Police statement collusion - Yet Again
Discussion
The inquest into the death of Dean Joseph found that there was clear evidence that the woman hostage's life was in danger. For some reason the police gave pseudonyms instead of the officers real names to the IPCC investigation. Furthermore the police officers had extensively conferred with each other when writing their individual reports. Yet again the toothless IPCC took no action over this collusion.
If it was necessary to kill Dean Joseph, and it appears that it was, why are the police so secretive about which officers were involved and have the officers who colluded over their reports been disciplined? If not, why not?
Apparently it is ok for the police to collude over their statements whilst they take every measure to ensure that
those under suspicion of a crime can not.
I must admit that I've never understood this.
I've never had any kind of interaction with the Police so I don't say this with any kind of chip on my shoulder, but I'm pretty sure that if I got arrested along with a mate and I said "Could we just have a moment to get our stories straight?" the answer would be a resounding no.
I've never had any kind of interaction with the Police so I don't say this with any kind of chip on my shoulder, but I'm pretty sure that if I got arrested along with a mate and I said "Could we just have a moment to get our stories straight?" the answer would be a resounding no.
Elroy Blue said:
Police statements differ....look they're lying.
Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
That's not really a fair representation.Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
It's more "Police Officers had time to compare notes with each other before writing statements...oh look, they're colluding."
If it's such a non-issue then (from the BBC article) - why did the IPCC criticise the way officers had written up their notes and said "extensive conferring" had taken place.
From the article - "The IPCC considered this to be a serious matter," it said.
Elroy Blue said:
Police statements differ....look they're lying.
Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
Er, did you read the IPCC's critisism of them for conferring before writing their notes? Or are you that obtuse you just ignored it? Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
The whole thread, by the way, is on that simple subject, ie conferring before making their statements etc.
But thanks for your perspective, it's most enlightening.
Elroy Blue said:
Suspects statements differ....look they're lying.
Suspect statements match...oh look, they're colluding. (after they have been allowed to sit down and chat).
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
I've changed it to show how it looks. Suspect statements match...oh look, they're colluding. (after they have been allowed to sit down and chat).
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
I don't think there should be any assumption that the police are suspects. And I think people need to be realistic and remember people see things differently. I can see no reason for anyone to need to discuss what happened. Write down what you can remember.
Elroy Blue said:
Police statements differ....look they're lying.
Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
And how about when the Police statements match word for word and the officer in question admits in court they couldn't actually remember anything about the event?Police statements match...oh look, they're colluding.
Usually quoted by people who have not a clue.
(not a hypothetical situation).
s3fella said:
Er, did you read the IPCC's critisism of them for conferring before writing their notes? Or are you that obtuse you just ignored it?
The whole thread, by the way, is on that simple subject, ie conferring before making their statements etc.
But thanks for your perspective, it's most enlightening.
Ah yes. The IPCC. An organisation determined to ensure their own existence by finding 'wrongdoing' regardless. The whole thread, by the way, is on that simple subject, ie conferring before making their statements etc.
But thanks for your perspective, it's most enlightening.
Perhaps we should lock them in store cupboards after an incident. Oh wait. One Force already did that to an Officer after a shooting. Disgusting treatment. But we've got to keep the usual suspects happy.
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'. Your response shift wouldn't last an hour before they were gone.
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
Elroy Blue said:
Ah yes. The IPCC. An organisation determined to ensure their own existence by finding 'wrongdoing' regardless.
Perhaps we should lock them in store cupboards after an incident. Oh wait. One Force already did that to an Officer after a shooting. Disgusting treatment. But we've got to keep the usual suspects happy.
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'. Your response shift wouldn't last an hour before they were gone.
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
Using the same logic - the polices existence relies on them creating criminality and finding fault with innocent people. Perhaps we should lock them in store cupboards after an incident. Oh wait. One Force already did that to an Officer after a shooting. Disgusting treatment. But we've got to keep the usual suspects happy.
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'. Your response shift wouldn't last an hour before they were gone.
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
No one is suggesting that officers should be seperated in all but the most serious of cases. How about a blanket rule that you should collude when writing statements..
Oversight is a good thing.
Edited by photosnob on Thursday 24th September 20:57
Elroy Blue said:
Ah yes. The IPCC. An organisation determined to ensure their own existence by finding 'wrongdoing' .
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
You could have come on here and actually done some good by explaining procedures and (largely) put people's minds at rest. But no.Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
The article and response from the IPCC shows quite clearly that there is no tinfoil here, but you could perhaps redeem yourself by answering the earlier question:
"I'm pretty sure that if I got arrested along with a mate and I said "Could we just have a moment to get our stories straight?" the answer would be a resounding no."
So, in your world, you'd be quite happy for both (alleged) miscreants to compare notes, and "get their stories straight"?
Elroy Blue said:
Ah yes. The IPCC. An organisation determined to ensure their own existence by finding 'wrongdoing' regardless.
Perhaps we should lock them in store cupboards after an incident. Oh wait. One Force already did that to an Officer after a shooting. Disgusting treatment. But we've got to keep the usual suspects happy.
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'. Your response shift wouldn't last an hour before they were gone.
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
Honestly, read it back a few times and you may realise that you sound a little melodramatic.Perhaps we should lock them in store cupboards after an incident. Oh wait. One Force already did that to an Officer after a shooting. Disgusting treatment. But we've got to keep the usual suspects happy.
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'. Your response shift wouldn't last an hour before they were gone.
Nothing will ever satisfy the tinfoil brigade.
I really have no chip on my shoulder about the Police, I've never had to deal with them so have no good or bad bias - but I struggle to think of a single benefit in allowing officers to converse before writing statements.
If it's a fair and right thing to do why isn't it extended to members of the public?
