The Perils of Allegations

[Erik Narramore]

Not that it has anything to do with the Bamber case, but it seems to be a common discussion among people interested in true crime and miscarriages of justice, and I've always taken the view that 'paedophile' accusations should be treated with scepticism, more especially when:

(i). everybody says such-and-such is a paedophile, but can't pinpoint the clinching evidence that proves it;

(ii). the allegation relies on one person's word against another, or the word of a number of people who mysteriously all come forward at once, despite this behaviour never having been noticed by others who knew the accuser, nor reported publicly before;

(iii). the allegations relate to conduct that took place many years or even decades ago and when the accusers were very young or children;

(iv). a factor in non-reporting is that the accusers previously didn't mind the accused's behaviour, even found it entirely innocuous, or at worst eccentrically charming or endearing, but now suddenly decide to change their tune and apply a malign interpretation to the accused's past general behaviour and actions;

(v). the accused is an odd or eccentric male or seemingly a loner, and therefore vulnerable to accusations that he is a 'nonce' or paedo' or 'paedophile', etc;

(iv). the accused is rich or wealthy and therefore vulnerable to civil litigation;

(v). the accused has in the past criticised prominent, influential or powerful interests or people or groups of people;

(vi). the accusers seem keen to pursue damages against the accused and have already instructed lawyers;

(vii). the media, or parts of the media, assume guilt and tacitly convey that message to the public prior to trial, then go all out in their character assassination after.