EXCERPT FROM False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault

Full text

This project was supported by Grant #2004-WT-AX-K066 awarded to End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International and
Grant #97-WE-VX-K004, awarded to the National Center for Women and Policing by the Office on Violence Against Women,
U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.
EXCERPT FROM
False Reports:
Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate
and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault
EVAW International
May 2007
Dr. Kimberly A. Lonsway
Sergeant Joanne Archambault (Ret.)
Dr. Alan Berkowitz
Training module in the On-Line Training Institute (www.evawintl.org)
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
No part of this document may be reproduced and disseminated by electronic
or other means without the written consent of EVAW International.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Acknowledgements
Development of this module was supported with funding from the Office on Violence Against
Women, Office of Justice Programs (Grant # 2004-WT-AX-K066) awarded to End Violence
Against Women (EVAW) International.
Some of this material was adapted from the module on unfounded cases and false allegations in:
"Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault: A National Training Manual for Law
Enforcement." Developed by the National Center for Women & Policing, with support provided
by the Violence Against Women Office, Office of Justice Programs (Grant #97-WE-VX-K004).
Some themes were also based on a presentation to the Colorado Organization of Victims’
Assistance (COVA) given by Marte McNally of the Rape Awareness and Assistance Program
(Denver Colorado), John Bennett of Aurora (Colorado) Police Department, and Anne Munch of
the Ending Violence Against Women project (also in Colorado).
Lt. Sue Welch (Ret.), of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho developed the graphics used in the module.
The following individuals provided expert feedback, which was incorporated into the module:
Joyce Lukima, Training and Technical Assistance Director, Pennsylvania Coalition Against
Rape (PCAR) and National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), Enola, PA
Lisa Morris, Training and Technical Assistance Specialist, California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault (CALCASA), Sacramento, CA
Karin Montejo, Division Chief, Administration and Technology Division, Miami-Dade
Police Department, Miami, FL
Joan Zorza, Editor of Sexual Assault Report and Domestic Violence Report, Washington,
DC; and Vice President of the Board of Directors for EVAW International
Cathy Stephenson, Deputy District Attorney, San Diego County District Attorney’s Office,
San Diego, CA
Erin Gaddy, Assistant Solicitor, Richland County Solicitors Office, Columbia, SC
Abigail Williams, Community Advocacy Director, SafePlace, Austin, TX
Rana Sampson, Crime Consultant, San Diego, CA
Julisa Delamar, Director, Rape Recovery Team, Women’s Center of Jacksonville,
Jacksonville, FL
Inez Baker, Fiscal Management, San Diego Police Department, San Diego, CA; also
Treasurer for the Board of Directors for EVAW International
Diana Faugno, RN, BSN, CPS, FAAFS, SANE-A, Forensic Health Service, Palomar
Pomerado Health, San Diego, CA; also Board of Directors for EVAW International
Sharon D’Eusanio, Deputy Director, Division of Victim Services and Criminal Justice
Programs Office, Florida Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL
Lt. Sue Welch (Ret.), EVAW International, Coeur d’Alene, ID
Donna Alexander, National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, Canton,
CT

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
3
Introduction
Clearly, one of the most important challenges for law enforcement training in sexual assault
investigation is the idea that many – or even most – reports are false. As long as this belief is
accepted by professionals, training will have only a very limited impact because they will
assume that it only relates to “real rape” cases (also sometimes referred to as “righteous rape”)
and not the majority of cases they see on a daily basis. Yet as we will discuss throughout this
module, these “red flags” that typically raise suspicion are actually the realistic dynamics of
sexual assault. Difficult cases that law enforcement professionals see every day are
real rapes;
that is, sexual assault as it happens in the real world and not in criminal justice textbooks.
This module is designed to directly confront this issue of false reporting. By doing so, we will
try to answer those questions that have historically created a bigger hurdle for sexual assault
victims than any lack of training or experience on the part of law enforcement professionals.
Ironically, the needs of sexual assault victims are better served by a poorly trained officer,
deputy, or investigator who believes the victim
and takes the case seriously than one who is well-
trained but believes that most reports are false. If there is one goal for this module, it is therefore
to recognize that the training throughout this curriculum is relevant for every single sexual
assault case reported to law enforcement, no matter how murky, ambiguous, or just plain
difficult. These cases may be difficult to investigate, but it does not mean they aren’t “real rape.”
“Red Flags” that Trigger Suspicion
Before we provide the actual definition for a false report, we’d like to list some of the factors that
cause many people to doubt a victim’s account of a sexual assault incident. Some of the factors
that are commonly given by law enforcement personnel and others as cause for suspicion are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The victim and suspect know each other.
The victim and suspect have had sex before.
The victim is an adolescent.
No weapon was used.
No physical violence was reported.
There is no sign of physical injury.
The victim is calm.
The victim didn’t report to law enforcement for days, weeks, or even months.
The victim first disclosed the sexual assault to someone other than law enforcement.
The victim is difficult to locate.
There is little or no physical evidence to corroborate the allegation.
The victim does not follow through or participate with the investigation.
The victim changes his or her account of what happened.
The victim is uncertain or vague about the details of the sexual assault.
The victim recants.
The victim later recalls additional information.
Details in the victim’s account are provably false.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The victim is not seen as credible.
The victim is elderly, disabled, or unattractive.
The victim is a person of color.
The victim is working class, poor, and/or on welfare.
The victim has multiple sexual partners.
The victim is male.
The victim is seen as having exercised poor judgment and thus played a part in the crime.
The victim was drunk and/or voluntarily used drugs at the time of the assault.
The victim is suspected of being a prostitute or drug addict.
The victim is thought to be involved in previous criminal behavior.
The victim is belligerent.
The victim is homeless.
The victim has a physical or mental impairment.
The victim refuses or fails a polygraph examination.
The victim has reported sexual assault(s) in the past.
No suspect can be identified.
The suspect seems sincerely upset and confused by the allegations.
The suspect seems respectable, credible, or even likeable.
The suspect is white
The suspect is from the middle class or even upper class of society.
The suspect is attractive and has an active, consensual sex life.
Perhaps your personal “red flags” match those on the list, or perhaps they are different. Yet
regardless of what our personal “red flags” are, they typically spark a similar gut reaction.