Convince me of the benefits (and please try and avoid the "Nothing I can say will convince you so I'm not going to answer" cop out).
Conferring is fine providing the following is undertaken:
1) The time, date and place where conferring took place,
2) The issues discussed,
3) With whom it took place,
4) The reasons for such discussion.
That's from the official post incident procedure documentation.
The IPCC aren't just "fact finding". They are investigating the officers and will be looking for evidence to charge them with crimes including murder. Since that is part of their role, the officers will take the most legally advantageous position. It's tough luck if the IPCC don't like that.
An investigator whose role is it to look for criminal conduct must accept that the person/s they are investigating will take the most legally defensive position possible.
There won't be a necessity. That's also a great way to treat people who've just had to do something they try their best to avoid.
"Stepped up to one of the most difficult roles in society? Had to do something which is psychologically life-changing and more than likely damaging? Here's a cell for you!"
The evidence that would need putting to them wouldn't be available within the PACE time frames, even with extensions. The legal advice would be to 'no comment' and then you'd have no account whatsoever. That'll help the investigation. So you'd have police officers on bail who have provided no account. I wonder what would occur then...
1) The time, date and place where conferring took place,
2) The issues discussed,
3) With whom it took place,
4) The reasons for such discussion.
That's from the official post incident procedure documentation.
The IPCC aren't just "fact finding". They are investigating the officers and will be looking for evidence to charge them with crimes including murder. Since that is part of their role, the officers will take the most legally advantageous position. It's tough luck if the IPCC don't like that.
An investigator whose role is it to look for criminal conduct must accept that the person/s they are investigating will take the most legally defensive position possible.
davidball said:
Furthermore the police officers had extensively conferred with each other when writing their individual reports. Yet again the toothless IPCC took no action over this collusion.
What action would they take? It's not a disciplinary matter. davidball said:
If it was necessary to kill Dean Joseph, and it appears that it was, why are the police so secretive about which officers were involved and have the officers who colluded over their reports been disciplined? If not, why not?
Because it isn't a disciplinary matter. davidball said:
Apparently it is ok for the police to collude over their statements whilst they take every measure to ensure that those under suspicion of a crime can not.
Only those under arrest. If a police officer is under arrest they are unable to, either. Vaud said:
Elroy Blue said:
Do you suggest that after every arrest, a double crew should separated and sent to different Stations to stop 'collusion'.
After a fatal shooting, yes, personally, I do. There are so few it would have minimal impact on resourcing but improve trust."Stepped up to one of the most difficult roles in society? Had to do something which is psychologically life-changing and more than likely damaging? Here's a cell for you!"
The evidence that would need putting to them wouldn't be available within the PACE time frames, even with extensions. The legal advice would be to 'no comment' and then you'd have no account whatsoever. That'll help the investigation. So you'd have police officers on bail who have provided no account. I wonder what would occur then...
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 24th September 21:30
Who said anything about stitching someone up?
They aren't criminals. They are police officers who've used lethal force.
The alignment with suspects / criminals is rather one-sided. The police officers have to provide a statement. A suspect / criminal can choose not to / only do so after legal advice.
Since we're trying to create a level playing field, let's start with the police not having to give a statement and not prior to any legal advice.
Only fair, right?
They aren't criminals. They are police officers who've used lethal force.
The alignment with suspects / criminals is rather one-sided. The police officers have to provide a statement. A suspect / criminal can choose not to / only do so after legal advice.
Since we're trying to create a level playing field, let's start with the police not having to give a statement and not prior to any legal advice.
Only fair, right?
La Liga said:
here won't be a necessity. That's also a great way to treat people who've just had to do something they try their best to avoid.
"Stepped up to one of the most difficult roles in society? Had to do something which is psychologically life-changing and more than likely damaging? Here's a cell for you!"
The evidence that would need putting to them wouldn't be available within the PACE time frames, even with extensions. The legal advice would be to 'no comment' and then you'd have no account whatsoever. That'll help the investigation. So you'd have police officers on bail who have provided no account. I wonder what would occur then...
I didn't say a cell, so quit the hyperbole. "Stepped up to one of the most difficult roles in society? Had to do something which is psychologically life-changing and more than likely damaging? Here's a cell for you!"
The evidence that would need putting to them wouldn't be available within the PACE time frames, even with extensions. The legal advice would be to 'no comment' and then you'd have no account whatsoever. That'll help the investigation. So you'd have police officers on bail who have provided no account. I wonder what would occur then...
I said separation so that no collusion could occur. I hold the police in the upmost regard. Separation after a fatal shooting can have no impact, and only increase, the quality of the evidence for later inspection. They deserve every support after the event. Counselling, long term support, everything. But in the immediate hours after the event, a high level of separation so that the capture of evidence of the decisions leading to taking someones life is of the highest standard can only help.
Not sure how you got anything else from my post.
Edited by Vaud on Thursday 24th September 21:45
Vaud said:
I didn't say a cell, so quit the hyperbole.
I said separation so that no collusion could occur. I hold the police in the upmost regard. Separation after a fatal shooting can have no impact, and only increase, the quality of the evidence for later inspection. They deserve every support after the event. Counselling, long term support, everything. But in the immediate hours after the event, a high level of separation so that the capture of evidence of the decisions leading to taking someones life is of the highest standard can only help.
Not sure how you got anything else from my post.
You didn't. I misread Elroy's post and I apologise. I said separation so that no collusion could occur. I hold the police in the upmost regard. Separation after a fatal shooting can have no impact, and only increase, the quality of the evidence for later inspection. They deserve every support after the event. Counselling, long term support, everything. But in the immediate hours after the event, a high level of separation so that the capture of evidence of the decisions leading to taking someones life is of the highest standard can only help.
Not sure how you got anything else from my post.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff