24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
LemonMotors said:
The prepared statement in interview accounted for this in the sense he was a alcoholic and was a landlord a pub at the time of the incident. Although he's gone no comment, he's given prepared statements which cover what the police are asking.
Very difficult to prove he was aware.
You are the memory challenged tosser and aicmfp!Very difficult to prove he was aware.
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bulls
t. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. 
Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
The Mad Monk said:
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bullst. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
youngsyr said:
But you wrote that there wasn't any evidence to suggest the deaf brother knew, when there is:
- he refuses to co-operate with the police over the disappearance of his sister in law; and
- he claims to be unaware of someone else digging a whacking great hole in his garden and filling it at the exact time of her disappearance.
Of course, none of those are a smoking gun, but they are evidence that point towards his knowledge of events (at the least).
Neither of those are really evidence - they are things you car draw inferences and assumptions from.- he refuses to co-operate with the police over the disappearance of his sister in law; and
- he claims to be unaware of someone else digging a whacking great hole in his garden and filling it at the exact time of her disappearance.
Of course, none of those are a smoking gun, but they are evidence that point towards his knowledge of events (at the least).
You can draw a limited inference from silence but he does not have to co-operate or answer questions.
You can't even prove he was there and knew what was going on in his garden - hence his solicitors very clever speech.
The Mad Monk said:
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bullst. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
Escort3500 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bullst. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
Mojooo said:
youngsyr said:
But you wrote that there wasn't any evidence to suggest the deaf brother knew, when there is:
- he refuses to co-operate with the police over the disappearance of his sister in law; and
- he claims to be unaware of someone else digging a whacking great hole in his garden and filling it at the exact time of her disappearance.
Of course, none of those are a smoking gun, but they are evidence that point towards his knowledge of events (at the least).
Neither of those are really evidence - they are things you car draw inferences and assumptions from.- he refuses to co-operate with the police over the disappearance of his sister in law; and
- he claims to be unaware of someone else digging a whacking great hole in his garden and filling it at the exact time of her disappearance.
Of course, none of those are a smoking gun, but they are evidence that point towards his knowledge of events (at the least).
You can draw a limited inference from silence but he does not have to co-operate or answer questions.
You can't even prove he was there and knew what was going on in his garden - hence his solicitors very clever speech.
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
People seem to think that only absolute proof of involvement meets the definition of evidence, such as fingerprints or a DNA profile match at the scene, when in fact even something as vague as the absence of an alibi is evidence in that it is part of the picture that points towards guilt.
Of course, such pieces of evidence are not enough to secure a conviction on their own, but if you stack enough of them together, they can push a prosecution over the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.
This is why you can have a murder conviction when no body or direct evidence of actual death has occurred. Simply the facts that a person has disappeared with no trace when there were no indications they did so of their own volition and evidence that they wouldn't have done so, can be enough to convince a court they are dead.
ape x said:
Escort3500 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bullst. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
ape x said:
Escort3500 said:
The Mad Monk said:
Escort3500 said:
fakenews said:
pavarotti1980 said:
his smug solicitor
Just a deluded backstreet wannabe - the police were never going to win this. Any 50/50 case and he'd drown in his own bullst. I've seen our company piss all over so-called solicitors like this - I guarantee his only suit is from Burtons and he drives a E36 compact with M3 badges. Just remind me, would you?
This deluded backstreet wannabe with the yoofspeak patter? Did he win the case for his client, or lose it?
Dr Jekyll said:
mr_fibuli said:
On the plus side, we learned that if you ever need a thorough garden clearance doing, just ask the police not to dig up your garden.
I thought about that , but you have to be sure nobody ever has buried anyone in your garden otherwise life would get complicated.P-Jay said:
Its Just Adz said:
That solicitor is a slimy slimy fker
I actually quite like him. kerHis job is to advise his clients on the best course of action to avoid being charged by the CPS it's a pretty slimy business.
Otherwise it's the Police who know all the rules and aren't afraid to use any trick in the book to incriminate the people they interview v a layman.
They're NOT in the business of investigating crimes to prove if someone is innocent, they only look for evidence they're guilty, in fact as recent cases have proved, if securing a conviction gets a bit tricky they're not above hiding evidence from the CPS and the Courts that could prove innocence and I don't believe they're isolated cases either - I seem to recall earlier episodes when a detective has been chatting to the CPS laying out in great detail all the things that point to guilt, but never mention any doubts they have.
youngsyr said:
They absolutely are evidence.
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
People seem to think that only absolute proof of involvement meets the definition of evidence, such as fingerprints or a DNA profile match at the scene, when in fact even something as vague as the absence of an alibi is evidence in that it is part of the picture that points towards guilt.
Of course, such pieces of evidence are not enough to secure a conviction on their own, but if you stack enough of them together, they can push a prosecution over the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.
This is why you can have a murder conviction when no body or direct evidence of actual death has occurred. Simply the facts that a person has disappeared with no trace when there were no indications they did so of their own volition and evidence that they wouldn't have done so, can be enough to convince a court they are dead.
Refusing to cooperate and answer questions is something that, legally, in court, a jury is not even allowed to draw an inference from - let alone use as evidence against a suspect. There are particular rules about when refusal to answer a specific question is allowed to be used as a “mark” against a defendant.evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
People seem to think that only absolute proof of involvement meets the definition of evidence, such as fingerprints or a DNA profile match at the scene, when in fact even something as vague as the absence of an alibi is evidence in that it is part of the picture that points towards guilt.
Of course, such pieces of evidence are not enough to secure a conviction on their own, but if you stack enough of them together, they can push a prosecution over the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.
This is why you can have a murder conviction when no body or direct evidence of actual death has occurred. Simply the facts that a person has disappeared with no trace when there were no indications they did so of their own volition and evidence that they wouldn't have done so, can be enough to convince a court they are dead.
Of course he’s quite obviously, highly likely to be guilty as sin, but there was nothing but circumstantial evidence in the case.
The phrase “beyond ALL reasonable doubt” (as opposed to “beyond all REASONABLE doubt”) means that the jury have to be absolutely 100% sure that was no other possible explanation, no matter how unlikely or improbable, and given the lack of anything concrete, there was no other way this was going to go unless the old guy incriminated himself in interview, or pleaded guilty. All the solicitor did was tell him to keep quiet - job done.
timbob said:
The phrase “beyond ALL reasonable doubt” (as opposed to “beyond all REASONABLE doubt”) means that the jury have to be absolutely 100% sure that was no other possible explanation, no matter how unlikely or improbable, and given the lack of anything concrete, there was no other way this was going to go unless the old guy incriminated himself in interview, or pleaded guilty. All the solicitor did was tell him to keep quiet - job done.
Isn't the phrase 'beyond A reasonable doubt'?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff