BBC News Wednesday, 29 March 2006, 14:04 GMT 15:04 UK
| Rape-victim video plan for trials
|
||
The proposal - currently only permitted when a victim is under 18 - is among the suggested ways of boosting low rape conviction rates in England and Wales. Plans to allow expert witnesses to testify about the trauma suffered by rape victims have also been unveiled. The move aims to "challenge the myths" about victims. |
||
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4855310.stm
---------- Forwarded Message ----------Subject: Trauma Experts to Increase Rape Convictions?Date: Wednesday 29 March 2006 16:55From: Gary D ChanceTo: [Local Police Inspector]Inspector xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxMetropolitan PoliceNotting Dale SectorNotting Hill Police StationLadbroke GroveLondon W11Dear Inspector xxxxxxxxxxI'm forwarding you a copy of the enclosed Email since it will provide somehat of a perspective on the foundation of this situation to better understand why it exists as it does today. This is just a rough overview. There is much documentation and correspondence to support what I outline here.I have not identified police officer "A" since this is not a complaint about him per se but about the issues of doing a proper, independent, objective and through investigation which has been completely absent in my direct experience for the better part of ten years. At no time has anyone ever asked me for complete information about all that I know in order to carry out a proper investigation. Instead, surveillance technology has been used against me as a weapon to fabrication allegations. Now, it is too late to ask such a question since the matter can only be pursued in the courts.I sent numerous communications to the then Police Commissioner including the identity of police officer "A". This will be in the correspondence file. My purpose has always been to bring problems to the attention of those in charge in any organisation so that problems can be addressed. Problems cannot be fixed if they are not known. Instead of fixing the problems retaliation is carried out against those like me who report them, and this is what has happened here. Obviously, those who have committed crimes have much to hide.I would like to think that from the larger perspective and given the changes in personnel over time in any organisation problem solving will be evolutionary and beneficial. The police have a most difficult job because it requires such a diversity of abilities and talents from people tough enough to deal with hardened people who would kill to those who best work in technology or scientific areas. Management is a serious problem for the police to be able to get the right person into the right job.The police officer I refer to below from the Earls Court Road station was put into IT for a bit bit did not like it. He much preferred to be on the street dealing with people where he did an excellent job as I can attest. It's those kinds of assessments which must be made to get the most out of people and provide effective policing. The pressures to perform can be so great that people in jobs for which they are not suitable try to bend the rules and fabricate to protect themselves. It's useful to catch these problems before they develop as has occurred in this situation.My concern is getting the facts to the proper person in order for an objective investigation to be carried out to solve problems in the overall best interest of all concerned. I cannot do that with the surveillance technology in use as it has been since August 1998. Those with a vested interest in perverting the course of justice continue to do so by observing what I write so that they can attack me and defend themselves.The great tragedy is that perpetrators of violent crimes can go on committing those crimes victimising society when those in positions of responsibility pervert the course of justice as has occurred here. I do not need to know the outcome of anything that the police do. It is none of my business. I will see the results in the absence of violence which I continue to witness. That is why I continue to address these problems as I do to get at the source of the problem so that they can be prevented from occurring in the future. That is what I was doing ten years ago, and that is what I am doing today.Under no circumstances can you have those who are reported for serious crimes participating, controlling and dominating surveillance 24/7 for many years until they destroy the person who reported their crimes. I will continue to bring up and communicate these problems until they are effectively and properly addressed.Yours sincerelyGary D Chanceenclosure---------- Forwarded Message ----------Subject: Trauma Experts to Increase Rape Convictions?Date: Wednesday 29 March 2006 15:19From: Gary D Chance To: news24@bbc.co.ukWhat does this have to do with evidence linking the accused to the rape? It sounds like there is an effort to introduce emotional content into the court room to incite jurors to convict based on emotion rather than evidence.While I support the need to get more convictions and further increase the number of people who come forward to report rapes, I am sceptical of the direction which this implies for justice and convictions. Could it introduce more unsound convictions which are later overturned? The problem rests with the police, I believe, in addressing the problem of rape when it is reported. In my direct experience there is much room for improvement here, and the police respond with retaliation when criticised instead of improving their own activity. I reported a rape and attempted murder connected with the 1996 Notting Hill Carnival in August of that year which I witnessed from my kitchen window. After the police failed to arrive at the scene due to an after dark Carnival exit related traffic jam involving sound trucks nearby in front of Heart FM in the Chrysalis building blocking the road, I wrote and sent a fax to the Police Commissioner and the Commander of the Notting Hill Police Station. 