She didn't mention RMT in the book - just therapy. Her 'alters' would speak during therapy and the therapist (Jo) making notes of what she said. There were physical, documented signs of sexual abuse in her medical records as a child (the recurrent UTI's at 2). As Joker said, she won a CICA claim for what happened to her. Relevant quote from the book:
The CPS originally chose not to prosecute her father due to:
Quick aside:
I have led a civil proof on accusations of historical child sexual abuse.
It is nearly fucking impossible to prove historical, concealed, abuse twenty or thirty years later. And I was only required to meet the civil standard of proof, and I still could not make all of it stick. (Enough stuck and the grandkids were removed.)
I have sympathy for the CPS specialists who make decisions about prosecuting these specific types of crimes, because proving anything is a bastard. You’ve got no forensics. Any supportive medical history you have (early UTIs, anal fissures, late bed wetting etc) were accompanied at the time by a reasonable story from the parents, so trying to overturn that later is very difficult. Your victim’s memory is fucking scrambled due to trauma. I don’t mean specifically DID stuff here, but any deeply traumatic childhood memory is hard to place in time, especially decades later. Deeply traumatised kids remember details that you can’t make sense of, and that your psych experts will freely agree maybe didn’t happen, because again, trauma scrambles your memories.
It’s fucked. Your victim will say “dad did this in aunty Nelly’s house, I remember I was in cousin Sally’s bottom bunk bed” and the defendant will be able to produce a witness that there never were any bunk beds in aunty Nelly’s house. That right there has a judge or jury wondering how much they can rely on your victim‘s evidence. And shield legislation be damned, your victim WILL be character assassinated on the stand. Their psych history - which will include any substance or addiction problems and if the defence are quick about it, any suggestion of sexual dysfunction or promiscuity - becomes a subject of absorbing interest. The family members who covered up for the rapist at the time will double down on it, and there will be a string of family members saying your victim is a liar and a fantasist.
The entire experience is absolutely harrowing for your victim, who is often quite fragile due to their CSA to start with.
And then the judge decides their recall was a bit iffy, and lo and behold, nothing is proved against the defendant.
It’s fucked. If you have seen it even once, it’s not a process you would put anyone through lightly. And no, that’s not fair, and it’s not justice. But it’s not fair to put the fragile through the meat grinder when you know, on a cold hard review of what evidence you’ve got, that your victim will never be found to be more credible than the defendant.