I’ve just had an interesting conversation with New Zealander Peter Joyce, the author of Dry Ice, which documents the seven-month ordeal which followed a false allegation of historical rape.
Peter, a retired English teacher, first heard about the allegation when a detective turned up at the door and announced Peter had been accused a rape by a daughter of a friend – whom he had never met. It turned out that she had accused her father of repeatedly and systematically raping her in her childhood and recruiting his friends, including Peter, to do the same.
It was a complex case with many suspects involved and alleged events occurring decades ago. Peter was able to compile evidence that could easily have cleared him, but the police weren’t interested. They were so completely in thrall to the "believe the victim" dogma that they refused to conduct a proper investigation.
I hope you will listen to our conversation and encourage others to do so. It is important we challenge the myth that false allegations are rare - Peter does a good job explaining how feminists have distorted the narrative on this issue.
Also try to get hold of Peter’s book, Dry Ice. It’s really gripping stuff, based on Peter’s diary during that time, as he shifts from assuming the case would easily be dismissed to realising the justice system had no interest in his version of events. During this time, Peter acquired extensive knowledge of the issue of false allegations and now hosts a website - blackstonesdrum.com – devoted to the topic.
Another fascinating interview. Thanks.
The discourse by Peter between 8:50 and 11:00 minutes resonated the most with me; over the past 6 years of Hague and FC hell, my ex's story has constantly changed to suit the audience, with many of the more recent allegations and assertions now contradicting not just themselves but the physical evidence. Yet the bench maintained /maintains a high degree of cognitive dissonance so as to be able to concurrently use mutually exclusive evidence to substantiate orders that enable and privilege the mother.... the facts in the matter that were proved "beyond reasonable doubt" were deemed irrelevant by the trial judge, while her contradictory lies were deemed to be true "based on the balance of probability".