Back
to Table of Contents
Back to Help Index
Monitor, Uncover, and Enter Evidence into the Case Yourself
|
|
Introduction:
This
text is designed to help victims and advocates be better able
to track and evaluate evidence in violence against women cases,
to know how and where to look for more evidence when you need
it, and to be familiar with the options for entering that
new evidence into a criminal case. Most of all, the section
aims to give you the confidence that with a few tips you and
your clients can become evidence smart and begin to routinely
fortify violence-against-women cases by adding new, overlooked,
or deliberately ignored evidence. These skills are critical
because one of the main ways law enforcement denies justice
to women is by failing to gather and develop the evidence
of the violent crimes against women.
If you need immediate
help to enter an item of evidence or a witness statement
into a case, go directly to Part 3, and come back to Parts
1 & 2 later. These first two sections aim to give you
a foundation for working with evidence on a more routine
basis.
Evidence is the
gold standard currency of the justice system. Its the evidence,
more than anything else, that will determine whether or
not the system can implement its powers on behalf of the
victim, and to what extent. Moreover, when a criminal case
is supported by an abundance of evidence, that case can
usually overcome whatever other problems the case may have,
whether the problems be mishandling of the case by officials,
or victim reluctance and fears.
In short, a case
backed by solid evidence points so unambiguously to the
truth that the case pretty much drives itself. Cases backed
by solid evidence will save women's lives.
So when a case
is being mishandled, when officials are backing away from
a case for any reason, - and as a potent means of preventing
this in the first place - strengthening a case with additional
evidence is one of the best strategies victims and advocates
can use for keeping a case on track. It's a strategy that's
a win for everyone. And fortunately, strengthening a violence-against-women
case with more evidence isn't usually difficult at all to
do.
Evaluating, uncovering,
and handling evidence is mostly common sense. It's so common
sense, that once you start involving victims in the process,
most victims quickly catch on and become their own best
source of generating new evidence leads. Furthermore, contrary
to the widespread myth that violence against women cases
are plagued with lack of evidence and doomed by 'he said-she
said' dilemmas, the reality is violence-against-women cases
are usually more evidence-rich than other kinds of criminal
cases for many reasons we discuss further on.
So don't be intimidated.
And don't feel you have to know all the fine points of evidence
law before you start working with evidence yourself. Just
by focusing your thinking on the evidence as you work violence
against women cases, you'll start immediately to boost your
evidence recognition skills. And though legal systems vary
from country to country, the logic of evidence is universal.
No matter where you live, we hope that what follows helps
you to strengthen the proofs needed to stop the violence
in women's lives.
|
Part
1 ~ Tracking and
Monitoring Evidence
|
Routinely
Monitor and Evaluate Case Evidence
|
|
Whether a case
is going well or not going well, advocates should routinely
keep tabs on the evidence that's available in the case,
and, just as important, should routinely keep tabs on how
much of that evidence has been securely entered into the
criminal case. Two overarching questions to keep in mind
are: One, has all the available evidence been properly entered
into the case? And, two, Is there enough evidence in the
case for the system to bring appropriate charges and action
against the perpetrator and to support appropriate protections
for victim?
As you do this,
be sure to keep victims informed and involved in this process
of monitoring evidence. When a victim is aware of the building
blocks of evidence that support her truth, it boosts her
confidence in the case right at a time when victims are
most fearful they may not prevail. Understanding the strength
of the evidence can often be the deciding factor in getting
reluctant victims to proceed with prosecution. But more
to the point here, victim attention to evidence is usually
the most fertile source of new evidence leads in violence
against women cases. This is because victims in these cases
usually have an intimate, detailed view, not just of the
crime itself, but also of the crime's context, and of the
perpetrator.
The more you
and your client begin to routinely monitor and evaluate
evidence, the more adept you'll become at automatically
noticing new or unexplored evidence, and the more adept
you'll become at evaluating the finer points of relevancy,
probative value, and admissibility of different kinds of
evidence.
The best way
to start is to get in the habit of keeping a list of case
evidence as part of your case notes, leaving ample space
to update the list over time. Throughout your work on a
case - whether in conversations with officials, with the
victim, in going over documents, or in court hearings -
always keep one ear attuned to evidence. As indications
of potential evidence surface, make a note. Then ask questions,
then or later, to probe further.
