Per this story I was curious how sexual abuse claims made decades after the fact can be proved without some hard physical evidence of the act or a number of witnesses confirming it.
What usually happens in these cases that lets a plaintiff win?
I was involved, very briefly thank goodness, in a case where two identical sisters accused their mother’s boyfriend of molesting them when they were 12-13. They were in their late 20’s when they made the accusation. The mother is no longer in the picture (passed away or something, I am not sure, but not going to testify). Basicly these two women made the accusation without any physical evidence or other outside witnesses (know that for sure), and got this man convicted solely (as far as I know. no witnesses outside their family and I assume no physical evidence. Like I said I was only briefly involved) on the basis of their testimony. Personally, I don’t consider twins to be independent evidence, and when faced with two opposing testimonies, it seems to me that beyond a reasonable doubt lets the perp walk. But apparently not. In sex cases, if a single accuser presents well on the stand, that seems to often be enough.
The pendulum has definitely swung the other way. Used to be in a case of she said/he said; the victim would be required to provide proof, else the encounter was assumed to be either non existant, or consentual
[hijack]
Surely, Johnny-Cochran-level defense would have gotten this guy off easily … right?
[/hijack]
Sounds like his lawyer was dead. He would have to have been to have lost the case on what we have been told. A good lawyer would have split those two up for tesimony and gotten enough differances in details to aquit. Even if it actually happen.
I’m not sure how the above conviction even happened. Typically the statute of limitations on a crime like sexual battery would have expired years earlier.