you want to live in a society in which anyone can be convicted without any evidence?

For those who like to categorize her as another lying sack of crap:

From http://www.nationalpost.com/related_links/story.html?id=440228&p=2

"Prosecutors also played a 45-minute tape of Ms. Mowatt's interview with detectives on the day of the alleged assault, during which she details weeks of beatings and abuse, occasionally breaking into tears describing how Mr. Harbin choked her, beat her and verbally abused her."

"The prosecutor also entered into evidence about a dozen photographs of Ms. Mowatt taken at the police station on the night of the incident, showing bruises on her cheek, jaw and neck, marks on her arms and a deep cut on one toe.

She explained the finger-shaped marks on her arms by saying, "I think it's bug bites;" her jaw and neck injuries with "I banged into a wall;" and the livid bruise on her cheek by saying: "I think I slept on something hard Â… a hard object that was on the bed.""

Hmmm, think she may be scared or desperate, or a manipulator? Shame on those who focus on the rare case that women are lying and jumping on this opportunity to focus on that.

"Are you saying that people in child abuse cases can be convicted without evidence or that they can be convicted with circumstantial evidence?"

Circumstantial evidence, yes. And this woman's case has much more going for it than most abuse cases I can recall. A presumed telephone recording, a videotape, original police documents, and photos of her wounds and markings?

"Would you want to live in a society in which anyone can be convicted without any evidence?"

No. I believe too many convictions are lost on legal technicalities, e.g., disallowing evidence or testimony, not actual lack of evidence. Or simple idiocy if a judge or jury is able to ignore the existing evidence in this case without or in spite of her conflicting testimony.

I think it's important to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is evidence not based upon what someone saw. It's evidence independent of a witness. For example dna and fingerprint evidence are circumstantial. Audio and video recordings are more testimonial than circumstantial. It's also important to note, that everyone has the right to confront their accusers. If a witness presents testimony against you, the defense has to be able to question that witness on the stand. If one presents audio and video recordings of the witness, that witness must also be available to testify, otherwise a fundamental right has been violated. That's why without the witness the case would fall apart. The recordings would have to be thrown out, it's testimony that can't be cross examined without the witness on the stand. I don't agree with the actions to get the witness to testify, but the truth is that without the testimony there wouldn't be a case. I agree that convictions are sometimes lost on technicalities. Both of my parents are lawyers. My dad is a part time judge also. I know they've argued on technicalities before to get their clients off. I don't think thats wrong though because the police and prosecution sometimes abuse their power. If they can abuse their power against one person or many, they can do it to me also. The process has to be fair. You have to make sure no one is being handicapped or cheated.

I think it's important to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is evidence not based upon what someone saw. It's evidence independent of a witness

Actually, the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that direct evidence directly makes a relevant fact more or less probable, whereas circumstantial evidence allows for an inference that a relevant fact is more or less probable. Circumstantial evidence can come from anywhere, a witness, physical evidence, etc.

Elise, you're right, my apologies. Am I right though in assuming that without the witness the case would fall apart? My limited understanding of the law to me indicates that presenting recordings of the witness without making the witness available for trail would violate the accused's sixth amendment rights. Is that not the case?

Elise, you're right, my apologies. Am I right though in assuming that without the witness the case would fall apart? My limited understanding of the law to me indicates that presenting recordings of the witness without making the witness available for trail would violate the accused's sixth amendment rights. Is that not the case?

Generally, the videotape couldn't come in as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief, because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay (unsworn, out of court, no cross exam). The same would go for any out of court statements of the victim in which she accuses the defendant (unless they're introduced for a reason other than proving that the content of the statements themselves is true). However, if she testifies and attempts to tell this entire "bug bite" version, the prosecution could impeach her testimony with her prior inconsistent statements. However, they could still only be considered as a factor in determining the credibility of her in-court statements.

"You have to make sure no one is being handicapped or cheated."

You'll pardon me for believing that it is victims, not poor, mistreated criminals abused by our fearful, all powerful legal system, who are handicapped or cheated on a daily basis by such as these technicalities, or since "Law and Order" has come up, plea bargaining. Telling me your parents as attorneys "[got] clients off" is about the worst thing you could tell me (and your dad is now a judge to boot), because it is a clear implication those people actually committed the acts of which they were accused, and your parents aided them.

Telling me your parents as attorneys "[got] clients off" is about the worst thing you could tell me (and your dad is now a judge to boot), because it is a clear implication those people actually committed the acts of which they were accused, and your parents aided them.

The problem is that the US criminal justice system is largely based on unrepresented (or poorly represented) defendants. Because there's rarely anyone to keep prosecutors and police officers honest, they have no incentive to follow the law and build a strong case (why bother if you can intimidate [the polite word is "bargain"] a defendant with a PD into pleading guilty with no evidence at all?). The result of all this is that cases are brought before courts that would never survive even minimal adversarial testing, so that the few defendants who are well represented do have a decent chance of getting acquitted.

As insulting as that