If you have one
ear tuned to evidence and a victim says, "... and then
he kicked the wall," you'll naturally want to know,
"Did he leave a mark on the wall?" "Did you
show the mark to the police when you made your report?"
"Did police take note?" "Take pictures?"
"Did any one else see him do it?" Is there anyone
in the nearby apartments who may have heard this?"
etc. Or, if the victim hasn't yet made a report to police
and plans to do so, you'll want to point out to her the
importance of showing the footprint and dent in the wall
to police.
This doesn't
necessarily mean that every time the victim (or any one
else) mentions something relevant to evidence that you stop
the conversation then and there and delve into the evidence
questions. Naturally, that approach at the wrong time could
upset any one's train of thought. But at the very least,
make note of the "he kicked the wall" statement
on your evidence list so you'll remember to get back to
the related questions later.
Just by beginning
to consistently monitor and track evidence in these ways,
you'll soon find yourself, time and again, protecting valuable
evidence from slipping through the many cracks in the justice
process. Just this step alone will save women's lives.
Here are two
guides, in the form of sets of questions, that can also
help you and your client evaluate the evidence and other
aspects of the criminal case: Form for Evaluating Police
Response to Domestic Violence,
http://www.justicewomen.com/help_police_evaluation.html
;
Form for Evaluating Police Response to Sexual Assault,
http://www.justicewomen.com/help_rape_evaluation.html
Also, as part
of routine tracking the evidence, begin educating yourself
along the way on the rules of evidence, by asking questions
of officials you trust, and by consulting your state codes.
Most jurisdictions the world over now have their penal codes
and evidence codes on the Internet. Use them! But, again,
don't feel that you have to know it all before you begin
putting your evidence intuition to work.
|
Don't
Blindly Accept Official Claims of
'Not-Enough-Evidence'.
|
|
In addition to
catching overlooked evidence and promoting confidence in
the case, routinely monitoring evidence is also the best
protection against one of the most common tactics used by
officials the world over to deny women justice. Officials
frequently tell victims and advocates, (and their own supervisor's,
too), that there's 'not enough evidence' to do the case,
- when, in actual fact, there's plenty of evidence.
Or, equally outrageous,
officials purposely build this excuse into the case by purposely
not collecting, or not developing, the evidence that's right
there in front of their eyes.
In either case,
this 'not-enough-evidence' ruse for dumping perfectly viable
cases of violence against women is very widespread among
police and prosecutors the world over. Clearly, these rampant
false claims by law enforcement of 'not-enough-evidence'
are extremely dangerous and oppressive to women. These false
claims, in fact, constitute government complicity with the
violent oppression of women, and they most be confronted
in order for women to be free of the violence.
Granted, there
are violence against women cases in which the claim of 'not-enough-evidence'
is legitimate. But this is all the more reason that victims
and advocates should become evidence smart - so you can
quickly tell the difference between the legitimate and false
claims. So that when officials falsely claim there's 'not-enought-evidence,
you'll be prepared to rebut the claim to the officer's superior.
Or, as we hope this section will show you, when all else
fails, you, yourself, can go out and get more evidence,
and fill in the gaps in the case. But most useful of all,
and more to the point here, once officials become aware
simply that you're paying attention to the evidence, this
alone will make officials much less likely to try this 'not-enough-evidence'
ploy in the first place.
NOTE:
Unfortunately, many victim advocates and counselors believe
that it's not their job to watchdog the evidence, and
even more, that it's not their place to question law enforcement
statements as to the sufficiency of evidence. If police
or prosecutors say there's not enough evidence in a case,
too many advocates simply pass this information on to
the victim as if it is fact. This practice of parroting
law enforcement statements to victims, without even advising
victims to beware, makes advocates little more than agents
of the system. This is in direct, ethical conflict with
the role of an advocate. If you've told the victim you
are her advocate, the victim has been led to believe that
you are watching out for, and acting on behalf of, her
best interests, and not that you are acting as a mouthpiece
for the system.
Or another way
of looking at it is this. As long as so many officials continue
to falsely claim 'not-enough-evidence', trying to advocate
for victims of violence against women without tracking the
evidence is like trying to play poker without looking at
the cards in your hand.
|
Keep
Track of which evidence is entered into the case and
which evidence is not.
|
|
A frequently
overlooked aspect of monitoring evidence is keeping specific
track of which evidence has been officially entered into
the case and which has not. Just because you or the victim
are aware of certain evidence, you can't assume that the
evidence has been securely entered into the case.
