24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
They had a lot more than just the cell towers though - they could show that he was linked to the numbers and his story abotu giving the phone away looked made up to me.
That said we don't know what was said in court. I presume he talked?
I wonder if the jury, having seen that show will have changed their minds.
That said we don't know what was said in court. I presume he talked?
I wonder if the jury, having seen that show will have changed their minds.
photosnob said:
Those slating the Solicitor are wrong. He reminded me of my favourite solicitor. He was perfectly civil with the police, he DIDN"T interrupt the interview (some do) and he had the best interests of his client at heart. The Solicitors job is to do the best he can for his client. He isn't there to make sure justice is done. If I was in the area and needed a criminal solicitor I'd like to remember his name.
Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
Go on then, did your favorite solicitor get you off when you were actually guilty by playing the system and his job well, or did he help you avoid a miscarriage of justice?Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
BillPeart said:
photosnob said:
Those slating the Solicitor are wrong. He reminded me of my favourite solicitor. He was perfectly civil with the police, he DIDN"T interrupt the interview (some do) and he had the best interests of his client at heart. The Solicitors job is to do the best he can for his client. He isn't there to make sure justice is done. If I was in the area and needed a criminal solicitor I'd like to remember his name.
Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
Go on then, did your favorite solicitor get you off when you were actually guilty by playing the system and his job well, or did he help you avoid a miscarriage of justice?Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
BillPeart said:
Go on then, did your favorite solicitor get you off when you were actually guilty by playing the system and his job well, or did he help you avoid a miscarriage of justice?
It doesn't matter does it. If I was guilty or innocent the solicitor should still give you advice that is in your best interests. Sometimes that is to plead guilty, sometimes it is to plead not guilty. Sometimes it is for you to give a no comment interview, sometimes a prepared statement, and sometimes to just answer the questions (rare). A good solicitor just gives you advice which is in your best interests. They don't 'get you off'. They don't make up stories for you. And they don't falsify evidence. They are not supposed to lie for you - and they are not meant to give evidence to a court if you have told them it's not true.
With regards to someone above saying I'm not right (he's probably right) and asking if I'm living some sort of fantasy life. I'd only like to say that if I am I've set my standards pretty low, no flash cars, at one point no job, and overweight asking about a detox. If thats what you think people aspire too then you have a different outlook to me.
bazza white said:
Dibble said:
Any reason why, out of interest? (I'm not that impressed with his interview technique so far, but some of that could just be the editing).
He's toned down now. Was a bit um peter Kay. Suppose that throws you or relaxes you in an interview.Edited by Lost soul on Tuesday 30th September 16:03
photosnob said:
andymc said:
THere is very little of honor among thieves especially when looking at life sentences, he co-operated, protein is available on the canteen list in clink, heavy duty steroids are harder to obtain
I'm well aware of what is available. I'm also aware that some prisons gyms are very very good. Not all, but some. Do you honestly think that he was just using protein? Getting roods in prions is possibly but not cheap. I'd also wager a good bet that his slimming down was something that was suggested to him by his solicitor. If you go in looking like you could knock out the whole England rugby team then you aren't going to get a sympathetic jury. Looking like a respectable family man would have helped.
Finally - of course he cooperated. I'd have done the same. His brother in law was probably already going down. I've been in similar positions to both him and the brother in law. It's not nice but sometimes you have to look after yourself.
One final point - this bloke HAD NEVER been arrested before. He wasn't a serious criminal. I know nothing about him or the story - but after spending years being a nasty person I can tell you that they only take DNA once. It's far too expensive to do every time. You just get fingerprints on livescan at every subsequent arrest.
andymc said:
BillPeart said:
photosnob said:
Those slating the Solicitor are wrong. He reminded me of my favourite solicitor. He was perfectly civil with the police, he DIDN"T interrupt the interview (some do) and he had the best interests of his client at heart. The Solicitors job is to do the best he can for his client. He isn't there to make sure justice is done. If I was in the area and needed a criminal solicitor I'd like to remember his name.
Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
Go on then, did your favorite solicitor get you off when you were actually guilty by playing the system and his job well, or did he help you avoid a miscarriage of justice?Given that (I really shouldn't admit this on here) I've been interviewed for similarly serious offences in this manner before (things that can lead to life sentences), what you saw was very similar to how it is in real life. Not all of it, but most of it. His behaviour and twitching may mean he is guilty, but the stress and pressure you feel in those situations is incredible. You also didn't get a feeling for just how long those interviews go on for. Hour and hours. Breaks and then starting again. For a man his size the food he was given would not be able to sustain him. Overall there are all sorts of reasons why you, and a jury should not judge him on twitching there.
The Police did a good job. I think the interviewing DC was fine. I've found it's only CID who take the two officers interviewing approach. But then again, they are generally for the more serious or complicated crimes.
Oh - and the comment and the stare. He has spent hours being called a lier by that bloke, his life has been ripped apart. He is now being charged with something that could ruin his life, and someone is making light of it. What do you want him to do, laugh along and say good one.
Overall - he was probably guilty. But from past experiences I am not shocked he got off.
Kaj91 said:
Anyone know if and when this is repeated?
Its on 4OD:http://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-pol...
tter thread in the lounge. Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff