Cruel Strategy: The Sting of a False Accusation

Apart from being a genuine victim of serious crime, one of the few things that can come close in terms of impact is being wrongfully accused of such a crime. Imagine how much more devastating it can be when the accuser is somebody that you love, somebody that, in times past, you would have trusted with your life. Now imagine that the accusations are of a sexual nature. Then imagine that they are about your own children.

Each of these things is a whole new level of injustice, but the sad and shocking news is that there are people out there who are willing to stoop this low to get what they want. Yes, motivated by nothing more than petty greed or vengeance, they have no hesitation in destroying the lives of their family members.

Amazingly, many of the people who do this kind of thing don’t even realise the seriousness of their wrong-doing. They may think it’s just a little lie that will help them get the outcome they desire, without giving much thought to the consequences of that action.

The perjury problem

Legally speaking, the serious crime of perjury is being committed. The problem is that perjury laws are not very well enforced, and rarely is the maximum penalty applied. I think in cases such as this, where people can have their lives ruined and may even be driven to suicide, the courts should take a very stern view when considering penalties for perjury. But there’s a further problem, which is that these dedicated liars are not above pinning all the blame on the child, and they can easily bully their children into accepting the blame.

Selective Cognitive Bias

As if all this wasn’t bad enough, almost everyone has a tendency to believe the allegations until they’re disproven, as the recent famous trial of Rolf Harris so shockingly revealed. None of us, no matter what our opinion may be, can ever really know if Rolf was guilty or not – only he and his accusers can know for certain, as there is no physical evidence to prove the allegations – but his fate was sealed by 12 strangers who simply decided that the allegations were true.

This is not to suggest the outcome was necessarily wrong, but it does stretch a point that it’s not easy to imagine a scenario in any other kind of trial where not one person in twelve had a reasonable doubt where the evidence was entirely based on testimony and successful character-assassination by the prosecutor. What made this possible was simply the fact that the allegations involved child abuse, which guarantees there will be more emotional and moral weight attached than in other types of cases.

It’s hard to imagine how it was allowed to happen, but Rolf was allowed to perform one of his musical numbers in the courtroom. Even if a judge is lenient enough to allow such foolishness in court, certainly a defence lawyer should never permit it. This allowed the prosecutor a great opportunity to paint Rolf as a clown, and one with low moral character.

Rolf continues to deny guilt in the matter, and really only he and the women accusing him know the truth. Nearly everyone has an opinion (not always their own, sometimes one that has been spoon-fed to them by the media), which is precisely the point.

The reason I’m bringing up this case is because it demonstrates that people form opinions in the absence of facts, and the weight of opinion can be heavier than you think. It introduces the possibility of what is known scientifically as “selective cognitive bias”, which is where a person may allow not only their personal opinion, but their professional opinion as well, to be influenced by factors that should not be influential. This includes, for example, emotional and moral factors, which should have no part in forming a professional opinion.

Thus police, prosecutors, judges, medical practitioners, psychologists, and of course juries may all be led to forming certain conclusions which are influenced to some extent by selective cognitive bias.

Serious consequences may result from false accusations

People – particularly men – who find themselves on the wrong side of such an accusation may be driven over the edge of sanity. Tragically, many kill themselves, but other unfortunate outcomes are also possible. For example, they could kidnap the child and become a fugitive, they could stage a siege in the family home, or they may even kill those who they see as the source of their anguish.

Don’t imagine, either, that it’s a short-term problem. Somebody who is locked in jail for years brooding over the injustice of a false conviction has plenty of time to dream up elaborate revenge plots. If you resort to dirty tricks to gain assets or child custody, you may only be able to enjoy your ill-gotten gains until your victim is released from captivity.

Children may lie about abuse for many reasons

Numerous scientific studies have shown that children can be coerced into lying about abuse for all kinds of reasons (both to allege it and to deny it), and children as young as three are able to maintain a very convincing demeanour when perpetuating these lies.

Ceci and Bruck [‘The suggestibility of The Child Witness’, Psychological Bulletin] indicate five primary motivations that may drive children to lie about abuse:

• Punishment avoidance – if the child is threatened with punishment by a parent, they may lie to avoid the punishment. This can include being coerced to make a false claim of abuse or to deny an actual situation of abuse.
• As a game – here a person may be coaching and encouraging the child to make certain allegations and making a game of it, which some children can easily be deceived into participating in.
• To keep a promise – if an adult asks a child to make a promise about something they will say or not say, the child may view it as especially binding. If the child perceives a threat to the well-being of the adult as a result of disclosure or non-disclosure, they may be especially likely to ensure the promise is kept.
• For personal gain – this is fairly obvious. If it looks like the child has something to gain from the lie, they may do it, and without the guidance of a fully developed moral compass.
• To avoid embarrassment – children may lie to protect themselves or somebody they care about from embarrassment.

Unless juries and judges know the full circumstances under which the report of concern was made, how many times the child was questioned, and the circumstances in which the questioning took place, they may be more likely to be affected by selective cognitive bias. Juries may also under-estimate the capacity of a child to lie, their motives for lying, and the skill with which they may do it.