Did Ana actually
tell the officer that her neighbor saw her run screaming
out of the house? Or did she just tell you? Did the officer
follow up and get a statement from the neighbor? Did the
neighbor actually tell police what she saw? Or was she too
afraid? Or, did Ana not even know the neighbor was standing
on her porch? In which case, when Ana told the officer she
had run out of the house screaming, did the officer then
earn his pay and canvas the neighbors to check on the possibility
that a neighbor may have heard or seen enough to corroborate
Ana's statement?
There are a number
of reasons it's so easy to mistakenly assume that critical
evidence has been entered into the case, when in reality
it has not. One of the most common reasons is that victims
are generally much more forthcoming and expansive in talking
to advocates, than when talking to officials. A victim may
tell you in such great detail and outrage about the threats
her boyfriend left on her message machine, that it doesn't
even cross your mind that she may never even have mentioned
these messages to the police.
So here are
four caveats to keep in mind in evaluating evidence status:
1. Don't assume
that just because a victim has spelled out critical information
to you that she has given the same information to authorities,
or even to the appropriate authority.
In addition to
being generally more guarded with officials than with advocates,
victims' lack of knowledge of who's who in the system, and
about how the system works, often leads to serious gaps
in what key officials have been told. For example, a victim
may put vital information into her restraining order petition,
tell it to a dispatcher, to the advocate, or a patrol officer,
and then completely neglect to give that same information
to the detective who's in charge of investigating the case.
A current client of ours wrote a detailed account in her
restraining order petition about how her husband strangled
her 4-year-old daughter. She also told the patrol officer
- but the patrol officer didn't write it down. She told
witnesses the day it happened, told the advocate at the
DA's office, and told us -- but she never told the detective
assigned to the case that the suspect had strangled her
4-year-old.
When we asked
her why she hadn't told the detective, she answered quite
understandably that she had already told so many people
she just assumed the detective already knew about it. One
common variation of this mishap occurs because of victim
confusion about the difference between the criminal and
family law case. Victims often think that because they put
given evidence into their restraining order petition, that
that evidence is automatically entered into the criminal
case. So in addition to checking to make sure that victims
told authorities about specific evidence or incidents, it's
also important to check that she told the appropriate official.
Ask victims specifically, "Did you tell officer X about
the suspect strangling your daughter?"
2. Don't assume
that just because the victim told an official, that the
official wrote it down or entered the information into the
case.
Often officials
don't record vital information for the simple, all-to-common
reason we've already discussed; i.e., because it's the easiest
way to sabotage and dump a case they don't want to work.
But officer failures to record vital information can also
be understandable oversight.
In the example
we gave in the last paragraph where a responding officer
didn't put the strangling of the 4-year-old in his report
even though the victim claims to have told him about it,
it's likely the officer just plain forgot to do it. On the
day this officer responded to the victim's call, the perpetrator
had just made a murderous attack against the mother and
had kidnapped the 4-year-old girl. The officer's entire
day was focused on launching a search and securing the safety
of the child. Which he did successfully. It's easy to understand
that when he later sat down to write the report that night,
he simply forgot to include what the mother had told him
about the strangling incident against the daughter that
had occurred a few days before.
3. Don't assume
that just because an officer appears to have taken careful
note of given evidence, that the evidence has been securely
entered into the case.
Here are two
examples of critical evidence which seemed to be securely
entered into a case, but was not: Example One: An officer
took a witness statement from the teenage son who had been
an eye witness, and the only corroboration, to the domestic
violence against his mother. In the police report the officer
wrote that the teenager had given a statement - but, the
officer did not write out the son's statement, or even a
summary of the son's statement. On reviewing the report,
the district attorney, instead of taking the simple step
of sending the report back to the officer to get the boy's
statement, chose instead to use the officer's failing as
an excuse to reject the case for lack of evidence. None
of this sloppiness came to light until three weeks later
when the mother was found by the same teenage son laying
slain on her bedroom floor with nine bullets in her body.
If an alert advocate
had confronted the district attorney's claim of not-enough-evidence,
and then pressed the district attorney to get the son's
statement into the record, and prosecute the case properly,
it's very likely the woman's life could have been saved.
