Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Police role in crime investigation
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
steveimp |
The Police are intrinsically lazy JK; they don't care who did the crime, they just want a body - any body - for it to tick the statistics and to make the public feel that they have done a job. Sometimes they get the right person, a lot of times they don't.
It's only 20 or so years later that we realise people in jail simply couldn't have done it (via DNA evidence for example), they are released, given some money, the government then claims some of that money back for board and lodging, and the cycle begins again.
I honestly believe JK that you will be found innocent, properly, but like all the other cases, no one will stand on trial for the crime(s) committed against you and a lot of other people. |
|
coppullcaveman |
Cheers JK I downloaded the film a while ago but only watched it in full recently.
I have no intention of trying to claim anything as I believe it would not achieve anything and just drag up a lot of painful memories.
I am also concious of genuine cases possibly being affected by any actions. How do we change the way these cases are handled ?
Nobody really cares, it is all about results and numbers with the police, chief constables are nothing more than accountants pressuring officers for results that all too often are wrong, politicians are all on the take and its a general decline in principals that creates the current climate for grabbing what you can when you can (more so in your case JK with the press and other payments your accusers recieved). In my case the family wanted to move into council accomodation from private rented.... they got their way.
You have to forcefully prove your innocence and are not assumed innocent anymore. I get pissed off when the police give you the caution blah blah.. but if you do not mention now, something which you later come to rely on in court... etc, that tells me that you have no choice but to give all your evidence to the police so they can re-interview accusers to make the stories fit... No inferences should be drawn from silence in police interviews, you should be allowed to prove your case in court as the prosecution will have advance disclosure of your evidence anyway... it would just make it difficult for police to try make a jigsaw puzzle from pieces that dont fit. RANT OVER. |
|
veritas |
the police have a statutory obligation to investigate the full facts of a case and the prosecution is obligated to only present the evidence without embellishment.
Of course in the real world this isn't always the case.
Every criminal lawyer will always tell you..never ever talk to the police without a solicitor present and even then just shut up.
Of course-The Bill gives a skewered version and paints a rosy picture of Mr Plod.
Sounds like you would have to prove they knowingly withheld facts from the defence. But that's been happening for years as we see with so many cases overturned or in the infamous IRA cases-detectives lying and planting evidence.
None have been charged with perverting the course of justice but look arond for the right lawyer. If there is one certain in this life there always be a lawyer who wants to take on the police and prove them wrong. |
|
JK2006 |
You've hit the nail on the head Francis; it's not a conspiracy nor a deliberate corruption but the creeping, insidious evil that sneaks in.
Not with a bang like an explosion but corrosion of principle, subtle and hard to notice.
It needs to be pointed out and changed very soon. |
|
Francis D |
The short answer is that the police do have a duty to investigate. The unfortunate truth is that they often only investigate from one angle to the point where they think they can make you look guilty. I don't say this lightly. I have no grudge against the police and have never been on the "receiving end" of their actions. I have seen people join the police with the best of intentions but who's attitudes change dramatically after a few months. It is not for a young officer to question procedure or intent. Soon they learn that it's all about results and they lose touch with their original principles. Truth often becomes a hindrance, and evidence which works against their preconceptions is ignored.
There may be a precedent for someone attempting to sue for compensation due to ruined reputation, but I do not think there is a precedent for success. The media are not obliged to report on your case at either end. The fact that Mr Nice Guy really is Mr Nice Guy is seen as boring, so they'll rarely give much space to someone being cleared. |
|
|
|