Please note that in this module and throughout the curriculum, we will typically use the
term “sexual assault” because it is more general than the term “rape.” However, when
we do use the term “rape” we will use it interchangeably with the term “sexual assault.”
Of course, we realize that some state penal codes define the terms differently.
Our Gut Reaction to the “Red Flags”
If you are like many law enforcement professionals, your gut reaction to these “red flags” is
probably frustration and/or anger. You may also feel like the person filing the false report has
taken advantage of you, “wasted your time,” “taken you for a ride,” and perhaps even
undermined your credibility or made you look foolish. This same gut reaction is often seen
among prosecutors, medical professionals, even victim advocates, and even friends and family
members of victims.
The reality is, no one likes to feel lied to or taken advantage of, so it is natural that we would
experience anger or frustration when we suspect that someone has filed a false report of sexual
assault. Yet this type of gut reaction can obviously interfere with how we might view a victim.
Thus, while the anger or frustration that law enforcement professionals feel may be completely

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
5
understandable, it may in fact be unwarranted, and it will certainly harm both the victim and the
investigation. This occurs in three primary ways.
• First, the suspicion is often misplaced. As we have already discussed, officers,
deputies, and investigators all too often suspect that a sexual assault report is false
based on the “red flags” listed above. If they do, they are probably wrong. In
fact, the “red flags” actually represent the realistic dynamics
of a typical sexual
assault. Just to illustrate, individuals with a physical or mental impairment are
among the most vulnerable to sexual assault. Yet, they are often suspected of
filing a false report. As with other “red flags,” these victims are capable of
providing quality information and serving as a credible witness, as long as the
investigation and interview is conducted appropriately. As with other “red flags,”
individuals with a mental and physical impairment deserve to have their sexual
assault investigated thoroughly and from the assumption that it is legitimate. The
same is true for every one of the “red flag” characteristics included on our list.
• Second, this suspicion interferes with a thorough investigation. Law
enforcement professionals typically know that they are not supposed to let their
own gut reactions get in the way of doing their job. Of course, this is easier said
than done, but it is critically important that officers, deputies, and investigators
not let their suspicion interfere with a thorough investigation of any sexual assault
report. As we will discuss later, the determination that a sexual assault report is
false can only be made if the evidence establishes that no crime was completed or
attempted. This evidence will only be available after a thorough investigation, not
after only a preliminary investigation or initial interview with the victim.
• Third, this suspicion is based on inappropriate personal assumptions. To
truly understand the issue of false reporting requires that we change our own
personal beliefs about sexual assault, and therefore our own personal assumptions
about those who sexually assault (primarily men) and those who are victimized
(primarily women). For men, this can be especially challenging because it
requires a re-definition of men who rape to include individuals who may seem
respectable and credible, even likeable. Many sexual assault cases involve men
who are like ourselves in many respects. Others involve a suspect who is known
and respected in the community, such as a prominent citizen, celebrity, politician,
or an athlete on a university campus or professional sports team.
Throughout this module, we will explore how law enforcement professionals can respond when
these “red flags” are present in a sexual assault case. It is important to understand the role that
these red flags play in creating unwarranted suspicion of sexual assault victims. Yet we also
want to be very upfront about acknowledging the gut reaction that goes along with this suspicion.
This is necessary to truly confront the issue of false reporting and appreciate how the “red flags”
are actually based on our cultural stereotypes of “real rape.”

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
6
•
Stereotypes of “Real Rape”
As we have said, many of these “red flags” are actually based on our cultural stereotypes of what
constitutes “real rape” (sometimes referred to as “righteous rape”). Law enforcement
professionals are often reluctant to believe that they share these stereotypes, but the reality is that
everyone in our society is exposed to the same cultural messages about sexual assault, and they
inevitably influence how we think about it. These cultural stereotypes are deeply rooted in
societal sexism and strongly affected by racism. They are therefore the product of our culture’s
ideas about women’s rights and roles, stereotypes about women of color, and the myth of the
black male rapist. Because these are societal stereotypes, they impact not only law enforcement,
but also advocates, prosecutors, juries, and even friends and family members of victims.
Whether or not we believe in the stereotype, we can all describe what our society considers to be
a “real rape.” In fact, if we look back at our list of “red flags” we can see that the stereotypic
characteristics of “real rape” are exactly the opposite as the “red flags” that we listed before.
Take a look:
The victim and suspect do not
know each other – they are strangers.
• The victim and suspect have not
had sex before – again, they are strangers.
• The victim is a responsible adult, not
an adolescent.
• A weapon was used.
• Physical violence was reported.
• There are
signs of physical injury.
• The victim is hysterical, not
calm.
• The victim reports to law enforcement immediately.
• The victim reports the sexual assault to law enforcement first
, not to someone else.
• The victim is easy
to locate.
• There is a great deal of physical evidence to corroborate the allegation.
• The victim does
follow through and actively participate with the investigation.
• The victim does not
change his or her account of what happened.
• The victim is absolutely certain
about the details of the sexual assault.
• The victim does not
recant.
• The victim does not
recall additional information later – it is all recalled immediately.
• Not a single detail
in the victim’s account is provably false.
• The victim is
seen as credible.
• The victim is young, able-bodied, and attractive – not elderly, disabled, or unattractive.
• The victim is white, not a person of color.
•
•
•
•
The victim is from the middle class or even upper class of society.
The victim is female.
The victim is a virgin, abstains from sex, or is sexually monogamous.
The victim did not
exercise bad judgment at the time of the sexual assault.
• The victim was completely sober at the time of the assault – not drunk or using drugs,
unless those drugs were administered without the victim’s knowledge
• The victim is not
suspected of being a prostitute or drug addict

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
7
• The victim is not thought to be involved in previous criminal behavior.
• The victim is compliant and cooperative – not
belligerent.
• The victim is a respected citizen – not
homeless
• The victim does not
have a physical or mental impairment
• The victim takes and passes
a polygraph examination.
• The victim has never
reported a sexual assault in the past.
• The suspect does not
appear to be upset or confused by the allegations.
• The suspect is seen as sick, crazy, or deranged – not
respectable, credible, or likeable
• The suspect is a person of color – not
white.
•
•
The suspect is poor or working class.
The suspect is not
attractive and does not have an active, consensual sex life.
If you asked a room full of law enforcement professionals how many of their cases resemble this
stereotype, most would say that only a very small percentage of their cases do. In fact, the
research
i
is clear that these stereotypic characteristics of “real rape” are actually quite rare:
• In reality, most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, without
a weapon, physical violence, or signs of physical injury.
• Very few
victims report immediately to law enforcement, but if they do report to
law enforcement, it is often after a delay
of days, weeks, months, or even years.
• Many victims have a number of factors that limit their perceived credibility:
they are often young, homeless, have a mental or physical impairment, are
belligerent, and/or abusing alcohol or controlled substances.
• Victims often
omit, exaggerate or fabricate parts of their account, and they may
even recant altogether. They are not
typically hysterical when interviewed by
medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, or others.
• Suspects often
do not fit our stereotype of a “rapist.” For example, despite the
stereotypic image of black men as criminals, most sexual assaults are intra-racial,
committed between people of the same racial/ethnic group. In many cases, the
suspect is a respected person with status and position in the community.
In short, most sexual assault reports involve at least some of the “red flags” listed above
. So,
whether or not we want to admit it, these “red flags” are in fact the realistic characteristics of
sexual assault in the real world and not in criminal justice textbooks or the movies. Yet despite
this fact, sexual assault reports that are different from this stereotype of “real rape” are all too
often viewed with suspicion, not only by law enforcement but also by everyone else in society.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
8
How the stereotype of “real rape” affects the law enforcement investigation
So we all know what the societal stereotype of “real rape” is. Now let’s explore how might it
affect the response of law enforcement professionals. How might the stereotype affect the law
enforcement investigation that is conducted when a sexual assault is reported?
First, how might this stereotype of “real rape” affect our response to victims
who don’t look or act anything like they are “supposed” to?
The stereotype makes us less likely to believe these victims, and more likely to
suspect that they are lying about having been sexually assaulted.
Second, how might this stereotype affect our view of a suspect
who seems like
a “nice guy” and doesn’t look like the societal image of a rapist?
The stereotype makes us more sympathetic to suspects, and more likely to believe
their statements, including the claim that the victim consented to sexual activity.
Finally, how might this stereotype affect our estimate for how many sexual
assault reports are false? Will the stereotype lead us to over
estimate or
under
estimate the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false?
If we suspect that cases with “red flags” (i.e., the realistic dynamics of sexual
assault) are actually false reports, we may dramatically over
estimate the
percentage of sexual assault reports that are false.
If we believe the stereotype of “real rape,” this will lead us to doubt the claims of victims whose
cases don’t look like the stereotype. However, since the realistic dynamics of sexual assault are
actually the opposite
of the stereotypic characteristics, this suspicion is likely to be misplaced. It
also makes it unlikely that a thorough law enforcement investigation will ever be conducted and
it makes successful prosecution even less likely.
How the stereotypes make successful prosecution less likely
Of course, prosecutors are also exposed to the same societal messages about what constitutes a
“real rape,” so they share the same “red flags” for suspecting that a sexual assault report is false.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that prosecutors personally believe
in the stereotypes of “real
rape.” They may or may not. Often, prosecutors understand the realistic dynamics of sexual
assault, but know that this stereotype will be prominent in the minds of judges and jurors as they
make decisions regarding a sexual assault case. Prosecutors therefore believe that they cannot
ethically charge a defendant in cases that depart too much from the stereotype of “real rape,”
because a jury would not be likely to convict. All of this makes cases with “red flags” more
difficult to investigate and prosecute – despite the fact that at least some of these “red flags” are
actually seen in the vast majority of sexual assault cases.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
9
How to confront the issue of false reporting
To confront this issue of false reporting, it is important to first recognize the serious damage that
is done to the reputation and credibility of a law enforcement agency when sexual assaults are
incorrectly labeled as false. As with the rest of society, law enforcement professionals must
think carefully about these “red flags” and come to terms with the fact that they are based on the
cultural stereotype of “real rape” and not the realistic dynamics sexual assault. Only then can we
truly confront the issue of false reporting as the primary barrier to successful sexual assault
investigation and prosecution.
• First, we must all acknowledge that we share the same cultural stereotype of “real
rape” and recognize that it causes us to view reports with suspicion if they depart
from this stereotype and actually exhibit some of the “red flags” discussed above.
• Second, we need to own up to the fact that all of us are likely to feel anger and/or
frustration when we suspect that someone is filing a false report of sexual assault.
• Third, we must re-examine our own personal assumptions about what constitutes
a “sexual assault” and who is likely to be a victim or a perpetrator.
By recognizing that the “red flags” actually represent the typical dynamics of sexual assault in
the real world, we can recognize that training in sexual assault investigation does in fact apply to
all of those difficult cases that law enforcement professionals handle, day in and day out – and
not just cases that look like the stereotype of “real rape” or “righteous rape.”
Cases that may seem to be “unbelievable”
Of course, there are also plenty of examples of sexual assault reports that seemed to be
unbelievable – and were suspected of being a false report – when they were 100% true.
• For example, one case in the Boston area involved a woman who claimed to have
been sexually assaulted by a man she had dated briefly. He denied the charge, and
provided evidence that he was thousands of miles away at the time of the sexual
assault. At this point, many people would suspect a false report, but a dedicated
investigator remained open-minded enough to question the suspect again – only to
discover that he had an identical twin brother
who was unknown to the victim. The
twin brother ultimately pled guilty to the sexual assault.
ii
• In another case, sex crimes investigators in Philadelphia doubted the report of a
woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a stranger who gained entry to her
apartment through a seven-inch gap
in the security bars of her window. Within days,
the case was classified as inactive, even though a neighbor reportedly saw a man drag
a trash bin under the window and try to squeeze through the bars – and at least one
other woman in the community reported being sexually assaulted by a man who
entered through an opening approximately the same size. DNA evidence eventually

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
10
linked the same man to a total of six separate sexual assaults. He is currently
imprisoned in Colorado, facing life sentences in both Pennsylvania and Colorado.
iii
Obviously, these cases would raise “red flags,” even among the most reasonable of people. Such
cases therefore challenge all of us to remain open-minded about sexual assault reports, no matter
how many “red flags” they raise or how unbelievable they may seem.
The reality is that all sexual assault reports must be taken at face value and
investigated thoroughly, fairly, and with sensitivity.
