Naming suspects...

[supermono]

What's the deal with this suffolk strangler case? Some bloke is brought in for questioning/arrested and his name and address are made public knowledge. His employer said that he's formally suspended so already his character is tainted and he's suffering financial hardship.

All this before he's even been charged, never mind been hauled up before the jury.

That's wrong isn't it?

SM

[jasandjules]

It is a bit of a concern.

A cynic (not unlike myself) might suggest that the coppers have named him and essentially claimed that they have their man, as there is a strong political clout brought to bear to get this case solved.

The police ought not to name anyone at this point, that is generally the point of a trial, and all this name him, photos of his house etc.. will kind of affect the jury's minds..I think the court should really admonish the Suffolk Plod for this sort of behaviour, much as they do for the papers who give out too much info.

[Exige46]

Did the police actually name him? I know his name is now very well known, but I thought this was through the various interviews he has given with the media, and people putting two and two together. Various police services have already heavily critiscised the decision by the Mirror Group to publish the interview and the name as at very least it can seriously prejudice any trial, assuming this guy is charged and put to trial. Even if the police have all the evidence in the world, acts like this can seriously affect the chances of a prosecution.

[Dwight VanDriver]

This is starting to look as if it is going R's over elbow with all the information that is being given out by the Media which looks as if it has forced Suffolk Police to name the man they have arrested instead of the usual person assisting with enquiries.

With inside knowledge as an ex Special has he outwitted (if guilty) them in making public knowledge (thanks Mirror) that he slept with them explaining presence of DNA/ fibres on their bodies??????

Media can assist in such matters but of late seem they are taking over. Reporting, investigating, judge and jury all within days.

dvd

[Exige46]

The BBC are reporting that the police have neither confirmed nor denied the identities of the people held in custody. Yes, people now.

[tigger1]

There is similar concern for people accused of rape, say, but in that case it is claimed that it allows people to come forward with further evidence - still smacks as being unfair, espescially in cases where people are found to be innocent (or indeed the prosecution witness was lying through their teeth).

[justinp1]

Exige46 said:

The BBC are reporting that the police have neither confirmed nor denied the identities of the people held in custody. Yes, people now.

Although, this may be a smokescreen damage limitation exercise.

The interview prior to arrest with the accused 'happy to help' does smatter of the Soham murders.

In that case, I am sure that there was something about the interview that seemed strange at the time but clearer in hindsight.

I did notice that in this current case when I heard the interview the guy seemed to verbally trip himself up when explaining why he had contact with all of the deceased, something like "To see if they had any information, and see were alright, and ...... well just that really...".

I just hope this amount of press does not make a fair trial impossible and the taxpayer does not have to pay for a witness protection program for the rest of his life.