1. I was not contacted personally for any more information that I might have. Instead Inspector Valentine who telephoned to thank me and sent a letter in response to my fax sent the local beat officer to the Lancaster West Estate Office. I was not visited by the police at any time nor was there any request to talk with me about this most serious incident. After I sent the fax, I inspected vehicles outside in the road identifying one that I thought might be involved in the rape and attempted murder. I wrote down its licence number and fully expected the police to contact me to see if I had any more information. This was never done.Since I had given the police a large amount of detailed information in writing including the name of the victim which had been stated repeatedly by the attacker, I did not push this with the police leaving it in their hands to investigate. I was available if they wanted to talk with me.The information was tentative which I wanted to express verbally rather than provide it in writing which took on the character of a witness statement. I was not that positive, but I turned out to be correct.2. The information about the rape and attempted murder including the fact that I had witnessed it trickled through the local Council's tenant management destroying confidentiality about the fact of my witnessing this incident and alerting the woman who had been present in the auto. I sent a fax to the Chief Executive of Kensington & Chelsea c. February 1997 and noted this incident of violence which I had witnessed among other serious incidents in this immediate area that had occurred at that time. Just after sending this fax, I was returning to the Estate and saw the woman whom I thought was associated with this violent crime come walking quickly past me to the road. She got into the car I thought was associated with the incident and drove it to the other end of the road out of this immediate area parking it there. Later that car was replaced with another by these people. That same night sometime around 2300 or 2400 people on the balcony above my front window were discussing the fact that I had witnessed a rape which was clearly stated as "He did witness a rape." These two incidents together convinced me that there was no confidentiality with respect to tenant management, and the most sensitive of information which I thought had been sent in confidence to the Council's Chief Executive had also apparently been sent to the Estate Office where it was immediately communicated to a person involved and those associated with the flat above mine.What this meant is that those who carried out crimes where able to learn who saw what enabling them to cover up the crime. Tenant management meant in reality the indiscriminate involvement of tenants who were involved incrimes. 3. A year later during the Notting Hill Carnival of August 1997, I saw this same woman wearing the identical clothes which had been been worn the year before during the rape and attempted murder. This confirmed to me that this was the woman involved and the woman who had moved the auto I suspected as being the one where these crimes took place. By this time it was too late to carry out any forensic examinations which related to the details in my original fax which would have confirmed what I described. There was a unique part of the incident that I described in my fax to the police which should have been investigated with regard to this auto. Had the police stopped by to interview me for any further infomation I would have provided the licence number of the vehicle I suspected was the scene of the crime.Vandalism Associated with Operating and Parking Motorbikes & Scooters on the EstateNot only did the police fail to properly follow up on a complaint about a most serious crime, but this attitude of the police persisted generally. There were serious antisocial problems including vandalism which had been going on throughout this year until August 1997 including vandalism related to operating and parking motorbikes and scooters on the Estate which directly involved those in the flat above mine. .On Monday, 15th September 1997, I did meet with police officer "A" inside my home due to the vandalism of some signs with respect to parking motorbikes and scooters on the Estate. This time the police insisted upon coming to my flat. I was reluctant because anything I said could be heard from the balcony below. The meeting with police officer "A" was unsatisfactory. He said that they were only interested in burglary and drugs. When I told him about the rape and attempted murder which I had witnessed a year earlier, he responded that while he had been beat officer here during an earlier tour (he had returned recently from working in the CID he said), there had been a couple rapes on the Estate.He did not ask me for any details about the rape or attempted murder which I had witnessed. There was no curiosity which I would have expected from a police officer to understand the environment and what was going on. He was in my opinion belittling these crimes I had witnessed as being commonplace in his experience and almost not worthy of note in this environment. He was dismissive.Tenant Management Blackmailed and Punished Tenants & Child Abuse Not Brought to the Attention of the PoliceAs a result of this and other negative comments involving an assessment I had made about tenant management punishing tenants on the whole for incidents of vandalism by withholding essential security services, I did not bring up the problem of the child abuse that I had been noting for a year which was going on in the flat below. During the summer of 1996 including the time when the rape and attempted murder took place, the front door lock had been inoperable for four and one-half months from mid-June to 1st November 1996. This was caused by vandalism which I immediately reported to the Estate Officer by hand delivery of a letter given to the Buildings Manager first thing in the morning following the vandalism explaining what it was. He replied that it was the fault of the parents and that the lock would remain unrepaired until they found out who the vandals were. I later sent a letter to the Estate Officer and/or Area Manager