PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Why am I keeping a close eye on two U.S. pieces of proposed legislation - The Abby Honald Act and the Violence Against Women Act (VOWA) Two reasons: Reason one: The controversial Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) technique of sexual assault crime complainants, which is based on an unproven neurological basis, plays a major role in the bill. Reason two: As the commentary below indicates, there is a move to incorporate the Abby Honald Act into the reauthorized VOWA. As numerous previous posts on this Blog have warned, the unproven FETI technique has been rejected as unreliable by The U.S. Air Force as it could lead to wrongful prosecutions. Although the U.K. (Scotland Yard) recently replaced a 'start by believing' approach by a 'start by investigating' approach because of resulting wrongful prosecutions, the USA appears to be plunging in the opposite direction."
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Fittingly, some senators are now moving beyond bothering to respond to questionable effectiveness and grant accountability, and deciding the law’s (The U.S. VAWA Act, which is up for re-authorization) real problem is it’s not tilted enough against those accused of violence."
COMMENTARY: "'Start by believing’ backfired on rape victims in the U.K. Some senators want to impose it here," by Greg Piper, Associate Editor of The College Fix, published on April 12, 2018. (Greg Piper spent several years as a technology policy reporter and editor for Warren Communications News in Washington, D.C., and guest host on C-SPAN’s “The Communicators. The Student Free Press Association is a nonprofit organization run by veteran journalists to help beginning journalists. With our higher-education news website, The College Fix, we work with college-aged writers, bloggers, tweeters, podcasters, and viral video makers for the purpose of identifying and supporting young people who seek to improve campus journalism, explore careers in the media, and commit themselves to the principles of a free society. "
GIST: "There’s a general rule I’ve learned in journalism: The more pure the cause is perceived, the less scrutiny the media apply. It particularly holds with any group that fights sexual victimization, whether against children, college students or women in general. Back when online child exploitation was the latest fear, I was politely arguing with the National Center for Missing Exploited Children about some dodgy statistics it was sharing. I don’t think these folks – welcomed in every Capitol Hill office with no questions – were used to being questioned. And when the media do not show informed skepticism of these groups, you get results like the United Kingdom’s recent scandal around botched rape prosecutions. The main problem with our cross-Atlantic siblings, as always, is that Americans want to copy everything they do, for better or worse. ‘Unconscious bias’ against defendants; You may associate the “Start by Believing” movement with campus Title IX offices, but it was actually the underlying assumption in criminal prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales until recently. Four rape cases collapsed in two months because police failed to disclose evidence, and they sound an awful lot like the botched Title IX proceedings we come across regularly in U.S. litigation. It started late last year when judges threw out cases against two men because police had excluded thousands of messages taken from the accusers’ phones from either prosecution or defense, claiming they were “irrelevant,” according to the Independent. In one of those cases, the purported 14-year-old accuser had told the accused she was 19, and in another, the “alleged victim had told friends she wanted and enjoyed sex she later reported as rape.” Guess what a defense lawyer identifies as the main problem here: Police are legally obliged to examine evidence from all participants in a case, whether it supports or hinders prosecution, and pass it on to lawyers on both sides. Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, previously suggested that unconscious bias was among the factors driving a “crisis in the system”. “We fear unconscious bias stops the police and the CPS impartially and thoroughly investigating and scrutinising complaints in sexual offence cases,” she said. The fake investigations continued with a case against an Oxford University student who halted his education for two years waiting for a trial that was canceled days before it started. Why? Appearing at Guildford Crown Court to explain prosecutors’ actions, barrister Sarah Lindop said they had been awaiting information from the complainant’s diary, sensitive information relating to her and evidence from seized electronic devices. “In light of the new information the prosecution no longer had a realistic prospect of success,” she added. Days before that one, another dropped case on the verge of trial involving a man who could be deported: Police had withheld photos of his accuser “cuddling and smiling” with him in bed, the man who supposedly was holding her against her will. Sorry we weren’t being real investigators; These very public botches have led to a wholesale review of rape cases by the Crown Prosecution Service and warnings by its head of prosecutions, Alison