Antiseptic: If that's your idea of defending someone best you stay away from a career as a defence lawyer or advocate. The story was told quite a while ago now and it seems reasonable that Fractelle wouldn't dwell on it. That's only incidental to the main issue here anyway - that is, that someone sees fit - even feels entitled - to harrass and continue abuse of someone who has experienced a crime.

James spoke once about a relative who was raped; Antiseptic has said he was falsely accused of DV for just raising his voice; Roscop himself said he was sexually assaulted by a female on an aeroplane. None of you quizzed each other about the veracity of the claims yu laid out in public and all you were given, by all posters, a respectful benefit of doubt.

One of the things that strikes me as very odd is the way that Roscop has been picking over the details of this story at again and again, since at least the Angry, frustrated and powerless thread back in January or so.

The logic: That a woman would put stranguation marks and whatever other injuries on herself then trot off to the police station to spend hours making statements and filing a report in order to charge ummmm - oh nobody specifically, with a crime. What's the motive ? The police verify the evidence - but that isn't enough to satisfy Roscop either.

Roscop - in all seriousness you sick fk I urge you to see someone professional about what is going on in your head before you harm someone.

Rstuart, I see your point and am thinking on it.

I would say the consumption of alcohol is that one of the main factors that make many women vulnerable to getting into bad situations eg rape situations and is also the primary cause of them making errors of judgement, like sending naked pictures of themselves or pictures of themselves engaging in pornographic acts, to others (referred to by Ms Funnell as "sexting"). We all know that most young women are two-pot-screamers…oh better make that one pot…though they do there best to make out they can hold their grog as well as the boys.

Where it suits her it seems Funnell likes to avoid talking about the consumption of alcohol eg when talking about her own alleged assault experience. The only reference to drinks of any sort, was where she said she had been at birthday celebration drinks and where she mentioned that in the time leading up to the assault on herself, she was drinking from a soft drink container. My guess is she added that bit so as to eliminate thinking that she might have been suffering from the effects of drinking when she was assaulted. In her “Don't patronise ladies who raunch” article she said “…many of my friends enjoy big nights out on the booze”, yet I have not come across anything in her yarns, which indicates what her own drinking habits are. On the Channel 9 Today program (link given in posting above) she merely said she had been to Uni that day. I have little doubt the police would have asked her about her consumption of alcohol on the day of the assault. On the Today program she indicates that she took umbrage at some of the questions the police asked her. She said some people asked what she was wearing and whether her attacker was middle eastern. You can see, from the very measured way in which she speaks that she likes to tell people only what she wants them to know and not give them the detail (eg time references etc) that will give them a fuller picture of the event/s.

Rstuart

I really appreciate your comments - and you are right - let Roscop be revealed for the creature he is.

I apologise for my inclusion of JamesH - yes he does maintain a degree of courtesy that others could emulate.

My reaction was that of many women who have been abused and unable to prove any of it. It feels like judgement is never-ending. We are blamed for how we look, behave, even for the location where we were assaulted. No other crime puts the victim through such a degree of evaluation.

What do you suggest I do? Remain silent? Or by commenting, encourage Roscop to further vile commentary by presenting the female point of view?

Pynchme, keep up the good fight. I tried and that is all we can do.

To those who have supported me here, I really appreciate it.

To those of you who do not agree with me, but who come here eager to play the ball, not the person, I respect and enjoy the engagement.

To those who simply want to demean and belittle others using insults but not arguments, well your words say more about you than they do about me.

Roscop- I have been asked by the moderators whether I want your offensive comments removed and I think it is important not to censor debate. I also think that if nothing else your comments are evidence that there is a need for more education in this area and that there is still work for feminists to do.

But let me say this. You have every right to question and challenge people's accounts of things. But you are coming dangerously close to saying that I made the whole thing up... and if you do ever allege this you are not simply calling me a liar. You are also claiming that I have falsified a police report which constitutes criminal fraud. Let me be very clear on this point and say that if you make this claim and you publish it in a public domain (like an OLO forum) then you are also committing the crime of defamation.

Let me also say the following. I'm 25 years old. At 23 I faught off one man who attempted to rape and strangle me. If that proves nothing else it shows the I do not tolerate pathetic cowards who attempt to intimidate and abuse others. So step the fk off.

ninaf:"the crime of defamation."

And for there to be defamation there would have to be a proven cost to you. For that cost to be proven, you would need to demonstrate firstly what its nature was and secondly that it had occurred. I don't think there's much chance of that, do you?

In all seriousness and I promise I'll respect your answer, I don't see your reasoning in drawing the line at producing some evidence of your claim, when you've been more than willing to discuss the subject publicly. What is to be gained by not shutting down the sceptics and cynics?

The fact that you have threatened legal action over defamation means that you must be prepared to prove that his claims are false in Court, so why not do so before-hand and prevent the need?

Anti

Since you asked nicely (and I sense genuinely) I'll answer your question. Firstly, when I first broke the story in the SMH, they had to do fact checking to verify that I wasn't simply making the story up. This involved speaking to the detective who interviewed me (detecitve Brianna Lee, Gladesville police). That really should have been the end of it. The reason I do not want to provide the photos is that, quite frankly, they really upset me.

The only way I can explain the emotions of it is like this. Imagine having a big night, falling asleep in your makeup, waking up the next morning, hair ruffled etc, and someone shoving a camera in your face, taking lots of photos and then publishing them online. Now take that scenario multiply it by the power of 1000, and you are getting close to how I feel about the photos of me on the night. They capture me in my most exposed, vulnerable, defenceless moment and that is not something I want anyone to see. You have to understand, that to other people, they may simply be evidence but to me, they are images which document me in the height of trauma and vulnerability. Obviously I am a fairly outspoken young woman, but in those moments when those photos were being taken, I was an absolutely shattered human being.

The other thing is that even if I did provide them, Roscop would probably just say they were photoshopped. I have never asked him to prove he was assaulted on the plane. I have never asked anyone for any evidence of their assaults. The fact that there is a police report with evidence and that reputable sources like the SMH do their homework before allowing anyone to publish those sort of claims should be enough. I shouldn't have to go through the trauma of releasing very personal, painful images to skeptics like Roscop who seems determined to abuse me no matter what.