indicating what I had been told and urged that the lock be repaired as quickly as possible. I characterised this failure to repair in strong language since it put all the tenants at a security risk. Just as had been described to me, the Area Manager sent a letter to everyone asking for any information about who might have carried out this vandalism while the front door lock remained unrepaired. For me this confirmed that everyone was being punished with a failure to repair a most important security threat until the vandals were identified by the residents. Since it took over four months to repair the front door lock, this action told me that all the tenants were being subjected to a security threat by a deliberate failure to repair while the vandalism was being addressed. I know exactly when the front door lock was repaired because I was leaving the building on 1st November 1997 when a new front door lock was being installed and was asked by the installer to help him test it which I did.I asked the installer why it had taken so long to repair the front door lock. He said that it took four to six weeks to order the lock mechanism. In this case a more vandal proof lock mechanism was being installed. This did not account for the four and one-half months while this section of the building had no front door lock, and anyone could enter in this a high crime area. During this period of time, I had witnessed a rape and attempted murder.Police Officer "A": Conveyed My Negative Assessment of Tenant Management to MeWithout any prompting by me, police officer "A" with whom I met on Monday, 5th September 1997, volunteered that tenant management policy was not made by a Buildings Manager. I was stunned into silence and did not respond. Nothing had been said about this at all. Police officer "A" told me this was his first day on the job here once again. How could he have possibly come to me on an objective basis in such a situation when he brought up the very event which had caused me to begin my scepticism about the motives and actions of tenant management which I had brought to the attention of tenant management?My impression from the Buildings Manager's statement was that he was communicating a general attitude expressed by tenant management which I have found out in my own direct experience to be quite valid. My balcony was put into a state of disrepair by outside access in the first week of June 1998 by tenant management and remains in that state of disrepair seven yeas and nine months later despite the fact that outside access to restore the disrepair was agreed. This has been a deliberate effort to punish by disrepair denying me the use of my balcony until all the 84 floor tiles were replaced. This is harassment.Here was a police officer who was not interested in a rape and attempted murder I had witnessed; had told me that the police were only interested in drugs and burglary; and indicated that he was well aware of my negative attitude about tenant management despite having started this job that very day. I was not about to bring up the problem of child abuse. I had wanted to ask him for his advice about what to do with regard to all that I was hearing. There was no way I was going to do this given his behaviour. At this point I dismissed this police officer as unhelpful and decided that it was futile to deal with the police given what he had told me. I told him that I did not know anything about drugs or burglary but would let the police know if I learned anything that would be of interest to them about this. He was not interested in vandalism or rape and attempted murder.The Child Abuse Reporting was Delayed for Eight MonthsAs a result the very serious problem of child abuse from the flat below was not addressed, and it was eight months later before I sent a fax to the Chief Executive of the Council about the escalating child abuse which by then included the choking of one child in several instances. My direct meeting and overall experience with the police was the direct reason that the child abuse reporting to the authorities was delayed. And, when I sent the fax to the Chief Executive of the Council about the child abuse problem, I made every effort to keep this away from tenant management whom I knew by direct experience to leak information to those involved with criminal activity.Efforts to Route All Reporting Through Tenant ManagementSince the vandalism was connected with driving and parking motorbikes and scooters on the Estate, I had given the police officer a list of licence numbers of those involved at the beginning of our meeting on Monday, 15th Sepember 1997. Later while police officer "A" was meeting with the tenant management about this matter, I received a call from the Estate Officer. He referred to a fax which I had sent to the police concerning the vehicles driving and parking on the Estate. It was not clear to me what he was talking about. I had contacted the police about the vandalism and then gave a list of those licence numbers at the meeting. He then asked me for my permission to provide the police with the information I had been giving to them for six months since April 1997. Among my first correspondence was a fax to tenant management with a list of nine licence numbers for these vehicles that were operating and parking on the Estate on a daily basis.I refused this request. I insist upon dealing with the police on my own and providing them with my information directly as I had done in my personal meeting with police officer "A" on Monday, 15th September 1997. I did not trust and had lost confidence in tenant management and was uncertain what kind of information was being communicated to the police. I also had problems with the police with regard to representations which had been made to me by this officer about my relationship with and attitude toward tenant management. Worst of all I was getting the message that complaints should be made to tenant management who would then relay that information to the police when I had already given the information to the police. The point was being made that I should go to tenant management and not to the pollice