Example Two:
In a multiple felony domestic violence case it seemed to
us the officer had done just about everything right - from
his caring attitude to his painstaking collection of the
evidence. The fact that the officer arrested and booked
the suspect on multiple felonies covering all aspects of
the crimes further indicated the officer felt confident
he could back it all up with the evidence he'd gathered.
Our only concern was that the officer had used an available
business person to translate the victim's statement. But,
as improper as this may be, we knew the business person
to be fluent in both languages, and we also knew that our
DA's office routinely accepted victim statements with much
less proper language translations than this.
What we didn't
know, until suddenly, unexpectedly, the perpetrator was
back out on the street hunting down every one involved,
was that the deputy district attorney had rejected the case
on every charge. Why was the case rejected? Because unbeknownst
to the victim and to us, the businessman was so afraid of
the perpetrator that, though he had been willing to translate,
he had refused to give his name to the police - a fact which
completely broke the legal bridge to the most crucial evidence
in the case i.e., the victim statement. One critical gap
in the officer's handling of the evidence, led to the crash
of the entire case, until such time as the victim could
be re-interviewed properly. Luckily, and it was only a matter
of luck, she was alive and well for the occasion.
4. Don't assume
that an officer has followed obvious evidence leads on the
chance of finding evidence.
This is the point
where officers' not caring about violence against women
is so clear. When Ana tells an officer that she ran out
of the house screaming, if Ana doesn't already know that
a neighbor saw her, very few officers will make the obvious
effort to talk with neighbors on the chance that one of
the them may have been a witness. If the evidence doesn't
virtually jump into the officer's view, most will not make
the effort to actively go looking for the means to make
the case. This is a significant gap in most all violence
against women cases, one that victims and advocates can
almost always explore and fill.
***
Officer
bias, oversight, neglect, laziness, time limitations; victim
reluctance, fears, fragmented communication, misunderstanding
the system, forgetting; witness reluctance, fears, unavailability,
misunderstanding the system; clerical, dispatch, and support
person errors, oversight, and bias, etc.. There are so many
ways that vital, available evidence can, and so often does,
slip through the cracks, that a vital aspect of monitoring
evidence is to always ask yourself the question, "Has
the existing evidence been properly entered into the case
or not?"
|
Methods
for Determining Which Evidence Has Been Officially
Entered Into the Case, and Which has not.
|
|
Unless you have
the completed copy of the police report in your hands, you
can never be 100% certain which evidence has been officially
and properly entered into the case, and which has not. But,
even without the police report, there are a number of ways
that, taken together, you can usually arrive at a very close
determination of this crucial evaluation of evidence status.
Here are some of those ways:
Ask the Victim.
As in most aspects of violence-against-women cases, the
victim, herself, is one of the best sources for obtaining
information on the status of evidence. A good general starting
question to ask victims is whether or not she felt the officer
was making a sincere effort to treat the case seriously
and to gather all the evidence available. Then as specific
evidentiary points come up in the victim's story, always
ask more specific questions: Did she give that same information
to the principal investigating officer? Did the officer
appear to make note of the information? Did the officer
gather relevant verification of the evidence, such as taking
photographs, obtaining witness statements, message recordings,
etc.? Did the officer interview specific witnesses? Does
she know if the witnesses spoke freely, etc.?
Additionally,
it's important to ask the victim what information she gave
to the 911 operator. Remember, phone calls to 911 are tape
recorded and stored by police departments for a significant
length of time. The evidence in these tapes can be pivotal
in violence-against-women cases. (It's also important to
make sure that these tapes are downloaded and entered into
the case, something police often neglect to do. But, naturally,
the victim won't know the answer to that part of the question.)
Keep in mind
that even if you get a positive picture of evidence status
from going through these evaluations with the victim, there
can still can be big, bad surprises of missing evidence
lurking in the investigator's final report, such as the
examples given in the previous section.
Obtain Booking
Charges. Obtaining the booking charges following an
arrest is a quick, easy, and excellent first read on the
kind of evidence that the officer has officially logged
into the case - or not. When a police officer makes an arrest
and 'books' a suspect into jail, that officer makes official
note of the 'booking charges'. These booking charges are
not actual charges against the suspect, since it's the district
attorney who makes final decision as to which, if any, charges
will be formally filed. Rather, the booking charges are
the officer's recommended charges based on the evidence
he or she has recorded into the report. As such, the booking
charges are a very good first take on the array of evidence
in the report.
