1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.
Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and
assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being
assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating
witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but
reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.
For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse
performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by
the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a
promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s
political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a
trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.
The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has
always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation,
such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with
accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for
otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.
The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired
just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to
protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the
press as “uncooperative.”
If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just
for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.
5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.
Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts
on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the
accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the
accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that
the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the
accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s
a red flag.
6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.
In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most
exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling
explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find
the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a
full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that
the accusation might have problems.
7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.
It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge
without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of
the process that’s already in place.
8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.
In the Duke lacrosse
case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers.
Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be
innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the
accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a
number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.
9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.
10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.
It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be
a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations.
It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the
stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about
accusations.
These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and
bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the
falsely accused commit suicide.
When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a
sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the
allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it
as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the
questions need to keep coming.
This is the best post
I don’t see a date on this, and it seems awfully tailored to fit the description of the Kavanaugh accusations. A little too on the nose.
I’m not saying I disagree or that the guy isn’t being truthful, it just comes across as being politically motivated to me.
*Edit: I just noticed that he explicitly mentions Supreme Court recommendations. So that settles that question.
Maybe the publishing is political but the points are basically about how accusers can undermine and manipulate due process.
And that’s always valid regardless.
>”I don’t see a date on this”
what you see after clicking the link:
It doesn’t seem “tailored” to fit Kavanaugh. There are so many cases these points apply to besides Kavanaugh. It’s not the author’s fault the Kavanaugh accusers set off a bunch of red flags common to false accusers.
Also, why wouldn’t the author mention a rape accusation being used to change a Supreme Court pick as an example of how public accusations are being used today? It’s currently happening and very relevant to the topic at hand. it would be dumb not to mention it…
Wide Spread Interests 