as I took it. What could tenant management turn over to the police that I had not already provided?This is what Inspector Valentine had told me in writing with respect to a rape and attempted murder. He sent the beat officer to the Estate Office and not to me. While it was important to deal with the Estate Office about this matter, it was equally important to deal with me too since I do not want to provide confidential information to anyone but the police. I was justified in insisting upon that as it turned out.Again a year later in September 1997 the Estate Office was asking me for permission to give information to the police that I had already provided a few days earlier. Why hadn't the Estate Office (Estate Officer and Area Manager) asked to communicate the information which I started providing to them in April 1997 and had been doing so for six months? Why did tenant management delay notification to the police about this for six months and then turn around and ask me for permission to give the police my information after I had already done so? Tenant Management Installs Surveillance Technology For Tenants to Get Information I'm Reporting and Carry Out Harassment 24/7I have my answer to this question, but it is part of a much larger problem that developed in 1998 and is not the subject of this Email. Suffice it to say that I have concluded that tenant management sought to channel all information through itself in order to limit and cover up very serious problems which should have been addressed promptly by referral to the police. In August 1998 I was subjected to 24/7 surveillance technology by tenant management in the hands of scores of tenants in order to determine exactly what I was documenting and reporting so that they could know what I was doing in order to subvert it.Since I would not report the serious problems to tenant management involving tenants who were a part of tenant management especially the child abuse which I reported to the Chief Executive of the Council in May 1998, allegations were manufactured in order to get the surveillance technology installed in August 1998. This was used by those involved in these and other crimes and antisocial behaviour residing in adjacent and nearby flats which I had reported during my first two years of residency here. This goes on as of this writing. Police Officer "A" Refused to See Me at His Office and Insisted Upon Coming to My Home which was Under Surveillance in Late 1998When I reported the surveillance technology abuse to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner by several faxes, I was contacted by the Notting Hill Police once again. Police officer "A" insisted once again upon visiting me in my flat. He stated that he had made several visits to my flat with his partner in uniform and plain clothes claiming falsely on one occasion that I had come to the door to see who it was through the peephole.Since I was subjected to 24/7 surveillance and harassment by the tenants, I never went to my door when not expecting anyone. Since I had been subjected to an attempted burglary a few months earlier in June 1998, there was no way I would have gone to the door. I remained by the phone in the living room to call the police in case of another forced entry attempt.I returned the police sergeant's phone message about this attempt to see me. I responded by calling from a nearby pay phone since I was subject to surveillance and sought confidentiality in my communications with the police as much as that could be accomplished at that time. Police officer "A" came to the phone and insisted upon visiting me in my home.I refused explaining about the surveillance. I asked to come to his office, but he refused stating that was impossible. I found this incredible because I had made such a visit a couple years earlier at the Kensington Police Station on Earls Court Road when I wanted to see an officer there with whom I had been dealing to ask about some fraud I suspected at that time involving someone with whom I had been working. At that time I lived in South Kensington. At the end of the phone conversation police officer "A" said that the police could not do anything about the surveillance. There was no point in my talking to the police if this was the case, and I could not see him at his office by his own refusal.Police Officer "A" Participated in the Surveillance Along With Other Police Officers Throughout These Seven Years and Seven Months So FarRape convictions and the problems with addressing properly other serious crimes by the police are not only being wiped out by the police themselves, but they then join in the surveillance campaign against me carried out by tenant management and those tenants involved in the serious crimes and antisocial behaviour I reported. The police officer described above was one of several police officers who have participated in the criminal use of surveillance technology against me to pervert the course of justice. His name was frequently mentioned. This Government is not getting at the source of the problem with respect to rape reporting and convictions. Bringing trauma experts into the courtroom to emotionally charge the jurors will not be helpful when evidence collection by the police fails and the police themselves participate directly in perverting the course of justice on behalf of the criminals involved in serious crime including rape to preserve the image of tenant management and themselves.I reported the violence I witnessed immediately to the police and then sent a long fax describing all that had happened. The point was to ensure that the assailant was properly identified and the public protected from further crimes he might commit. Was this accomplished? I don't know.I do know, however, that I have been victimised and falsely criminalised by those who were involved in the crimes I reported with the full participation of the police and other departments of Government who have taken the law into their own hands instead of objectively enforcing the law as determined by Parliament in order to protect the public who as taxpayers foot the bill for their professional services