24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4

[thetapeworm]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I also noticed the assumed guilt. He may or may not have done it, but presuming he did, without sufficient evidence gathered, did seem odd.

The continued escalation with the CPS worried me a little too - as if they would just keep going higher up the ranks until they got the result they wanted rather than the one that the evidence could support.

[FredClogs]

As a complete layman, one thing I don't really understand about this set up they have on the TV program is why they keep having to ring the CPS from the bat phone, don't the CPS sit in the same building (I think they do in my home city) or at least you'd think a large constabulary head quarters or major police station would have a CPS lawyer seconded so they can get first hand look at the evidence and accounts from the old bill or even chat to alledged victims and perps before giving charging decisions.

The system seems a bit compartmentalizsd.

[Elroy Blue]

There used to be CPS in Police stations (during office hours). Most of the Police Stations have gone now, never mind CPS.

Calling CPS can take hours), you saw a very, very brief extract from that. The file has to be prepared , scanned, emailed and then you sit on hold while they read it.

It's not an efficient way to do things. Just as Police Officers doing all the typing and file prep is not efficient. But when Gov cuts (sorry, efficiency savings) means all your back room staff are made redundant, there's no other option.

[P-Jay]

FredClogs said:

As a complete layman, one thing I don't really understand about this set up they have on the TV program is why they keep having to ring the CPS from the bat phone, don't the CPS sit in the same building (I think they do in my home city) or at least you'd think a large constabulary head quarters or major police station would have a CPS lawyer seconded so they can get first hand look at the evidence and accounts from the old bill or even chat to alledged victims and perps before giving charging decisions.

The system seems a bit compartmentalizsd.

It's up to the Police to pass on the material facts of the case to the CPS and it's the CPS's job to make a rational unemotional decision about whether there is enough of a case to bring it to court.

Different thing of course but when I worked in finance if we had to go to a senior underwriter they were based in an office of their own miles away from anyone on the sales end. When you need people to make rational, unemotional decisions it doesn't help to have personal relationships with the people who are pushing them to say yes - if the CPS lawyer is there in the room, seeing the tears, the anguish etc. they're going to be hugely swayed towards the victim and it almost renders them useless.

I don’t think it means that the system is too lenient on suspects criminals either, as this series shows the Police invariably push for prosecution irrespective of the facts of the case, I think I've seen every one and I don't recall them ever saying "you know what, I don't think he did it" and releasing them, they push for prosecution and the CPS decide whether there's a case or not.

[Elroy Blue]

P-Jay said:

I think I've seen every one and I don't recall them ever saying "you know what, I don't think he did it" and releasing them, they push for prosecution and the CPS decide whether there's a case or not.

You do realise these series are filmed over months and they show the ones (after editing) that the TV company think makes the 'best telly'.

A programme where they say 'we're not running that' after half an hour wouldn't make very interesting viewing. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Willhire89]

Elroy Blue said:

P-Jay said:

I think I've seen every one and I don't recall them ever saying "you know what, I don't think he did it" and releasing them, they push for prosecution and the CPS decide whether there's a case or not.

You do realise these series are filmed over months and they show the ones (after editing) that the TV company think makes the 'best telly'.

A programme where they say 'we're not running that' after half an hour wouldn't make very interesting viewing. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Absolutely agree - right up to the point they brought her back from Spain - that seemed unlikely to be of any use in the light of the other resident statement and just raised the ante for the girl - I really hope they did not do that on the basis it was a televised case.

[Elroy Blue]

Of course they didn't. Rape is a serious business. It was the duty of those Officers to investigate every line of enquiry. They did just that.

[IanH755]

The CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute and dropped the case, big story about it in the Mail yesterday.

[FredClogs]

Willhire89 said:

Absolutely agree - right up to the point they brought her back from Spain - that seemed unlikely to be of any use in the light of the other resident statement and just raised the ante for the girl - I really hope they did not do that on the basis it was a televised case.