Saunders, that more cases may be scrapped. It won’t surprise you to learn that Saunders is leaving her post when her contract expires later this year. Here’s how Spectator columnist Rod Liddle summarized her tenure: Not merely incompetent, but possessed of an evangelistic liberal zeal that sought to turn justice on its head. Under Saunders there was little room for that tired old shibboleth, innocent until proven guilty. In rape cases the defendant was required to prove that he had obtained consent from the supposed victim, and furthermore obtained it being entirely confident that the supposed victim was not drunk, or out of her box on narcotics, or perhaps merely distracted by worrying about whether or not she’d left the oven on at home. … She subscribed to the view that the conviction rate for rape was too low, an opinion shared by the liberal media, and especially the BBC. But then, the conviction rates will be low if half of the cases brought by the Crown Prosecution Service — of which Saunders is the head — are patently flawed, the police enjoined to believe what they are told by the ‘victim’ almost without query, and sometimes ignoring evidence that clearly disproves the claim. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has now taken the humiliating step of promising that its investigators will act like investigators when they evaluate sexual assault claims: Ms Dick said that in the past the police have been criticised for “not being open minded enough and sympathetic enough” to victims of sexual offences. She said it was “very important” to encourage people to tell their story and she wants to go on “raising the confidence” of victims. However, she added: “But actually our job is not all about victims. Our job in investigations is to be fair, to be impartial and when appropriate to bring things to justice. “ And, of course, to support victims........ Fittingly, some senators are now moving beyond bothering to respond to questionable effectiveness and grant accountability, and deciding the law’s (The U.S. VAWA Act, which is up for reauthorization) real problem is it’s not tilted enough against those accused of violence. Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a former prosecutor in the accused-equals-guilt mold of Alison Saunders, touted her Abby Honold Act for inclusion in the reauthorized VAWA at the March 20 hearing. The bill was introduced right before Christmas with cosponsor Republican Sen. John Cornyn, and it essentially funds the “junk science” that Atlantic writer Emily Yoffe exposed late last year. Klobuchar brands her bill as a “demonstration program for trauma-informed training for law enforcement” that covers both interview and investigation techniques – the same skewed assumptions that doomed U.K. police. She said it’s necessary “to avoid victim re-traumatization” by law enforcement: “It’s a pretty simple concept.” So is endangering scores of rape prosecutions because you ordered police to “start by believing” rather than “start by investigating.”"
The entire commentary can be read at the link below:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43851/
Read release on launching of The Abby Honold Act - "Klobuchar, Cornyn Introduce Bipartisan ‘Abby Honold Act’ to Promote Use of Trauma-Informed Techniques in Responding to Sexual Assault Crimes" - at the link below: ""Minnesota Congressman Tom Emmer joins senators in effort inspired by Abby Honold, a former University of Minnesota student and rape survivor Bill would establish a demonstration program for trauma-informed training for law enforcement, including training for interviewing victims of sexual assault and investigating sexual assault crimes."
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/12/klobuchar-cornyn-introduce-bipartisan-abby-honold-act-to-promote-use-of-trauma-informed-techniques-in-responding-to-sexual-assault-crimes
Read Wikipedia entry on the Violence Against Women Act at the link below: "The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355) signed as Pub.L. 103–322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 (codified in part at 42 U.S.C. sections 13701 through 14040). The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice. VAWA was drafted by the office of Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and co-written by Democrat Louise Slaughter, the Representative from New York, with support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups.[1] The Act passed through Congress with bipartisan support in 1994, clearing the United States House of Representatives by a vote of 235–195 and the Senate by a vote of 61–38, although the following year House Republicans attempted to cut the Act's funding.[2] In the 2000 Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided Court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue their attackers in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court overturned the provision as exceeding the federal government's powers under the Commerce Clause.[3][4] VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005, and signed by President George W. Bush.[5] The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas.[6] Ultimately, VAWA was again reauthorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle throughout 2012–2013."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
