What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
La Liga said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
I don't understand that.
If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
All the 'musts' aren't true or self-fulfilling at all. The link to what evidence will be gathered is even more untrue. If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
It's about someone presenting themselves in the first instance and being treated as if they are a victim of crime in order to gather the best evidence. It has no bearing on how the investigation evolves and where the evidence takes the matter.
Nearly all victims are treated this way. If you have a shed burglary and call up for a crime number, then you're believed and a crime number is issued as it's on the balance of probabilities i.e. more likely than not to have occurred based on the information presented.
This often seems to be overlooked. Somebody gets tried for a crime - and found not guilty. Is there then a separate investigation to find out whether the not guilty person was in fact the victim of a crime themselves?
Moonhawk said:
This often seems to be overlooked. Somebody gets tried for a crime - and found not guilty. Is there then a separate investigation to find out whether the not guilty person was in fact the victim of a crime themselves?
Also check out my posts a few pages back about mistaken.La Liga said:
There's a long way between someone being found 'not guilty' and the victim lying. If there's evidence that would support someone being convicted for lying (perverting the course of justice), it's nearly always going to come out before a trial takes place.
Not in this case.Why are we not hearing about prosecution of the woman for PtCoJ or some similar offence?
Rovinghawk said:
Not in this case.
Why are we not hearing about prosecution of the woman for PtCoJ or some similar offence?
Probably because there was sufficient evidence to put the matter to the jury which is probably why the matter didn't get halted by the judge. Why are we not hearing about prosecution of the woman for PtCoJ or some similar offence?
Email them since we're never going to know the true answers from brief media articles.
La Liga said:
robably because there was sufficient evidence to put the matter to the jury which is probably why the matter didn't get halted by the judge.
Email them since we're never going to know the true answers from brief media articles.
Can I ask what that evidence might possibly have been? Other than her word, of course. Email them since we're never going to know the true answers from brief media articles.
The CCTV is conclusive, nothing happened, they're can be no physical evidence because nothing happened. At all.
hornetrider said:
La Liga said:
robably because there was sufficient evidence to put the matter to the jury which is probably why the matter didn't get halted by the judge.
Email them since we're never going to know the true answers from brief media articles.
Can I ask what that evidence might possibly have been? Other than her word, of course. Email them since we're never going to know the true answers from brief media articles.
The CCTV is conclusive, nothing happened, they're can be no physical evidence because nothing happened. At all.
This suggests there could be a strong case that she or the CPS fabricated the story. Who identified him as the attacker?
I generally consider La Liga has a point to defend extant court/CPS procedures - but in this case I can't imagine a scenario that explains their actions given the evidence available effectively & comprehensively covers the whole case & allegation.
Rovinghawk said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports
Although I normally find your responses very reasonable I have to pick you up on this: they are only alleged rapes until such time as there's a bit more than just someone's claim.We record to investigate - not investigate to record.
Until recently - rape recording was less than ethical to put it mildly -procedures have now been tightened up considerably. Its also almost impossible to get a rape report cancelled now.
This from the counting rules
REPORTED RAPE INCIDENTS: All reported incidents of rape must immediately, be either recorded as a
confirmed crime or as an N100 record on the force crime system in keeping with HOCR guidance.
Think church gargoyle, the ugliest type designed to scare.
You'd have as much chance of getting 3 fingers up their pipe in 2 seconds as you would her's in the timescale claimed. As a link to that, anyone touching her would have to be doing it as penitence.
Oh, and if she is she, a BBC employee to (old) boot.
You'd have as much chance of getting 3 fingers up their pipe in 2 seconds as you would her's in the timescale claimed. As a link to that, anyone touching her would have to be doing it as penitence.
Oh, and if she is she, a BBC employee to (old) boot.
La Liga said:
There's a long way between someone being found 'not guilty' and the victim lying. If there's evidence that would support someone being convicted for lying (perverting the course of justice), it's nearly always going to come out before a trial takes place.
Surely in this case - there is clear evidence (CCTV) that the event did no occur as the 'victim' claimed.Shouldn't the reasons why there is such a discrepancy be investigated. Whilst it's possible the 'victim' was mistaken - it's also possible they blatantly lied.
To continue to treat her as a 'victim' and him as somebody who was found not guilty because there was insufficient evidence to convict - IMO sends the wrong message. It's absolutely clear from the evidence presented that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. Can we say the same thing about the woman though. IMO the evidence is far less clear cut as far as her actions/motives are concerned.
There may still be a victim of a crime here who is getting no justice....
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 13th February 12:02
Bigends said:
Rovinghawk said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports
Although I normally find your responses very reasonable I have to pick you up on this: they are only alleged rapes until such time as there's a bit more than just someone's claim.We record to investigate - not investigate to record.
Until recently - rape recording was less than ethical to put it mildly -procedures have now been tightened up considerably. Its also almost impossible to get a rape report cancelled now.
This from the counting rules
REPORTED RAPE INCIDENTS: All reported incidents of rape must immediately, be either recorded as a
confirmed crime or as an N100 record on the force crime system in keeping with HOCR guidance.
I don't disagree with the general idea you're putting forward so much as the presumptive terminology.
Rovinghawk said:
Bigends said:
Rovinghawk said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports
Although I normally find your responses very reasonable I have to pick you up on this: they are only alleged rapes until such time as there's a bit more than just someone's claim.We record to investigate - not investigate to record.
Until recently - rape recording was less than ethical to put it mildly -procedures have now been tightened up considerably. Its also almost impossible to get a rape report cancelled now.
This from the counting rules
REPORTED RAPE INCIDENTS: All reported incidents of rape must immediately, be either recorded as a
confirmed crime or as an N100 record on the force crime system in keeping with HOCR guidance.
I don't disagree with the general idea you're putting forward so much as the presumptive terminology.
The operative words from the above:
"As soon as any victim confirms rape - record immediately.
Remember - these are RECORDING rules - NOT investigating
We record to investigate - not investigate to record."
Pothole said:
There is no presumption in crime recording, it's just crime recording, it doesn't have any bearing on the way a trial is conducted or any presumption of innocence.
There is though. If every reported rape is counted as rape - then there is a presumption that the report was true. This presumption may have little or no bearing on the case (questionable) - but If the false positives are not taken back off - at the very least it could lead to an over estimation as to the level of crime, or a misreporting of the type of crime committed (i.e. if the accusation is false and/or malicious - then a crime of rape has been recorded despite not happening - and the actual crime committed is PCOJ despite not being recorded).
Moonhawk said:
Pothole said:
There is no presumption in crime recording, it's just crime recording, it doesn't have any bearing on the way a trial is conducted or any presumption of innocence.
There is though. If every reported rape is counted as rape - then there is a presumption that the report was true. This presumption may have little or no bearing on the case (questionable) - but If the false positives are not taken back off - at the very least it could lead to an over estimation as to the level of crime, or a misreporting of the type of crime committed (i.e. if the accusation is false and/or malicious - then a crime of rape has been recorded despite not happening - and the actual crime committed is PCOJ despite not being recorded).
We record allegations of crime if theres no credible evidence at the time of report that no crime actually occurred.
The whole idea of ethical recording is to give an accurate measure of crime. Record - investigate - cancel if appropriate. Surely you dont want to go back to the days of Police picking and choosing what they record based often on the 'detectability' of the crime. Give Police any kind of discretion in relation to crime recording and they'll take the pi**.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff