My husband has been convicted of several counts of indecent assault relating to offences claimed to have happened over 40 years ago. Accusations made by one female, who is a member of his ex-wife’s family who he had an acrimonious split from. Counts start from when she was a minor to her teenage years.
He continues to strongly proclaim his innocence and that she is lying about all the events she describes. For some accounts, Social services reports demonstrated her account was inaccurate and he was acquitted of these counts. Several defence witnesses provided live evidence that her recollection of certain places or descriptions were not as she portrayed but these were evidently not believed by the jury.
I strongly believe my husband was viewed by the police, CPS and jury as guilty until he could prove his innocence. Where he was able to prove his innocence, he was acquitted, however where the only available evidence was recollections of memory or one persons word against another, from decades ago, the strength of the portrayal of the ‘victim’ tipped the scale towards convicting him.
I now realise that in historical sex cases, you do not need any evidence to convict someone. You are absolutely GUILTY until you can prove your innocence and how do you prove your innocence from several decades ago? It comes down to who the jury believe on the day and in the post-Saville hysteria and with how my husband was treated in court, he was viewed as guilty by the jury before he even opened his mouth.
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!