JanH
First of all I would just like to say that even trading emails with you is a privilege for a relatively new comer as myself.
However, I must disagree with your statement that
unsubstantiated and false are the same.
Unsubstantiated is unproven, uncorroborated, unsupported or charges that are not actionable for one reason or another. That does not mean the charges are false.
Much discussion has been given that child molesters do not have two witnesses and with Judicial Committees or in a court of law people are innocent until proven guilty. A shouting match of he said she said is not a convicting case.
The point I made in the earlier post was that Mr. Alva (Samanthas murderer) had been previously charged with sexual assault of his girl friends daughters. The charges were not substantiated, however, nor were they false.
It is because of the difficulty of proving sexual assault charges based on the testimony of one witnesses that new Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted in 1995. Basically the law allows a previous CHARGE (not a conviction) of sexual assault to be introduced as evidence in a court case.
Rules 413 and 414 specifically provide that in any case in which the defendant is accused of sexual assault or molestation, the defendant's commission of any other similar offenses is admissible "for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." Rule 415 specifically extends the rule to any civil cases arising out of sexual assault or molestation.
The new rules will supersede in sex offense cases the restrictive aspects of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In contrast to Rule 404(b)'s general prohibition of evidence of character or propensity, the new rules for sex offense cases authorize admission and consideration of evidence of an uncharged offense for its bearing "on any matter to which it is relevant." This includes the defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault or child molestation offenses, and assessment of the probability or improbability that the defendant has been falsely or mistakenly accused of such an offense.
Why is this type of evidence allowed in sexual abuse cases?
In support of the new rules, advocates argued that a history of similar acts in child molestation cases, for example, tends to be probative because it demonstrates an unusual disposition that does not exist in ordinary people. In addition, the difficulties proving cases of child sexual abuse were cited to Congress.
(Source http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Rule415.html)