For example,
if the suspect has been booked only on one domestic violence
charge, but has not been booked on a threats charge, you
can be quite sure that even though the victim says she told
the officer about the suspect's threats to kill, those threats
have very likely not been recorded in the police report.
If the officer had written these threats into the report,
the officer would have almost certainly booked the suspect
on both domestic violence and a threats charge.
Routinely obtaining
booking charges will again and again serve to give you early
warning on major gaps in police reports. As one more example,
it was the booking charges that alerted us to the fact that
the strangling of the 4-year-old girl was probably not in
the police report. Despite booking charges of multiple felonies,
a violence against a child charge was not one of them.
What makes obtaining
booking charges especially valuable to victims and advocates
is that you can obtain them so quickly and easily. If the
suspect has been arrested and is still in custody, all you
have to do is make a phone call to the jail. Booking charges
are public record. Jail staff in the US must tell any caller
who requests it, the list of booking charges on which the
suspect is being held. It's so simple, that once a suspect
has been arrested, calling the jail and requesting booking
charges should be routine and one of the first things you
do. And in the same phone call, of course, you can obtain
bail information, and the date and time of the suspect's
first or next court appearance. In addition, don't forget
to give the jail phone number to the victim so that she
herself can talk with the jail at any time, day or night,
to obtain the same array of vital information, including
getting an answer to the question that is usually uppermost
in her mind; i.e., is the suspect still in custody?
Whenever possible,
obtain the police report and/or other official documents,
such as CAD (dispatch records) records, 911 tapes, search
warrants, and arrest warrants. The only way to know
with 100% certainty that particular evidence has been entered
into the case is by actually seeing it written into official
reports. So, whenever possible, always obtain a copy of
the police report and other official case documents. In
most states, as in California, law enforcement has a legal
obligation to give victims copy of the domestic violence
police report if the victim requests it. However, victims
of sex crimes don't have the same legal right in any state
that we know of. And, even with domestic violence reports,
you can't always get a copy quickly. So, although obtaining
a copy of the police report is obviously the best way to
know what's in the police report, you'll usually have to
rely on the other sources, to one degree or another, to
make that determination.
Don't forget
about search warrants and arrest warrants! These warrants
are almost always a gold mine of exactly the evidence information
you're looking for, made all the more valuable because these
warrants are a matter of public record. Made even more valuable
because search warrants and arrest warrants are usually
written up before even the district attorney has seen the
case. In order to obtain a judge's approval for either a
search or arrest warrant, police have to argue their case
in writing to a judge on the record. These requests, which
usually contain a laundry list of the evidence the officer
has already gathered in the case, become part of the signed
warrant. Sometimes, even better than a laundry list of evidence,
officers will just attach a copy of the police report to
date - which puts the police report on the public record
before the case has even been sent to the district attorney.
Obtaining copies of search warrants and arrest warrants
is especially useful in sex crimes cases where it is usually
impossible for victims to obtain the police report on request.
So if you know that a warrant has been issued in a case,
all you or the victim has to do is go to the courthouse
to request a copy.
Ask officials
directly and indirectly. Officers vary greatly in the
degree to which they're willing to talk about the details
of their investigation. But most all officials will engage
in some level of conversation with victims and advocates.
So take advantage and give them a call. As you do this,
keep in mind that while investigating officers do have a
reasonable obligation to keep victims and advocates informed
on the progress of a case, they have no obligation to share
the specific evidence they've gathered. This is all the
more reason to polish and nuance your law enforcement conversational
skills.
One particularly
critical communication juncture that you'll run into time
and again is when a police officer, prosecutor, or probation
official tells you or your client that there's not enough
evidence to proceed with the case. It's in discussing this
issue with the official, that applying just the right combination
of artful questioning, conversation, and confrontation,
you should be able to both obtain needed information about
the current evidence status of the case, and keep the official's
mind open to continuing with the case.
One reliable
strategy for maximizing the information you can obtain in
these conversations is that the more information you have
going into the conversation the more new information you'll
be able to get out of the conversation, and the more solutions
you'll be able to provide. So if a client comes to you and
says an official already told her there's not enough evidence
to go forward with the case, take your time to gather as
much information as you can on the evidence status before
getting on the phone or getting into a meeting with the
official. Another strategy is to simply keep the conversation
going. The longer you can keep the official talking, the
more likely you are to get new and useful information, plain
and simple.
Ask other
officials connected to the case or officials not connected
to the case. When you run into a brick wall attempting
to get evidence information from the investigating officer,
don't forget that any one case will move through the hands
of an array of officials. And, in addition, that there are
many more officials, beyond those who are directly assigned
to the case, who are, nonetheless, in a position to pull
the case file and take a look at the case. Don't hesitate
to reach out to these officials.
For example,
suppose you find out from the jail that the suspect is not
booked on a threats charge even though the victim claims
to have told the officer about the suspect's threats to
kill. Or the victim says no photographs were taken of her
injury. Or that she's not sure if the officer took notes
when her child told the officer about witnessing the fight.
And suppose further that for whatever reason you can't get
the needed information from the responding officer. One
thing you can always do is call the on-call sergeant at
the police department. Tell her or him that you're concerned
that a particular piece of case evidence may not have been
entered into the case, and that you'd like to know if the
victim should come in to make a supplemental statement,
or to get photographs taken, or whatever it is that needs
to be done to fill the gap. In all likelihood, this should
prompt the sergeant to pull the case, take a look, and confirm
things for you one way or another, at least on the particular
issue.
In the same way,
you can reach out to the head of domestic violence/sex crimes
units, charging deputy district attorneys, district attorney
investigators. Victim advocates who work inside the system,
probation officers, and victim assistance personnel also
often have access to police reports. The main point here
is that there are a lot of different officials not directly
assigned to the case who can get their hands on the police
report for you, and can tell you specifics of what's in
the report and what's not. Use them! The main limitation
of this approach is that though many will be willing to
pull a police report, take a look, and answer a question
or two, most will be very reluctant to sit there and read
you the whole report. But there are some who will do that
too.
Ask witnesses.
Victims will often tell you about people who have been witness
to aspects of the crime, about witnesses who have corroborating
information, or about persons who have themselves been victim
of the same perpetrator. Even though the victim tells you
she told the officer about these persons, you and she may
have serious doubts about whether the officer actually followed
up and did the interview. If other means fail to determine
if that crucial task has been done, don't be shy about contacting
the witness yourself, and asking the person directly if
an officer contacted them to take their statement.
If victim Ana
says she told the officer that her neighbor saw her running
out of the house screaming, there's nothing wrong with you
or Ana asking the neighbor if the police officer talked
to her - assuming the victim gives you permission to do
so.
When you make
this kind of contact with a witness, it's usually best to
limit yourself to just that one question only - did the
officer take her statement. It's generally not a good idea
to ask the person to tell you what they had to say. Asking
a witness to reveal the content of what they told the officer
can too easily be perceived as your attempting to influence
or intimidate the witness. In fact, it's a good practice
to preface your question to a witness by explaining that
you don't intend to ask about content, and that you're just
wanting to check to make sure the investigator contacted
the witness. Naturally, if the person wants to offer more
information, that's a different story. But even in that
circumstance, just to make sure the person doesn't feel
pressured, you can tell the person something like, "Look,
you don't have to tell me what you said to the officer unless
you really want to."
Despite the special
care that needs to be taken to assure that witnesses not
feel influenced or pressured in any way, determining whether
or not police obtained their statements is just too crucial
a point to go unchecked. In our investigations of domestic
violence homicides, one of the things that showed up again
and again in earlier police reports pertaining to the same
victim is that though the reports may have mentioned a witness,
the police had failed to interview the witness. The case
then went to the DA, who, instead of taking measures to
obtain the witness statement, took the easy way out and
simply rejected the case, leaving the perpetrator free to
escalate to murder - in homicide after homicide after homicide.
So if you can't verify this information any other way, don't
be shy about calling a witness and saying, "I'm sorry
to bother you. I'm a victim advocate and I just wondered
if you could tell me if police contacted you about an incident
that occurred yesterday. We just want to double check."
It can save your client's life.
|
Contrary
to Myth, Violence-Against-Women Cases are Usually Much
More Evidence-Rich than Other Kinds of Cases |
You don't
have to work on violence against women cases for very
long before you begin hearing the oft repeated law
enforcement refrain that these cases are nearly impossible
to work, 'he said-she said' situations. This myth
is so incorrect, so deeply planted in people's thinking,
and so effective in covering for officials who simply
don't want to do these cases, that it has to be debunked.