Only a thorough, evidence-based investigation can be used to make judgments about a sexual
assault case, not assumptions – even when those assumptions may seem to be reasonable on the
basis of the initial facts of the case. It is therefore critically important to follow all the evidence
that the investigation reveals, and not just the evidence that supports an initial judgment about a
case. As any experienced investigator will tell you, the evidence may reveal that this initial
judgment was wrong.
What is the Actual Definition of a False Report?
Law enforcement professionals and others clearly have a variety of different ideas about what
exactly constitutes a false report, but the most reasonable definition is that:
A false report is a report of a sexual assault that did not happen (it was not
completed or attempted).
While we might all agree with this simplistic definition of a false report, people have different
ideas about exactly when
they can decide that the sexual assault did not actually happen. For
example, law enforcement professionals and others all too often decide that a sexual assault did
not happen based simply on their own views of the victim, the suspect, and their credibility. This
is an unacceptable practice.
• In reality, law enforcement investigators cannot determine that the sexual assault
did not happen, simply because they suspect that the report is false, view it with
suspicion, or because the victim changes his or her account of what happened.
•
•
•
Investigators certainly cannot determine that the sexual assault did not happen
because the victim lacks credibility – perhaps because the victim is young, drunk,
taking drugs, belligerent, or suspected of being a prostitute.
Similarly, investigators cannot determine that the sexual assault did not happen
because: they sympathize with the suspect, he seems sincerely outraged and upset
by the charges, he has a credible story, or he appears to be a responsible citizen
who does not meet our personal assumptions about who is likely to be a “rapist.”
In other words, investigators cannot determine that the sexual assault did not
happen just because any of the “red flags” are present in a sexual assault case.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
11
• In many cases, these stereotypes create a bias that we may not be aware of but
nonetheless causes us to both: (a) doubt or discount the victim’s allegations, and
(b) sympathize with the suspect or lend credence to his version of events.
Rather, law enforcement professionals must base all final judgments of a sexual assault report on
the findings from a thorough, evidence-based investigation. The determination that a report is
false can then only be made when there is sufficient evidence to establish that the sexual assault
did not happen (was not completed or attempted.) This is so important that it bears repeating:
The determination that a report is false can only be made when there is
sufficient evidence to establish that the sexual assault did not happen (was
not completed or attempted).
This does not mean that the investigation failed to prove
that the sexual assault happened – in
that case the investigation would simply be inconclusive or unsubstantiated. It also does not
mean that the suspect was unable to successfully complete
the sexual assault – this would be an
attempted sexual assault and/or some other sexual offense.
Again the determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that
establishes that the sexual assault (or attempt) did not
actually happen.
While this is the actual definition of a false report for law enforcement purposes, it does not
typically reflect the way officers, deputies, investigators, and even supervisors tend to think of
their sexual assault investigations.
iv
In fact, at virtually every training on this topic, we hear from
law enforcement professionals who routinely unfound cases either because they do not believe
the victim’s account or they failed to prove it conclusively. As we will discuss throughout this
module, this practice fails to meet the needs of both victims and the larger society.
So, although the actual definition of a false report should be the same for every law enforcement
agency, it is clear that the practices that are really used vary dramatically. This is why the
percentage of sexual assault reports that are unfounded by various law enforcement agencies are
so different; many are labeling sexual assault reports false without any evidence to establish that
they did not occur. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the module on Clearance Methods.
But What if Part of the Report is False?
When we defined a false report, we said that it was a report of a sexual assault that was
determined on the basis of the evidence to have not been completed or attempted. Now we want
to address the very common problem that police investigators face – that parts of the victim’s
account may be false, omitted, exaggerated, or inconsistent with other information that is given.
• In other words, how false
does a false report need to be?
• Does the whole report have to be false to constitute a false report of sexual assault?

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
12
This issue is discussed extensively in the module on Victim Interviewing, but it also requires
attention here. That is, many victims will give inconsistent or untrue information as part of their
statement, but this must never be confused with a false report.
For most law enforcement professionals, it is not difficult to come up with reasons why sexual
assault victims might omit, exaggerate, or even fabricate aspects of their report.
•
•
•
•
•
For example, victims might give inconsistent or untrue information out of trauma
or disorganization. When we are traumatized, we do not always think clearly
and cannot necessarily provide information that is 100% complete and accurate.
This is especially true for victims who have been sexually assaulted more than
once, because aspects of the prior sexual assault may be confused with the current
one. Victims may also have memory impairment due to alcohol or drug use.
Victims might also give incomplete, inconsistent, or untrue information because
they are uncomfortable relaying details of the sexual assault. This may be
particularly likely for details regarding the sexual acts involved. For example, it
is quite common for sexual assault victims to describe the incident as involving
only penile-vaginal penetration because they are uncomfortable reporting other
crimes such as oral copulation or anal penetration.
Victims also frequently minimize the details of the sexual assault and the
extent of the trauma they experienced. Often, victims will offer an initial
description of the event that sounds trivial, but when encouraged to elaborate, it
becomes clear that the victim experienced considerable force, threat, or fear. The
reasons for this vary. For many victims, minimizing the trauma of the assault is a
strategy (whether conscious or not) for attempting to gain control over it. There is
also a great deal of pressure in our society to handle traumatic events stoically and
without complaint; this is particularly true in certain cultural groups. In many
cases, however, victims haven’t had time to process what happened to them at the
time of the initial community response, so they do not realize themselves the
significance of the assault and the enormity of the impact it has had on them.
Many victims give information that is incomplete, inconsistent, or untrue because
they are afraid that they won’t be believed or that they will be blamed for the
sexual assault. To illustrate, victims may omit details that will undermine their
credibility, such as drug or alcohol use, prostitution, or other unflattering or even
illegal behavior. Of course, victims may also omit details about their own
unlawful activity out of the fear of being arrested. We will address this issue in
more detail later. For now, we must simply accept that this fear is real.
Victims also sometimes minimize what happened or change the details in order to
protect the perpetrator. This can occur when the two have a relationship, when
the victim depends on the perpetrator for financial or emotional support, or is
afraid of getting the perpetrator “into trouble.” As a result, victims may give
incorrect or confusing information about what actually occurred.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
13
•
•
• Victims also may give information that is incomplete, inconsistent or inaccurate
because of their immigration status (or assumed status). Many victims have
learned from experiences in their country of origin that authority figures are not to
be trusted, particularly law enforcement officers. In addition, suspects often use
immigration status against victims, threatening to report them to immigration
authorities or to have them deported if they tell anyone about the sexual assault.
