Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police Interview - STBX Child Sex Abuse Allegation Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The only question you have to answer from the police is your name and address. That's it. Not a word more.

    The risks of answering some questions but not others
    It is extremely important that an accused person who makes a decision not to answer questions (apart from the ones that are required by law) should stick to that decision, rather than answer some questions and not others.

    Answering questions selectively, that is, answering some and refusing to answer others, may later be interpreted by a court as consciousness of guilt.

    If a person decides to make a statement, a lawyer should always be consulted first so that the statement can be made in the presence of a lawyer or prepared with the help of a lawyer and then given to police. It may be in a person’s best interest to make a statement, for example, where a person has a valid explanation. However, this should only be done after obtaining legal advice.


    The police are experts at getting information from people. A person may be told 'it will be easier if you make a statement', or 'bail will be granted more quickly if a statement is made'. Do not fall for tricks such as 'a co-offender has told us the whole story'. Any incentives offered by the police should be ignored if the person does not wish to answer questions.

    Written and verbal statements can be used in evidence. Any conversation with the police can be used in evidence. Hence any suggestion that a conversation between a suspect and the police is 'off the record' should be ignored.

    Police can also listen to and note down conversations held by a person with anyone else, except a lawyer, and use it later in evidence against the person.

    All police interviews are required to be recorded – this should be by video (audio visual) but can be an audio or written record. The record of interview (whether written or transcript from a video or audio record) is usually presented as evidence in court if the charge or charges proceed to trial.

    Where a written record is made of an interview the person interviewed will be asked to read and sign it. There is no obligation to read or sign a record of interview.

    You should always read the record of interview before signing and can refuse to sign if the police will not allow it you to read it.

    Even if unsigned, if you indicate to the court that it was given voluntarily and is accurate, it may be held as an admissible, voluntary and accurate record of interview.

    What if I want corrections made?
    If you do not agree with information contained in the record of interview, you should ask that it be corrected. Any changes you have requested should then be initialled by you. Caution should always be taken when signing a statement as you are considered to be agreeing with all its contents when you sign.

    Comment


    • #17
      The aim of a Police interview is to obtain admissible evidence with which to prosecute you.
      It is not a search for the truth. The Police are not generally trying to get your version of events so they can compare it to another version of what happened. If it was a search for the truth they would not be videotaping your interview.

      People who have never been in trouble before tend to misunderstand a Police interview.
      They believe that going in there and telling the truth as they remember it will fix the matter. Unfortunately that is not true. The Police will often know that you are going to deny the charges before they interview you. The reason they are interviewing you is to tie you into a position. They are often trying to get you to commit to something that is wrong so they can later claim that you are a liar. (for example “who was there?” – if you leave someone out they would prove they were there and use that fact against you).

      A Police interview happens because they have identified you as a suspect. A person who is not a suspect might be invited in to the Police Station to make a statement. The difference between the two is that you must to attend an interview but you do not have to agree to make a statement.
      You should also remember that the Police are experienced questioners. They regularly cross-examine and question people in police interviews.

      An interview starts with the Police asking you questions about whether you understand your rights.
      They will ask you if you want to contact a lawyer and if you do not know one they will give you a yellow pages to look through (which is generally unhelpful). So, make sure you have your criminal lawyer’s number in your pocket.

      It is always wise to discuss the interview with your lawyer prior to attending, because the decision about whether to talk or do a “no comment” interview is a very important one with lots of considerations.

      Often, it pays to ring your lawyer when the Police gives you the option to as your lawyer can have a discussion with the Police. This is often useful in getting a gauge of what charges might be pending and whether you will be bailed. If they are not going to bail you, then it helps to arrange to have a lawyer at Court to arrange the bail application.

      The Police will ask you a series of questions about what happened. Usually, once you have given your version, they will put the other version of events to you and ask you to comment. This is where interviews often go wrong as the interviewee is annoyed and says things that they later come to regret.

      Comment


      • #18
        Update on the STBX Allegation

        Hi everyone,

        Here is an update

        I spoke to several lawyer friends. Each one agreed that I should not go to the interview.

        I did end up going today (Thursday) for one reason only. That is, I had digital evidence that refuted her allegation.

        A lot of the advice given in this particular thread is true, at least from my interview experience. They lull you into a false sense of security. You definitely get the impression that they believe you're guilty. You definitely have to watch what you say because they will go after you if you say something that is perceived to support the allegation.

        After so many children's aid society referrals I was absolutely stunned at the depravity and maliciousness of this particular allegation.

        In any case, they laid out their so-called evidence. And then I played the digital recording for them which categorically refuted her allegations. They were completely surprised by the digital recording. However the entire tone of the interview changed at this point.

