Was Frances Andrade's evidence reliable in view of her suicide ?
blueblade
Posts: 88,859 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Michael Brewer was convicted of sexual offences against Frances Andrade, which supposedly started when she was 14 in 1978.
I have to question the reliability, as a witness, of a person who actually takes their own life as a result of merely being called "a liar and a fantasist". At the end of the day, she surely didn't expect that Brewer would not defend himself via his barrister, true or not.
Combined with the fact that these offences, if they happened, occurred decades ago, and her memories may not be reliable, does make me wonder if this conviction is based on flimsy evidence.
In other words, is it fair to convict someone based on the decades old memories of a person who is clearly mentally disturbed ?
link
I have to question the reliability, as a witness, of a person who actually takes their own life as a result of merely being called "a liar and a fantasist". At the end of the day, she surely didn't expect that Brewer would not defend himself via his barrister, true or not.
Combined with the fact that these offences, if they happened, occurred decades ago, and her memories may not be reliable, does make me wonder if this conviction is based on flimsy evidence.
In other words, is it fair to convict someone based on the decades old memories of a person who is clearly mentally disturbed ?
link
0
Comments
True, but being accused of rape if you're innocent has to be much more so.
In any case, surely she was briefed on what to expect by her counsel, and that it was part of the trial process.
The thing is, why are these things brought up decades after the event ? How can the accusations be considered reliable, when it literally one person's word against another ?
Thing is that literally anybody could come up a spurious allegation, based on something that supposedly happened 30 to 40 years ago, get their day in court, and see an innocent person they never liked get sent down, simply because they are a convincing story teller.
I suppose. There must be a test for these cases though, such as scrutinising victim accounts for consistency in the detail.
She refused the opportunity to give evidence behind a screen because she wanted to face her abusers. Seems to me that Frances finally acheived her aim of being able to tell what happened to her in public and have those who hurt her be held accountable and perhaps suicide was always a plan for her once she'd managed to do this. Just a shame that she wasn't able to hang on long enough to see them found guilty.
Well it's not an accusation, it's a question.
She was obviously unwell psychologically, yet her evidence of continued molestation has been taken on board as factual. Although I note that Brewer was found not guilty of the rape allegation.
That is an accusation, not a question. Do you have any evidence to support it? It has been made clear that she found the experience of giving evidence traumatic. Other than that, what mental illness did she have?
She committed suicide halfway during the trial.
That's strongly suggestive of mental illness to me.
Also the police urged her to delay "therapy" until the end of the trial according to the news this morning.
The question I'm asking is if, as a result of her suicide, she can be considered a reliable witness.
OK, maybe I edited my post before you replied. So I'll ask again: other than the traumatic experience of having to give evidence in the trial, did she have any known mental illness? If she did, would it have called her evidence into question? If she didn't, why would her suicide have any relevance to the outcome of the trial?
False allegations are quite rare because not many people would want to go through the system that we have here, which is quite harsh on victims of sex-related crimes. I think they are usually weeded out long before an actual court case.
That's why rapists are getting worried. They assumed they got away with their crime because it was years ago.
Yeah, but why not bring them up at the time in most cases ?
Why wait until many years later ?
(I appreciate the reasons why Frances didn't raise the abuse at the time, and that she was encouraged to do so by a third party, decades later)
In any case, Michael & Hilary Brewer were cleared of the rape allegation.
Who did then? How did these allegations come to light?
There is no time limit for cimes; and rape is a crime in the UK.
Is there something you aren't telling us?
Take a look at this link
It still doesn't mean of necessity that the accusations are true.
The jury had been told that Andrade had not initiated the police investigation which led to the trial. It was the mother of one of her violin pupils who raised the alarm in 2011, the court heard.
Andrade told the jury she had been furious at the woman's intervention but agreed to give evidence against Brewer.
- the Guardian
EDIT: presumably it would be CPS rather than police who would be advising a witness anyway, once the decision to go to trial had been made?
Hmmm: interesting stance you're taking. It doesn't mean that they aren't true either.
Are you worried about something you have done and think you will get caught?
I never said there was. I was simply asking why not bring it up at the time ?
In many cases the accused will be dead 30 years later
Such as what ?
*cough* Jimmy Saville
Why don't you tell us? You seem worried about rape crimes not having a time limit before someone is charged.
This is why evidence is so important, and likely to be more easily gathered at the time.
Oh I see ~ just because I raise a topic for debate, I'm suddenly hiding a guilty secret. That it ?
I don't think you should make personal comments towards the individual you disagree with. Not only does it show piss poor debating skills, but it's also off topic.