• There can also be cultural reasons for exaggerating or minimizing the facts of a
sexual assault report. For victims from another culture, beliefs about what is
acceptable to tell a stranger and taboos about sexuality and sexual activity may
influence their description of what happened. This problem can be especially
pronounced when the (female) victim is from a minority culture and the (male)
law enforcement professional is from the dominant culture of the United States.
• Victims from a minority cultural group may be particularly reluctant to report a
sexual assault against another member of their cultural group, because it is
sometimes seen as a betrayal of the victim’s cultural group. This reluctance may
be heightened when there is a perception that the cultural group is treated unfairly
by law enforcement (e.g., African-Americans, Americans of Arab descent).
However, one of the most common reasons why victims alter or exaggerate the details of what
happened is to create a case that seems more believable. This can be due to guilt, shame, or a
fear of not being believed. Just like everyone else in society, sexual assault victims know the
stereotype of a “real rape” – that it is perpetrated by a stranger with a weapon or physical
violence, that it is reported to law enforcement immediately, and that the victim is emotionally
hysterical. In an effort to be believed, therefore, victims may change aspects of the reported
incident to make it sound more like this stereotype.
For example, victims may report that they were assaulted by a stranger when they
really knew the suspect, and perhaps even had a prior sexual relationship together.
Victims may also report that the suspect used a weapon when this is not really
true, or describe threats of physical violence that were not really made.
Remember that victims also struggle with the same societal stereotypes as well.
When we think about these dynamics, it makes sense why victims might provide inconsistent,
incomplete, or even untrue statements. Yet many investigators and others have seen this as
evidence of a “false report.” In fact, none of these situations meets the actual criteria for a false
report – because even if aspects of the victim’s account of the incident are missing, exaggerated,
or false, this does not necessarily mean that the sexual assault did not happen.
The bottom line is that while these types of cases can be extremely difficult to investigate when
the victim provides partial or distorted information, they cannot be considered false reports
unless there is evidence to support that determination.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
14
How Investigators can Create a “False Report”
Another factor to consider is the ways in which law enforcement professionals can create
a “false
report” out of one that is actually legitimate. As described by Latts and Geiselman (1991), this
process begins with the suspicion held by many officers, deputies, and investigators that a large
percentage of sexual assault victims are lying.
If the police do not believe the victim, they may directly or indirectly make this
known to her, perhaps by excessive questioning that focuses on an absence of
obvious injury or some delay in reporting the incident. The victim, in turn, may
become upset and withdraw her cooperation. Though the woman may have been
an actual survivor of rape, her lack of cooperation is itself considered sufficient
grounds for marking a case as unfounded in most jurisdictions (Latts &
Geiselman, 1991, p. 8)
Investigators also sometimes use information from the suspect
to aggressively
question the victim.
For example, they may interview suspects who claim that the
act was consensual and offer facts to support that claim (e.g., how the victim was
dressed, what the victim was doing, etc.). Then, the investigators question the
victim repeatedly about these claims, until he or she finally gives up and recants.
In this type of situation, no real investigation is even conducted. Rather, the “investigation”
stops in the initial stages of the interview with the victim. Or in this case, it sounds like an
interrogation
was actually conducted of the victim, which is of course totally inappropriate.
The “cycle of suspicion” against victims
We describe this process as the “cycle of suspicion” against victims. When law enforcement
professionals do not believe the victim, and communicate this (misplaced) suspicion, either
directly or indirectly, they can lead victims to become non-cooperative when they would not
otherwise have been. Worse, by “creating” non-cooperative victims in this way, investigators
further fuel the myth that most victims will not participate in a law enforcement investigation
and most sexual assault reports are false. This mistrust is then heightened and carried over into
the next case. “The result is a never-ending spiral of suspicion and pain,” for both victims and
investigators (McDowell & Hibler, 1987, p. 275).
In the short-term, this “cycle of suspicion” compromises individual investigations. In the long-
term, however, it undermines community trust and respect for the law enforcement agency itself.
This problem is seen in the kind of headlines provided before, and in quotes like this one from a
Police Chief on a Florida university campus, which was cited in a newspaper article with the
headline: FAU police had hunch sex assault claim untrue:
“People were saying the school wasn’t safe, that there weren’t enough qualified
police officers, that we weren’t police officers, we were security guards ... I
wanted so badly to say we don’t believe this happened.”
v

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
15
The Cycle of Suspicion
Investigator
doesn’t believe
the victim
Communicates
this suspicion
to the victim
Victim withdraws
and/or becomes
non-cooperative
“See, I knew
it was a false
report!”
Without detailed information from the investigation, it is impossible to determine from this
newspaper article whether or not the report of sexual assault was false. However, quotes like this
from a police chief clearly send a damaging message to the community that reports of sexual
assault may be viewed with suspicion and investigated with the motive of proving them false.
The “cycle of sympathy” for suspects
A parallel cycle can also occur when investigators sympathize
with the suspect in a sexual
assault investigation. We can describe this as a “cycle of sympathy,” to distinguish it from the
“cycle of suspicion” that involves sexual assault victims.
• This cycle takes place when an investigator meets a suspect, and the suspect
appears to be credible, respectable, or even likeable. In other words, the
investigator feels that the suspect does not “look like a rapist” or seem like
someone who would commit a sexual assault.
• The suspect may even have a plausible story to explain what happened and may
truly believe that he had permission from the victim to engage in sexual activity.
This leaves the suspect feeling upset, outraged, and disoriented by the charges.
As with the cycle of (misplaced) suspicion involving victims, this cycle of (misplaced) sympathy
for suspects is communicated by the investigator – to both suspects and victims – through the
type of investigation that is conducted, the particular questions asked, and the statements made to
the suspect, victim, and others. Of course, victims pick up on this attitude of sympathy toward
the suspect, and often react by feeling that their statements have been discounted or not believed.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
16
Where the “cycle of suspicion” and “cycle of sympathy” converge
So this is where the cycle of misplaced suspicion and sympathy converge. By communicating an
attitude of suspicion
to the victim and sympathy to the suspect, the investigator inevitably begins
to lend credence to statements made by the suspect and discounts statements made by the victim.