They wanted to question here on the new evidence, I suspect specifically on the statement the German geezer made about her shouting "I will it"... I think the police new that if she didn't have a cogent explanation of that she could present in court it would paint quite a picture to the jury.

It's hard to deny she gave consent when you could effectively argue she was screaming it and keeping the other guests in the hotel awake!

[Willhire89]

FredClogs said:

Willhire89 said:

Absolutely agree - right up to the point they brought her back from Spain - that seemed unlikely to be of any use in the light of the other resident statement and just raised the ante for the girl - I really hope they did not do that on the basis it was a televised case.

They wanted to question here on the new evidence, I suspect specifically on the statement the German geezer made about her shouting "I will it"... I think the police new that if she didn't have a cogent explanation of that she could present in court it would paint quite a picture to the jury.

It's hard to deny she gave consent when you could effectively argue she was screaming it and keeping the other guests in the hotel awake!

Why did they want to question her again? The case was already dead from the CPS perspective - the statement from the German only served to confirm she had been a willing party even to that point and I cannot see what she could say to overturn that.

In my view bringing her back to the UK was a poor decision

[VolvoT5]

FredClogs said:

As a complete layman, one thing I don't really understand about this set up they have on the TV program is why they keep having to ring the CPS from the bat phone, don't the CPS sit in the same building (I think they do in my home city) or at least you'd think a large constabulary head quarters or major police station would have a CPS lawyer seconded so they can get first hand look at the evidence and accounts from the old bill or even chat to alledged victims and perps before giving charging decisions.

The system seems a bit compartmentalizsd.

Perhaps the system is set up like that deliberately to ensure good decisions are made. Clearly the investigating officers are going to form some kind of emotional relationship with the victim or accused which is not going to make their judgement totally impartial. Then at times you could clearly see the police were getting pissed off with the CPS and if they were sharing an office that could come into play. Having the CPS elsewhere probably helps prevent that kind of thing really. Seems quite logical to me, although not very efficient sometimes doing things the 'right' way is not always quickest or easiest.

[FredClogs]

Willhire89 said:

FredClogs said:

Willhire89 said:

Absolutely agree - right up to the point they brought her back from Spain - that seemed unlikely to be of any use in the light of the other resident statement and just raised the ante for the girl - I really hope they did not do that on the basis it was a televised case.

They wanted to question here on the new evidence, I suspect specifically on the statement the German geezer made about her shouting "I will it"... I think the police new that if she didn't have a cogent explanation of that she could present in court it would paint quite a picture to the jury.

It's hard to deny she gave consent when you could effectively argue she was screaming it and keeping the other guests in the hotel awake!

Why did they want to question her again? The case was already dead from the CPS perspective - the statement from the German only served to confirm she had been a willing party even to that point and I cannot see what she could say to overturn that.

In my view bringing her back to the UK was a poor decision

I'm guessing they wanted to see the whites of her eyes and give her every opportunity to explain what the witness testimony was saying. Had they not questioned her on it and instead just assumed the German witness evidence to be conclusive evidence she consented then you could say she wasn't given a fair chance. I don't think it's the sort of thing you could execute over the phone, especially with the language barrier.

[Laurel Green]

Heads up - a new series starts this evening at 9 o'clock.

[Legacywr]

Bloody Monday night, back to it's old trick... 4 programs I'm interested in watching

[Laurel Green]

Yep, all or nothing - infuriating!

[Laurel Green]

A predictable outcome, I'd say.

[Adz The Rat]

Only caught the last 30 mins of this last night, it was chilling.

[berlintaxi]

Certainly showed the fragility of life, the victim, poor bloke wrong place at the wrong time.

[Melman Giraffe]

I have to say its a superb watch, very interesting.

[Prohibiting]

Fascinating episode. Seeing the killer holding the shiny fire extinguisher on CCTV smirking at the camera gave me chills.

Anyone have any thoughts on why he would do that? Genuine mental illness like his prepared statement or just literally a random attack and that he knew what he was doing?