Patterson & Pollard; I know little about this apart from what I read in the media but could it be that both became aware that the vast majority of False Allegations are made via greed for money, compensation, malice, revenge, desire for sympathy & rejected them as Dixon Of Dock Green might have done in years gone by when common sense ruled? If loonies pop by to accuse someone (usually wealthy and often celebs) of historical sex abuse, knowing there could be no proof they had even met them, should police rigorously investigate or just send the loonies home to have a nice cup of tea? There appears to be no financial or corrupt motive for this. Were the alleged crimes (by P&P) properly investigated? What was their defence? I'm sorry but was it possible that these were two decent officers who refused to say that the Emperor was wearing new clothes? Especially clothes the media and public (and PC senior cops) had acclaimed as "designer gear"?

One of the things that irks me about crime journalism is that only the prosecution assertions are reported.

Defence refutations are very very rarely published, and then only in the most perfunctory terms.

Spot on Randall; not just lazy journalism but deliberately malicious unbalanced reporting. Even after acquittal; the archives (especially online) remain proudly there; lies and exaggeration. The vile prosecuting QC in my "debacle" - the witch Cottage - aimed her opening remarks at the tabloids with every poisoned word she hissed.

No these two were nasty bits of work and worked as public protection officers (PPU) looking after registered sex offenders, you know JK they visit you from time to time.
As per usual they think they are holy and they are not they are just as bad as who they look after.
Good luck on the On slow wing in Wandsworth tonight.
A lot of the ppu officers are nothe nice people.

I'm sorry I simply cannot accept that after a seven week trial, the main evidence against them seems to have been having affairs and going for a Chinese meal. Were the falsely accused ever asked to give evidence (which I suspect they would not have wanted to do)? Was the possibility that these two quickly spotted false accusers not examined? Was the media pushed approach that there ARE no false accusers believed by Judge and Jury? So many questions. It stinks.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7015357...igations-jailed.html

JK2006 wrote:
I'm sorry I simply cannot accept that after a seven week trial, the main evidence against them seems to have been having affairs and going for a Chinese meal. Were the falsely accused ever asked to give evidence (which I suspect they would not have wanted to do)? Was the possibility that these two quickly spotted false accusers not examined? Was the media pushed approach that there ARE no false accusers believed by Judge and Jury? So many questions. It stinks.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7015357...igations-jailed.html

But Mr king, if they thought the accusations were false, they should have been investigating the accuser, not doing nothing.

I'm not aware whether they did or didn't and I started this by saying that I really don't know any answers, only that there seem to be many unanswered questions from the media coverage. Certainly Dixon of Dock Green, when confronted by someone he knew was a serial complainer or had knowledge regarding the alleged perpetrators, might have decided not to waste police time by investigating obvious fantasies. The problem being that, if one of the hundred turned away by Dixon turned out to be a potential victim of a serial killer, the media would be all over the police and, as a result, these days, the most absurd claims have to be investigated at length (enabling genuine criminals to avoid detection). This is one of the problems of having society run by tabloids, whose only concern is "a good story". Ramifications.

JK2006 wrote:
I'm not aware whether they did or didn't and I started this by saying that I really don't know any answers, only that there seem to be many unanswered questions from the media coverage. Certainly Dixon of Dock Green, when confronted by someone he knew was a serial complainer or had knowledge regarding the alleged perpetrators, might have decided not to waste police time by investigating obvious fantasies. The problem being that, if one of the hundred turned away by Dixon turned out to be a potential victim of a serial killer, the media would be all over the police and, as a result, these days, the most absurd claims have to be investigated at length (enabling genuine criminals to avoid detection). This is one of the problems of having society run by tabloids, whose only concern is "a good story". Ramifications.

JK I felt similar to you regarding the reports from the very first time that the media made a meal out of nothing ( Or missed what the real story evidence was, which I think is unlikely) Something stinks about the conviction of these two and looks more like the police force covering up lack of results on a wrong emphasis in the first place, that is pushing for convictions "on word only" basis. But the case as reported seems a nonsense, and as reported seems something that should never of ended up in court. But if for real then the facts to support the court case and convictions should be clearer so "we" the public do not end up accusing the media, policee, politicians and justice system personnel wrongly. If the couple didn't follow up on a rape kit from when a rape happened I could understand and feel that the couple deserved conviction for failing real known victims. ( Not saying that others are not are victims just "word only" means a person could be a real victim and reporting could help identify a rapist with a known pattern on the other hand it could be similar to a false insurance claim a false accusations thus the reporter is the criminal and honest police should make the the public and the person reporting aware of the problem of lapsed time reporting or no circumstances where evidence can be collected.

JK2006 wrote:
was it possible that these were two decent officers who refused to say that the Emperor was wearing new clothes?

There might be something in that. However, I also agree with MWTW that anyone who chooses to work in such a unit is a fucking scumbag with very dubious motives. When King Randall the Magnificent is in charge, this lot will be among the first up against the wall.

HOWEVER

It's important that everyone gets a fair trial, whether or not anyone thinks the defendant is a scumbag or not. So lets look at the misdeeds that were reported.

...they forged documents to convince bosses to take no further action against suspects.

What documents? How do we know they were forgeries? Could they have been mere early drafts? Did supervising officers indeed see these documents? How did they not discern they were forgeries?


Pollard destroyed evidence...

What evidence? How was it destroyed? Should it have been destroyed? How was the existence of the evidence documented? Was its destruction documented properly? Was the appropriate permission for evidence destruction sought and obtained? Could it have plausibly been wrongly destroyed by accident? Was it, in fact, not technically evidence at all in a legal sense?


Patterson cancelled an appointment to gather evidence from social services records so she could get a manicure and have a Chinese meal with Pollard.

Sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc to me. Perhaps there are very good reason why the appointment was rescheduled and the manicure and meal simply filled the time slot, rather than being the reason for the cancellation. And in any case, that really doesn't amount to misconduct, even taking a very harsh view.


Bravo, Randall, very good questions, you're all clamouring to reply. Yes, just the sort of questions a journalist from a national newspaper should be thinking to ask. A free press is a crucial check on state power. When the press becomes a mouthpiece for the state, regurgitating anything served to it in a police or CPS press release, the state's actions go unexamined. The news media is asleep at the wheel. Another reason why it's not safe to live in Britain.