In other words, the victim starts to feel like a suspect, and the suspect starts to feel like a victim.
• Then as the suspect gains confidence that the investigation is either “going his
way” – or “going nowhere” – the victim is likely to withdraw from active
participation in the investigation or even become non-cooperative.
• This heightens the investigator’s suspicion that the victim was not trustworthy or
reliable, and increases the attitude of sympathy toward the suspect.
• So the cycle repeats. This suspicion of sexual assault victims is carried over to
the next case – and so is the sympathy for the suspect who seems like “a nice
guy” and not at all like the stereotype of a rapist.
In a nutshell, these cultural stereotypes about victims and perpetrators of sexual assault influence
the way law enforcement professionals and others view real cases – by increasing the likelihood
that the suspect’s statement will be seen as true and the victim’s statement will be seen as false.
So How Many Sexual Assault Reports Really are False?
Now we’ve talked at length about the societal myth that a high percentage of sexual assault
reports are false, and we’ve explored how this can damage the law enforcement response to
victims. However, the question remains: “How many sexual assault reports really are false?”
In the research literature, estimates for the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false have
varied widely, virtually across the entire possible spectrum. This is not surprising given
variations in law enforcement practices for determining a complaint to be false and recording it
as such: “variations, so diverse, in fact, that some police agencies cannot find a single rape
complaint with
merit, while others cannot find a single rape complaint without merit” (Kanin,
1994, p. 89, emphasis added).
•
•
To illustrate, estimates provided over the years have ranged from lows of 0.25%
(O’Reilly, 1984), 1% (Krasner, Meyer, & Carroll, 1976), and 2% (Hecht-
Schafran, 1993) to highs of 80-90% (Bronson, 1981; Comment, 1968).
In one survey conducted at the Denver Metropolitan Area Police Department,
detectives from within the same agency
provided estimates for the percentage of
false reports ranging from 5% to 65% (McNally, Bennett, & Munch, 1999).
• In another informal survey of conference participants including law enforcement,
victim advocates, and other criminal justice personnel, the participants’ estimates
varied even more widely, from 0% to 98% (McNally, Bennett, & Munch, 1999).

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
17
In the most frequently cited study on this topic, Professor Eugene Kanin (1994) reported that
41% of the 109 sexual assault reports made to one midwestern police agency were deemed to be
false over a 9-year time period. He also reported that 50% of the 64 sexual assault charges were
recorded as false by two college police departments studied. However, in all three agencies the
determination that the charges were false was made solely by the detectives; this evaluation was
not reviewed substantively by the researcher or anyone else. Moreover, there are a number of
very serious problems with the methodology that limit confidence in the validity of his
conclusions.
vi
These same problems are evident in more recent research on the topic as well.
vii
In contrast, when sex crimes investigators actually try to determine the number of sexual assault
reports that are false – based on the evidence from a thorough investigation – the picture is quite
different. In that situation, the determination that a sexual assault report can be made with much
greater confidence and the estimates begin to converge around 2-4%.
• For example, the Portland, Oregon police department examined 431 complaints of
completed or attempted sexual assault in 1990, and found that 1.6% were
determined to be false. This was in comparison with a rate of 2.6% for false
reports of stolen vehicles (Oregon Attorney General’s Office, 2006).
•
•
Similarly, Sgt. Joanne Archambault of the Sex Crimes Division of the San Diego
Police Department routinely evaluated the rate of false reports over several years
and found them to be around 4%.
Interestingly, the statistics even appear to converge internationally. In a recent
study of 2,643 sexual assault cases reported to British police, 8% were initially
classified as false allegations. Yet when the researchers applied the actual criteria
for establishing a false allegation, this figure dropped to 2%. These criteria
specified that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the
complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005).
In reality, no one knows – and in fact no one can possibly know – exactly how many sexual
assault reports are false. However, estimates narrow to the range of 2-4% when they are based
on a careful analysis of actual case files by experts in police investigation and coding.
Of course, this realistic and evidence-based
estimate of 2-4% suggests that the American public
dramatically overestimates the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false. It’s probably
not hard to imagine why. For example, we have all seen how victims are portrayed in the media
accounts of rape accusations made against popular sports and cultural figures. These media
accounts show us just how easy it is for us as a society to believe the suspect’s statements (a
respected cultural icon) and both discount the victim’s statements and disparage her character.
This tendency to overestimate the percentage of false reports can obviously introduce bias into
the law enforcement investigation because it causes us to give less credibility to victims and
more credibility to suspects. This is especially true if the victim’s behavior is seen as risky or
problematic and if the suspect seems like a “nice guy” who doesn’t look like a stereotypic rapist.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
18
How to Handle the Frustrating Reality of “Real” False Reports
Of course, having demonstrated that the percentage of false sexual assault reports is not as high
as many people think, this does not deny their terrible reality. We all know that false reports do
really exist, and they are incredibly damaging both to law enforcement personnel and to the
countless victims of sexual assault whose credibility they undermine.
Potential indicators of a false report
Sex crimes investigators may already be familiar with some of the training materials that are
widely available to describe “indicators” of a false report. Unfortunately, some of these
indicators are based on research that is extremely limited and/or inappropriate for this purpose.
For example, many were developed on the basis of FBI experience with false reports of stranger
sexual assaults. These may not be appropriate, however, with the vast majority of sexual assault
reports involving a perpetrator who is known to the victim. Regardless, these training materials
typically suggest that the potential indicators of a false report are actually the same stereotypic
characteristics of “real rape” described previously. This is not a coincidence.
Consider this: If you were going to file a false report of sexual assault, would
you describe the realistic dynamics of sexual assault? Would you really say that
you were assaulted by someone you knew, perhaps someone with whom you have
had a relationship or even had sex? Would you really say that you were drinking
at the time, or perhaps even taking drugs, or engaging in other risky behavior?
Probably not.
By describing this type of realistic sexual assault, you might not get
the kind of reaction you were looking for, because people might respond to you in
the same way they respond to victims of sexual assaults in the real world. That is,
you might not be believed, or you might be blamed for the sexual assault yourself.
Therefore, if you were going to file a false report of sexual assault, you would
probably describe a sexual assault that looks like the stereotype of “real rape” that
we have discussed at such length throughout this module.
For this reason, it is not surprising that the potential indicators of a false report are actually the
same as the stereotypic characteristics of “real rape.” To summarize material developed by
McDowell and Hibler (1987), realistic indicators of a false report could potentially include:
A perpetrator who is either a stranger or a vaguely described acquaintance
who is not identified by name. As previously discussed, most sexual assault
perpetrators are actually known to their victims. Identifying the suspect is
therefore not typically a problem. However, victims who fabricate a sexual
assault report may not want anyone to actually be arrested for the fictional crime.
Therefore, they may say that they were sexually assaulted by a stranger or an
acquaintance who is only vaguely described and not identified by name.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
19
Victim claims of having physically resisted to the utmost. In fact, many
victims do not physically resist during a sexual assault. There are a number of
reasons for this. Many victims are simply too surprised or confused to resist,
because they are assaulted by someone they know and trust. Often, they do not
resist during the sexual assault because they are simply trying to make sense of
what is happening. Other victims do not physically resist because they don’t trust
their own perceptions of what is happening, or blame themselves for the situation.
Of course, physical resistance is not likely among victims who experience
dissociation or frozen fright, and those who have been drinking and/or taking
drugs. Still other victims do not physically resist because they are too frightened,
and may even fear that resistance will anger their assailant and increase their risk
of injury or death. Therefore, although many sexual assault victims do not
physically resist, a false report may include a description by the victim as having
resisted vigorously.
Use of a weapon, serious physical violence, and/or signs of injury. Most
sexual assaults do not actually involve a weapon, physical violence, or evidence
of physical injury. Yet fabricated claims may be more likely to resemble the
stereotype of “real rape” in this regard. In some cases, individuals who falsely
report a sexual assault may even inflict physical injuries upon themselves to
bolster the credibility of their report. These can sometimes be identified by their
nature and placement, which suggest that they were self-inflicted and are
generally superficial.
An assault involving only penile-vaginal penetration. While other sexual acts
are commonly experienced by sexual assault victims, fabricated claims typically
include only this “classic” form of rape (i.e., penile-vaginal penetration).
Still other indicators may be based on the lifestyle or history of the reporting party, such as:
• Escalating problems in life or personal relationships
• A documented history of mental or emotional problems
• Characteristics of the allegation that “copycat” a highly publicized crime
While these indicators may therefore raise suspicion that a report of sexual assault may be false,
none of them should be considered significant when observed in isolation.
In fact, some of these
factors are particularly challenging because they are associated both
with an increased risk of
actually being sexually assaulted and
with an increased likelihood of filing a false report.
Examples include “escalating problems in life or personal relationship” and “a documented
history of mental or emotional problems.”
• On the one hand, these factors make an individual more vulnerable to actually
being sexually assaulted.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
20
• Yet these same factors may also indicate emotional instability that could
potentially lead an individual to file a false report of sexual assault.
Therefore, a report should only be considered suspect when a number of these indicators are
present. The decision that a sexual assault report is false should never be made solely on the
presence of one of these indicators. Then the report can only be determined to be false when the
investigative facts directly contradict the victim’s account of events. In fact, the best way to
identify a false report is to uncover evidence that actually contradicts the victim’s account of
events or make it impossible for the sexual assault to have taken place as described.
• For example, there might be no sign of a physical struggle or injury when there
logically should be.
• Or perhaps the victim states that she was “hit over the head with a bat and knocked
unconscious” or “cut with a knife” yet there is no evidence of such an injury.
There might even be evidence that the victim purchased materials used in the sexual assault or
wrote a note or letter that is attributed to the suspect (McDowell & Hibler, 1987). Therefore, the
determination that a report is false is the result of “putting all the pieces together.”
Putting All the Pieces Together
Vague
description of
assailant
Victim reports
utmost resistance
Assault
involves only
penile-vaginal
intercourse
Suspect used a
weapon /
caused physical
injury
Victim history
of emotional /
mental
problems
Escalating problems in
victim’s personal life
Investigation
inconsistent with
report
Characteristics
that copycat a
well-publicized
crime
Is this a
false
report?

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
21
Conclusion
As we hope you have seen throughout this module, one of the most important challenges for
successfully investigating and prosecuting cases of non-stranger sexual assault is the idea that
many – or even most – reports are false. As long as this belief is accepted by law enforcement
professionals, prosecutors, jurors, and others, our efforts to improve the criminal justice response
to sexual assault will have only limited impact. Only those cases that look like our societal
stereotype of “real rape” will be successfully investigated and prosecuted.
• To move beyond this issue of false reporting, one of the most important steps we
can take is therefore to recognize that the “red flags” that raise suspicion in the
minds of most people actually represent the typical dynamics of sexual assault in
the real world.
• Once we accept this reality, we can begin to move beyond this issue to more
successfully investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases, especially those
involving non-strangers.
By directly confronting this issue of false reporting, we therefore hope to answer those questions
that have historically created a bigger hurdle for sexual assault victims than any lack of training
or experience on the part of law enforcement professionals. If there is one goal for this module,
it is to accept that the training throughout this entire curriculum is relevant for every single
sexual assault case reported to law enforcement, no matter how murky, ambiguous, or just plain
difficult.
For More Information
International Association of Chiefs of Police (July, 2005). Investigating Sexual Assaults:
Model Policy and Concepts and Issues Paper. Published by the IACP National Law
Enforcement Policy Center, Alexandria, VA. Available at:
Investigating Sexual Assaults
Concepts and Issues Paper (July 2005), Investigating Sexual Assault Model Policy (May 2005).
Three corresponding are also available: Part I: Investigating Sexual Assaults; Part II: Elements
of Sexual Assault & Initial Response; and Part II: Investigative Procedures, and Part III:
Investigative Strategy & Prosecution. These training keys are also published by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (
www.theiacp.org) and available at: training keys.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
22
References
Aiken, M.M. (1993). False allegation: A concept in the context of rape. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing,
31, 15-20.
Bachman, R. & Saltzman, L.E. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey.
Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC.
Bohmer, C. & Parrot, A. (1993). Sexual Assault on Campus: The Problem and the Solution. New York:
Lexington Books.