        I was informed before leaving the interview that police would close the case and that CAS would close the file.

        It was the best feeling in the world.

        I will say one thing, there is no way in hell that I would've gone in for the interview had I not had the digital recording which categorically refuted her allegations.

        If you decide to go into an interview with the thought that a recording will help you, it's not enough. That recording has to be rock-solid and irrefutable in order to support your innocence. The lawyers whom I referred to earlier were not aware that I had the digital recording when they gave me the advice to not go to the interview.

        I can't get into any details because obviously the STBX is probably on this forum as well.

        Thanks everyone for their help with this.

        Comment


        • #19
          Why do the police now not charge your ex with something?
          It is disgusting that people who make false accusations get away with this.

          Comment


          • #20
            Because anyone is allowed to make false allegations but only the ones who have to defend themselves get punished. This is the part that kills me about victimization. People who make a legitimate claim with proof of an assault are vilified but people who make false allegations go unpunished having ruined someone elses life.

            Comment


            • #21
              Did you not inquire with the police about the possibility of charging her for false allegations? I would imagine that would assist your case quite a bit if she were to be convicted for that.

              If you did ask about it, and the police refused, are you able to explain why they refused?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                Why do the police now not charge your ex with something?
                It is disgusting that people who make false accusations get away with this.
                That's their discretion. They can exercise that discretion if they can prove that mom made it all up and lied.

                The fact that they couldn't prove it doesn't mean that it was all made up. The cops may have accepted the recording to defuse the allegations but that doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal courts would as well.

                I think you should inquire about pressing charges, which I'm sure a good lawyer would have said something about if you took one to the interview with you.

                Just out of curiosity, how come you didn't mention the recording to the lawyers?

                Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi,

                  Soiled, I will reply to this question on Tuesday.
                  (Trust me, this message will make sense on Tuesday).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by trinton View Post
                    That's their discretion. They can exercise that discretion if they can prove that mom made it all up and lied.

                    The fact that they couldn't prove it doesn't mean that it was all made up. The cops may have accepted the recording to defuse the allegations but that doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal courts would as well.

                    I think you should inquire about pressing charges, which I'm sure a good lawyer would have said something about if you took one to the interview with you.

                    Just out of curiosity, how come you didn't mention the recording to the lawyers?

                    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
                    Hi,

                    To clarify, in my original post I referred to my lawyer friends in this context. They are the ones who I didn't tell about the recordings.

                    My family lawyer and my criminal lawyer were aware of the recordings.

                    Sorry for the confusion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Update #2

                      Monday's settlement court was better than any judge Judy's show I've ever seen.

                      For a total of 20 Minutes, the judge excoriated my STBX for the multiple CAS referrals. Would you like to know how depraved and malicious my SBTX was with her disgusting allegations!? Well, on three of the occasions where she alleged sexual abuse occurred, the STBX did not realize that I was in the company of either a social worker or the assessing psychologist!! The judge called her an abuser of the system. He said that subjecting our child to multiple CAS and Police interviews constituted child abuse by my STBX... and the judge went on... and on...

                      I can't get into details as we are headed to trial to resolve custody soon. However, the judge ruled in my favour for access today.

                      To answer your questions about whether or not anything can be done legally to her for her intentional and malicious behaviour. The answer is a categorical and emphatic YES -- and something will be done by the police. :-) :-) :-)

                      I'll update you when that happens.

                      Today was a good day.

                      :-)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by fatherforever1904 View Post
                        Monday's settlement court was better than any judge Judy's show I've ever seen.

                        For a total of 20 Minutes, the judge excoriated my STBX for the multiple CAS referrals. Would you like to know how depraved and malicious my SBTX was with her disgusting allegations!? Well, on three of the occasions where she alleged sexual abuse occurred, the STBX did not realize that I was in the company of either a social worker or the assessing psychologist!! The judge called her an abuser of the system. He said that subjecting our child to multiple CAS and Police interviews constituted child abuse by my STBX... and the judge went on... and on...

                        I can't get into details as we are headed to trial to resolve custody soon. However, the judge ruled in my favour for access today.

                        To answer your questions about whether or not anything can be done legally to her for her intentional and malicious behaviour. The answer is a categorical and emphatic YES -- and something will be done by the police. :-) :-) :-)

                        I'll update you when that happens.

                        Today was a good day.

                        :-)
                        well a nice thing about this being heard in a courtroom is that it is recorded - judge surely has to protect the child from abuse no?

                        Comment

                        Our Divorce Forums
                        Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                        Working...
                        X