Understanding why this myth is false will make people
much less vulnerable to false law enforcement claims
of 'not-enough-evidence'. It will also expand your
own thinking on how to search for additional evidence
when needed.
So, it's
worth taking a moment here to show that not only is
this myth false, but the exact opposite is true. Violence
against women cases are much more likely to be evidence-rich
than almost any other kind of case.
1.
In violence against women cases the victim usually
knows the perpetrator well. Not only does this save
investigators a lengthy who-done-it investigation,
the victim usually has so much detailed, intimate
information about the perpetrator as to generate a
wealth of evidence leads and corroboration. In addition,
victims can often provide correct guesses to critical
investigatory questions like, "Where do you think
he might have hidden the knife?" or "Where
do you think he will take the baby?" or "Do
you think he's likely to brag to any of his friends
about raping you?" "Which friend(s)?"
"What's their phone number and what time do they
get home from work?" Victims are also frequently
aware of the perpetrator's other criminal activities
and of other persons who have also been victims of
this perpetrator's violence, all of which can often
to tied into, or added to, the current case.
2.
Domestic violence is almost never a single incident.
Rather, it's usually ongoing incidents over a relatively
long period of time. It's virtually impossible for
a perpetrator to carry on these ongoing crimes without
leaving a trail littered with evidence. Investigators
- and victims and advocates - simply have to get beyond
their single incident blinders. Not only does this
expand the pool of evidence, but it will also likely
open up a host of related crimes, each with its own
attendant evidence, and often with a stronger evidence
set than the presenting incident. Related crimes that
may have occurred in the same or different time frame
- such as false imprisonment, vandalism, threats,
child abuse, forced sex, pet abuse, and many more
- are so frequently overlooked. The same is true in
a large percentage of sexual violence cases, since
the perpetrator in most sexual assault cases also
usually has an ongoing relationship of one kind or
another to the victim.
3.
Because the victim knows the perpetrator well in violence
against women cases, these cases are ripe for creating
new evidence through pretext calls, and through recordings
and tricks of many kinds. (A pretext call is a phone
call recorded by the police made by the victim, or
other involved person, to the suspect. In the pretext
call the victim uses a prearranged scenario (a pretext)
to trick the suspect into talking about his crime.
Pretext calls and related techniques are especially
valuable in sex crimes which sometimes do lack an
abundance of physical evidence.)
4. The
perpetrators of violence against women generally don't
flee the scene, and they are almost always willing
to tell their side of the story to police. Whether
this is because these particular perpetrators feel
so justified in their acts, or so confident they'll
get away with what it, it doesn't matter. The huge
advantage to investigators is the same. A perpetrator
who's willing to talk with investigators is a sitting
duck, - a stupid sitting duck -, and an investigator's
dream. This is because it's nearly impossible to fabricate
a fiction that fits hand-in-glove with the physical
evidence. The inevitable cracks and contradictions
that lace perpetrator statements are powerful evidence
against him. But to obtain these easy pickings it
does require that investigators be willing to put
at least a little preparation and thought into their
interrogations.
5.
In most all violence against women cases, the victim
and perpetrator move in the same social circles. This
means that there are usually many witnesses who are
knowledgeable of the abusive dynamics between the
perpetrator and the victim, and often of the criminal
acts themselves. Furthermore, investigators don't
have to search for these witnesses. The victim usually
has an in-depth knowledge of these people, too.
6.
Women are closely attached to children. Children are
frequently eye or ear witnesses to the violence or
to corroborating aspects of the violence - if only
officials would routinely interview children, and
do so properly. Children are also frequently direct
victims of criminal acts by the same perpetrator.
7.
Even the most isolated and frightened victim of violence
against women has usually spoken directly to others,
or manifested to others, the fears, behaviors, injuries,
or statements that can corroborate the crimes.
8.
Even in the rare cases where there's not enough evidence
in the current or past incidents, in violence against
women cases it's almost certain the perpetrator will
continue his attempts to carry on against the same
victim. The victim can be educated to gather the evidence
next time, and encouraged to call 911 immediately.
The key
point is that the law enforcement generalization that
violence against women cases are hopeless 'he said,
she said' cases is utter nonsense. It's crucial that
this myth be debunked. It has served to shield law
enforcement from their responsibilities to women for
far too long.
|
|
|
|