In particular, actual recordings of interviews would be of value in establishing credibility, because it can demonstrate how many times and how frequently the child was interviewed, whether there was any evident intimidation or coercion, whether the allegation was only made after repeated and sustained questioning, and so on.

Even video and audio-taped evidence can not be entirely relied on for accuracy as tapes may be stopped and then resumed, or they can be edited. Video timestamps may be added after the video was edited, thus the presence of a time stamp should not be considered as absolute evidence that a recording was not tampered with, though judges and juries should be expected to lack the technical knowledge about such things unless it is pointed out.

The SAID syndrome

Well known to legal professionals, this acronym stands for “Sexual Allegations in Divorce”. Yes, it is that common of an occurrence that it even has its own acronym!

Without doubt, the probability of an allegation of sexual abuse being made against a parent rides sharply when a couple is divorcing, and the allegation is normally made by the other parent. There can be all kinds of reasons why this happens, but typically the motive is greed (attempting to claim all of the assets by having the accused parent locked up) or revenge (attempting to deny the accused parent access to the children).

Anyone considering such scandalous under-handedness should stop for a moment and consider the potential consequences:

1. You will be committing perjury and causing your child to commit perjury.
2. You will be teaching the child to be dishonest.
3. You will be destroying the life of your former spouse – is your hate really that intense?
4. You may impair your child’s psychological development, as they acquire the label “sexual abuse victim”.
5. You expose yourself to potential retaliatory action by the accused, which may be more extreme than you are prepared to handle.
6. You could potentially expose yourself and your family to unwanted media attention.
7. You could harm your credibility, and that of your child, if either of you were to be victims of real abuse in the future.

Professionals such as police officers, psychologists, and medical practitioners must be aware of SAID syndrome and while certainly any allegation of sexual abuse should be handled with due discretion and seriousness, avoid being sucked into the trap of selective cognitive bias. Be aware that a parent may be trying to manipulate you and exploit your professional status in order to fill an agenda.

Real cases, real people

It is very easy for people to place themselves in the role of “judge, jury and executioner” when they read about allegations of abuse in the media. Often they fail to question precisely who is making the allegations and what the motives may be for doing so.

One particular case that comes to mind is that of “Ricky” reported by the BBC in April. This case is shocking not only for the elaborate complexity of the stories told by two children, but the fact they named up to 80 unrelated individuals as being involved in the alleged abuses that they claimed to have suffered. It really does call to mind the Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials, in which scores of people could be placed in jeopardy through a single allegation.

The stories were convincing enough to trigger police investigations, but ultimately in the High Court, it was determined that the stories were entirely fabricated and the children had been forced to record the stories by their mother and stepfather.

Perhaps the saddest thing about the report is that it talks exclusively about the exoneration of the father, but makes no mention of punishment to be effected against the mother and stepfather involved in making the false allegations. Here, you have a case of adults exploiting minors in the commission of a crime, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and undoubtedly the father has a clear civil case against both adults for defamation. If you’re reading this, Ricky, give Hylton-Potts a call.

Another sad outcome, of course, is that even after being exonerated, Ricky is still victimised by the public, and is being subjected to death threats and taunts. More than four million people have viewed the online videos in which the allegations were made against Ricky, and let’s not forget the potential harm this could cause to the children themselves in the future, as they become aware of the seriousness of what they have said about themselves and their father in such a public way.

The children have been placed in care, while their father, who has been cleared of all the allegations against him, still has to fight to obtain custody of them. But what I want you to really think about is that both parents have lost access to their children as a result of the false accusations. It’s not a good outcome for any of the people involved.

While Ricky’s case may seem extraordinary, it’s not the first time something like this has happened. Indeed it is possible that the stepfather in this case may even have modelled the story the children were coerced to tell on the Kern County child abuse cases, which took place in California during the 1980s.

A similar case, also from California, was the McMartin Preschool trial. What was notable about this case was that it involved hundreds of children coerced into making false accusations as a result of selective cognitive bias on the part of parents and investigators. This event, and others like it, triggered a moral panic, and helped to set up the current situation of paranoia that persists worldwide today in every context where adults are in constant close contact with children.

What should you do if you’re accused?

When accused of serious misconduct or a crime, police may invite you to “give your side of the story”. It’s never a good idea to go along with this until you have secured a legal advisor to assist you.

If police have reached the point where they are extending such an invitation, or if they arrest you, they have no interest in helping you to clear your name. By this point, cognitive bias has probably already set in, and their sole intent at this point is to obtain a confession from you, or to allow you to incriminate yourself.

There is no such thing as “having nothing to fear if you are innocent”. Certainly the Kern Country trials make this very clear, as so many innocent people were convicted. You have plenty to fear, whether innocent or guilty. This is why you should never say a word to the police unless you’ve spoken with a legal advisor first.

Hylton-Potts are legal consultants who specialise in fighting tough legal battles. If your former spouse is using false allegations against you to help obtain an advantage in a divorce or custody dispute, we can help you. Simply call us on 020 7381 8111 or send an email to [email protected] to find out more about how we can be of service.

We would be interested in your comments, please leave them in the section below.