Brener, M.D., McMahon, P.M., Warren, C.W., & Douglas, K.A. (1999). Sexual assault and mental
disorders in a community population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 252-
259.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bronson, F.R. (1981). False allegations of rape. Am. J. Urol. Sex 14, 509-510.
Comment (1968). Police discretion and the judgement that a crime has been committed. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 118, 227-322.
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Washington,
DC: US Department of Justice: National Institute of justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Florida Law Enforcement Research Council (November, 1999). Responding to Sexual Violence: Model
Policy Number Two for Florida Law Enforcement. Available at:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/flerc/GTFMPSV.htm
Hecht-Schafran, L. (1993). Writing and reading about rape: A primer. St. John's Law Review, 66, 979-
1045.
Humphrey, S. & Kahn, A. (2000). Fraternities, athletic teams and rape: Importance of identification with
a risky group. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15 (12) 1313-1322.
Jordan, F.D. (1996). Sex Crime Investigations: The Complete Investigator’s Handbook. Boulder
Colorado: Palladin Press.
Kanin, E.J. (1994). False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 81-91.
Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. Home
Office Research Study 293. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Available at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/horspubs1.html.
Koss, M.P. (1988). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in
higher education. In A.W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and Sexual Assault (Vol. 2, pp. 3-25). New York:
Garland.
Koss, M.P. & Cook, S. (1993). Facing the facts: Date and acquaintance rape. In R. Gelles & D. Loeske
(Eds.). Controversies in Sociology. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
23
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & Wisnewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of
sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
Krasner, W., Meyer, L., & Carroll, N. (1976). Victims of Rape. U.S. Government Printing Office:
Washington, DC.
Latts, M.G. & Geiselman, R.E. (1991). Interviewing survivors of rape. Journal of Police and Criminal
Psychology, 7 (1), p. 8-16.
McDowell, C.P. & Hibler, N.S. (1987). False allegations (Chapter 11, p.275-299). In R.R. Hazelwood &
A.W. Burgess (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach.
Elsevier: New York.
McNally, M., Bennett, J., & Munch, A. (1999). Presentation to the Colorado Organization of Victims’
Assistance (COVA).
Merrill, L.L., Newell, C.E., Milner, J.S., Koss, M.P., Hervig, L.K., Gold, S.R., Rosswork, S.G., &
Thornton, S.R. (1998). Prevalence of premilitary adult sexual victimization and aggression in a
Navy recruit sample. Military Medicine, 163, 209-212.
National Victim Center (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. National Victim Center:
Arlington, VA.
Oregon Attorney General’s Office (2006). SART Handbook (Version II). Sexual Assault Task Force.
Available at
http://www.oregonsatf.org/SART/handbook.html.
O'Reilly, H.J. (1984). Crisis intervention with victims of forcible rape: A police perspective. In J. Hopkins
(Ed.), Perspectives on Rape and Sexual Assault. Harper & Row: London (p.89-103).
Reid, J.E. & Inbau, F.E. (1977). Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie Detector”) Technique.
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co
Rassin, E. & van der Sleen, J. (2005). Characteristics of true versus false allegations of sexual offences.
Psychological Reports, 97, 589-598.
Sloan, L.M. (1995). Revictimization by polygraph: The practice of polygraphing survivors of sexual
assault. Medicine and Law, 14, 255-267.
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women:
Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. National Institute of Justice:
Washington, DC.

EXCERPT FROM: False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue
Copyright © 2007 by End Violence Against Women (EVAW) International
24
ENDNOTES
i
Extensive research documents the characteristics of sexual assault victims, perpetrators, and incident. For
example, see: Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Bohmer & Parrot, 1993; Brenner, McMahon, Warren & Douglas, 1999;
Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000; Humphrey & Kahn, 2000; Koss, 1988; Koss & Cook, 1993; Koss, Gidycz &
Wisnewski, 1987; Merrill et al., 1998; National Victim Center, 1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998.
ii
Joan Zorza (personal communication, May 29, 2005). Joan Zorza is the editor of Sexual Assault Report
and Domestic Violence Report and the book, Violence Against Women (Civic Research Institute).
iii
Serial rape investigation widens to a sixth attack. By Clea Benson, Mark Fazlollah, Michael Matza, and
Craig R. McCoy. The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 7, 1999.
iv
This calls to mind the terminology of “factually innocent” which the courts use to dismiss cases where it
can be established that the suspect did not in fact commit the crime. To illustrate, the California appellate court has
defined someone as “factually innocent” when:
“The person did not
commit a crime. It does not mean a lack of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence, nor does the term encompass those situations where
an accusatory pleading is not issued for technical reasons such as search and seizure issues.”
v
FAU Police had hunch sexual assault claim untrue. S. Slater. Palm Beach Post, April 4, 2006.
vi
Kanin (1994) stated that these cases likely constituted false allegations because the complainants involved were all
asked to subject to a polygraph examination as part of the investigation and they voluntarily recanted. He noted that some of
the recantations could have been false, “in an effort to “avoid a ‘second assault’ at the hands of the police” (Kanin, 1994, p.
85). However, Kanin stated that this was unlikely for several reasons: (1) because “these complainants were suspect at the
time of the complaint within a day or two after charging,” (2) because the recantations “did not follow prolonged periods of
investigation and interrogation that would constitute anything approximating a second assault,” and (3) because “none of the
detectives believed that an incident of false recantation had occurred” (Kanin, 1994, p. 85). Each complainant was then
“informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint” (Kanin, 1994, p. 85).
A number of these statements raise concern regarding the practices of the police agency being studied and the
conclusions that are based on the research. For example, the polygraph is known to be unreliable when used with individuals
who are experiencing crisis. Even the threat of being polygraphed can have a profound effect on the willingness of victims to
participate in an investigation. Other concerns with the agency stem from the very high percentage of complaints that are
deemed to be false – police detectives reportedly viewed 41% of the rape complaints with immediate suspicion, and recorded
them as false (rather than simply unfounded) after an admittedly limited investigation, and then informed the complainants
that they would be charged with filing a false report. By basing the judgment that a charge is false based on the recantation
of the victim, the researcher failed to consider the fact that sexual assault victims frequently recant – especially when faced
with a police investigation that is orientated toward questioning their own actions and credibility.
vii
See, for example, Rassin & van der Sleen (2005).