See, this is what is frustrating about all of this. Half information is misinformation. Your postings entirely contradict one another. Let me show you how and why.


First you state you aren't sure if you said he hurt you or not. NOW, you state you DID tell them he hurt you. You have, in one sentence, in the eyes of a defense attorney, discredited yourself---you contradicted yourself and a defense attorney on cross examination will discredit your entire testimony based on ONE falsehood or inconsistent statement. You MUST be consistent and above all, you MUST tell the truth--whichever statement is actually the truth. They cannot BOTH be true--they are diametrically opposed.

Secondly, you state "I almost did not report the assault...." yet your first posting states you were in shock, unable to utter a cohesive sentence. This is not the frame of mind necessary to evaluate making or not making a report about the assault. Per your first posting, your thought process at the time, running screaming onto the street was a fight or flight reaction to the alleged assault---hardly time to sit and reflect on the pros and cons of reporting the assault. Surely wondering if you are going to be believed didn't cross your mind mid attack, did it? "Boy, wow, this is awful---no one is gonna believe THIS really happened!! Whew!! Maybe I shouldn't run out to the street and scream for help ( an act of survival and desperation ) since the cops may not believe me. Hmm, what to do... what to do...."......... According to the first posting, you HAD no time to sit and contemplate, "Hmmm.. should I run on to the street and scream in this 'dead neighborhood' and hope someone hears me? Wonder if they will believe me... wonder if its worth it." Yet now, you are stating that is EXACTLY what you did--evaluated whether or not to mention the entire exchange. Far cry from screaming begging for refuge from a mad attacker.

Thirdly: You state "He can afford good defense attorneys---"I don't know if they will be able to bring that up"---bring WHAT up? You are glossing over important and relevant points. Bring up that you say you were hurt? Even if they DID---how does that prove that HE was the one that did the "hurting"?

Fourthly, your first posting said nothing about being afraid that the attacker would "get off" and not face charges. The entire gist of your posting was the officers conduct and their refusal to take you BACK to the scene of the alleged attack. Now, however, your posting is focusing on the attacker getting off and you not being believed--and you never answered the twenty dollar question--why did you want to go BACK to the scene of the alleged attack if you felt you were in danger? You see, none of this makes ANY sense.


The police obviously DID take you seriously. They offered you help, and they launched an investigation immediately.


You say they didn't seem to take it seriously? My question is the same--what did you expect them to do? I am seriously asking. What do you think is/was appropriate for them to do?

The questions I am asking you aren't intended to be adversarial--in fact, YOUR attorney, if you hire one, will ask you the VERY same ones. They will be asked of you on cross examination, if there is a trial. Tell the truth, and recount as honestly as you can---don't change your story. If you don't know, say you don't know. Jurors recognize and appreciate honesty.

The discrepancies in your story are glaring. Expect to be confronted with them and asked to explain.

Good luck.