Re: Fraternity Gang Rape in Georgia 1962
There's also the perspective of memory of traumatic events in light of Johari's Window. Any person at any time can only imprint into memory that which they are consciously or unconsiously aware of - there will always be the pane in the window that the individual cannot or does not know, as well as information about the event in the pane that no one knows - in other words, no matter how explicit any individual's memory of an event might be, and how well that memory can be acessed, that individual only has their own perspective of the event itself (everything from their point of view, to their understanding of the events in light of cultural, racial, gender, age, and similar orientations). As any police officer can tell you, 100 people can witness the same event, but their recall of that event, from the immediate to some far time in the future can and usually does vary drastically from one person to another. This case is likely to hear the same thing since there were multiple perpetrators (which ones knew about the drugging, which didn't, etc.).
Quote:
But there is no evidence that robust repression actually exists as a psychological phenomenon.
Which is exactly why the APA proports that it is impossible to tell if a repressed memory (as used in the context of the OP's post) is a true or false one. The down side to this, from a victim's standpoint, is that since the APA (and the ICD, internationally), and even MORE importantly/specifically the DSM-V, don't specifically support such phenemona, they remain classified to most individuals (particularly to delighted defense attorneys) as "theories" instead of more concrete (and case-winning) concepts such as a "diagnosis", or well defined "syndrome" might be.
There is nothing so complex in the universe as the workings of the human mind, thus, many such cases get the "brush off" or non-support because in the concrete world of the criminal courtroom, a prosecutor really has to "teach" a jury of lay persons about such etherial concepts in a period of a few days or weeks (while even Ph.D.'s with decades of research and experience can't agree on the issue), AND get that jury to accept one or more of the "pro-victim" aspects of such - while the defense only needs to say "hey, even the revered DSM-V doesn't jibe with the prosecution's arguement, the APA is the authority and even THEY don't support it, AND then march in any of hundreds of psych expert witnesses who will tell the jury that the prosecution's case isn't supported by any unified theory in the field (because one doesn't exist). Easy to see why such cases aren't pursued when the vast nature of this obstacle is taken into account (again, sans something OTHER than the victim's testimony, like a confession or physical evidence or cooberating testimony).
Back on point, in relation to the OP's initial inquiry and subsequent commentary, if the goal of pursuing this in a legal arena is exposure of the individuals concerned (for whatever value the victim/plaintiff puts on that exposure), the criminal case approach is mute at this point, even if the individuals in question walked up to the DA and confessed, as the SOL limitations and the varied tollings have either expired or don't apply due to the very specific requirements which are not met in this case.
Quoting the OP:
Quote:
A well known Atlanta attorney, after hearing most ALL the details of 3 separate crimes perpetrated by rapist Jim Dickinson, said he could file a complainst against him. However, the attorney warned, "I can tell you what they'll do is answer with a "cease and desist". At that point he apparently detected a lack of commitment on my part, so the case never materialized. Foolishly, I didn't recognize that he had offered me an opportunity to take the first step and get the ball rolling. I may contact him again.
As for a possible civil case, if we are ONLY addressing the incident of 40+ years ago with this specific victim, the defense is absolute. Certainly any attorney could FILE such a case, and yes, of course the defense would file the C&D. At least at that point you've got something in the public record that X plaintiff filed a case against A,B,& C defendants. But that's about as far as it's likely to get - it likely won't even get far enough in a court room for the plaintiff's/victim's attorney to stand up and make the allegation in open court and on the record. If there's an attorney with a way around the C&D, more power to them, and if the OP feels this would be worth the time, money, and effort as part of her process for dealing with the events, that's something only the OP can weigh. But even in the best case scenario, let's assume that it gets all the way in front of a judge, and the cause for the action is made part of the record. That's STILL not a verdict for the plaintiff/victim, and "exposure", by whatever means, after the case is dismissed could have the former plaintiff/victim becoming a defendant in an action by any or all of the accused. Just because I file a case saying that Joe has three eyes, that doesn't mean I am free from liability if I engage in a directed campaign to let everyone in the world know that I filed a case accusing Joe of having three eyes. So my advice to the OP, BEFORE taking formal steps to filing such a case would be to speak with an attorney specializing in libel/slander issues - otherwise the outcome could be to get all dressed up with no place to go, euphamistically.
As for the other crimes committed by the same perp, filing of civil or criminal cases against him would again be dependent on the facts of those particular cases and the willingness of those victims to participate. Maybe one of them would be worth pursuing and the OP COULD potentially be called, but there are LOTS of ways for civil or criminal defenses to fight this (putting us back to my initial statement that formal participation by the OP has potential to be more damaging and frustrating than helpful, particularly if no conviction or judgement ensues, and in light of possible dire consequences of "the exposure plan").