some vital discrepancies

During our videotaped interview I was asked if the date September 23 (2004) meant anything to me. I said no. Apparently this was the day I did the alleged deed. I said that I wasn’t sure, but it might’ve been that we (the boy, Sarah’s grandson Michael, and myself) were at Victor Harbour at that time. They then said that, according to the boy, the rape had occurred after the Victor Harbour trip. I then had the great satisfaction of being able to say that I returned with the boy and Michael on a Friday morning or early afternoon, that he was picked up by his mum later that day for his usual weekend stay, and that I have never seen him since.

Since returning from the arrest I’ve of course consulted my journal – what a huge advantage it is for me that I’m a compulsive writer! – and I’m able to date the Victor Harbour trip precisely. It took place from Monday September 27 to Friday October 1. However, the exact dating isn’t so important – it’s amazing and rather unlikely that the boy could come up with a precise date. What’s important is his claim that the rape took place after the Victor trip. If he insists on this, his whole case will collapse. On the other hand, he won’t be in a position to insist on this, since, I presume, he won’t himself be called for questioning by a court, being too young. Presumably then the prosecuting lawyers will argue that, though he may be confused about dates and the sequence of events, he’s quite clear about the act itself. And then it’s back to being my word against his – a most unsatisfactory way of ‘getting off’.